BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is money the most motivating factor in a workplace.

In the words of Kevin O" Leary, "The best motivator in the world is money. And if that doesn"t work, try for more money. Imagine yourself in a situation where you are broke. Like flat broke! Turning down opportunities because you can"t even afford it. Now I want my worthy opponents to tell me that money is not the best motivator here. Not having money limits your life. Because money is what drives us. That is the sole reason to work! Leo Rosten has quite truly said, "Money doesn"t buy happiness. But poverty doesn"t either!" That one line alone means quite a lot. Money can"t get you friends. It can"t help you find a wife or husband. But what happens when you have no money. When you"re deep in debt or unemployed. You can"t do those things either! You can"t even afford to give your family what they need. Now you see money in different light. Oscar Wilde once said, "When I was young, I thought money is the most important thing in life, now that I am old, I know that it is." Money is insanely important and you CAN"T live in this world without it, because it is your SURVIVAL KIT! I am well aware that my claim may sound very naive to my worthy opponents, but let me present some realistic instances to please the critics. There are those who work because they"re passionate about their job. But I ask them this, just because they"re passionate, do they work for free? Take the case of any actor. As they climb up the ladder in their career, their value increases. Same is the case of any doctor, footballer or even any engineer! Higher the experience of a doctor, the higher is the pay he demands. Better the resume of an engineer, higher the salary he demands. Even when humans are said to be priceless, the most famous ones have a net worth expressed in the monetary value, because all their life, they have worked hard for that monetary value! At the end, the bottom line comes down to the fact that money is the most important motivator in workplace. Why do you move abroad for better jobs? MONEY! Why do people work for 8 hours a day when they can at least make both ends meet by working for 2 hours? MORE MONEY! TO EVEN FOLLOW YOUR PASSION, you need money! You go to a middle class family and tell him that passion will drive him more. He"ll think you"re mad. Because what is going to feed his family? Passion? Whether someone likes his or her job is secondary, because money will drag him out of his bed. Money is a means of having all desirable things in life " from necessities to luxuries! For those who still say that money can"t give you happiness, give me 100 dollars and you"ll see me smile!
Music videos from songs that play on mainstream radio should require "G" ratings

Music played on mainstream radio is accessible to everyone. Everyone knows kids (especially young teenagers) can quickly become obsessed with a song and can easily find themselves influenced by their favorite band or singer. That said, with the now huge amount of kids with cell phones and ipads always on hand, parents are now spending more and more time trying to monitor these things, but let's face it, no one can stay completely on top of it. That said, someone needs to take initiative to better monitor what videos are being put out there for everyone to see. The artists who play on the radio (which is freely and easily accessible to everyone) should be required to have their song's video meet a "general audience" rating as it's thus common knowledge that kids are bound to look those videos up. If Miley Cyrus sings Recking Ball (which has no words in the lyrics that would suggest anything about a naked girl flying around a ball of steal) then she should be required to have her primary video be general audience friendly, and could have her more "suggestive" video available under another rating that could be more easily blocked out. It's not fair to the adults even who don't want to see those things when they look up their new favorite song. But what is most important, is the matter that to a young mind, these videos can be extremely persuasive and unless everyone is O.K. with a bunch of Miley Cyrus's running our future health care programs, we need to act now to remind society of what's "general audience" acceptable.
Whether or not the Evolution Theory is correct.

The Evolution Theory describes how a species changes over a long period of time. It explains this phenomenon with natural selection. There is no magic force changing the animals, it's just common sense. Let's use Giraffes as our first example. Giraffes lived in a place with lots of tall trees. Now giraffes used to only be as tall as about a horse. Because of this, a lot of them couldn't reach the trees and starved. Because the short Giraffes died, the only ones left to spread their genes were the taller ones, therefore making the next generation of Giraffes taller.
Slenderman vs. Unwanted house guest

Interesting point of view my friend, however, there are some things that are flawed. Fist off dear ol' Slendy was created by Victor Surge on the Something Awful forums. It was for a contest. Not for the sake of giving his friends the creeps. Now the name Slender Man has some significance. I could argue that what kind of name is the Unwanted House Guest? But I, unlike you, can see the significance. Slender Man was the name given to him because of his physical attributes. Dear Slendy never came out and said his name. So us as humans had to give him something. See if we had left him nameless that would give us a greater sense of fear. We name things to feel we have an understanding of the thing. Leaving it nameless will make us feel powerless and stupid. Now you refer to the Slender indie horror game. Now the video game is an art medium. Just like paint, chalk, and photography. The creator of the game was able to express Slender Man as he saw him. So using the game as an arguing point is not exactly the best source. But, me being a kind person, will answer your question any way. The reason that you still die in the end is because you cant escape the Slender Man. No matter how hard you try and what you do he will get you in the end. End of story. Bottom line. Role the credits. Finally, to your last point, Slender Man teleports and time travels. That is just what he does. Like I said on my first argument, Slender Man is a versatile Character. He is left for the viewers interpretation. This is because of the Tulpa Theory. Basically the human mind makes a being the believe in/fear tangible and real. Now this is only one of the theories of how Slender Man came to be, but it works to answer your question. How the interpreter imagines Slender Man is exactly what he will be. So, indeed, Slender Man does teleport and time travels. Unwanted House Guest is a static character while slender Man is still open for interpretation. Because we are so unsure of Slender Man's true attributes, it makes us fear him more. The unknown is the most frightening thing to the human race. Now, dear opponent, Slender Man is much more tangible then YOU realize.
Slenderman vs. Unwanted house guest

HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE havent seen me in awhile well ive seen you just fine....Slenderman is nothing but some immature teenager came up with to scare his friends.Just as unwanted house guest but i will also state the stupidity of what we call SLENDERMAN: first what kind of name is that. Second how is it if you have found the 8 pages you still die? And third: Time travel and Teliportation???!!! Who does that. He is though a comical tall tale just as unwanted house guest. But UHG is more tangible and real than you think.
Slenderman vs. Unwanted house guest

Well with your absence of a compelling argument, you have put me in an interesting position. The video was created by someone who knew about these characters. Obviously they will pick on over the other. So the video is not an accurate source because it can be biased. Now, if we are going to use the comments of the people, Slender Man has already won because the majority of the comments chose Slender Man over The Unwanted House Guest. Go to the video on YouTube and see for yourself. So you have basically self sabotaged your own argument.
Slenderman vs. Unwanted house guest

Are you ready? Slender Man is a very versatile character in the creepypasta universe. Unwanted House guest however is pretty static. Slender Man is capable of a number of things witch adds to his scare factor. The less you know and are unsure of, the more you fear the object. Humans tend to fear the unknown. Now Unwanted House Guest has a more strict guideline to fallow to scare people. An intruder in your home is terrifying to most people. However Slender Man can be an intruder, stalker, invader of dreams, cause lack of sanity, and can choose to kill you whenever he pleases. Unwanted House Guest will kill you when you see him. That is the only time when he does. So Slender Man is the better option because of what he is capable of and how much more he can scare us.
Slenderman vs. Unwanted house guest

That question could have been stated differently my friend. How does anyone know that ANYTHING is real. How can we prove our own existence let alone the existence of any other anomaly. We could be apart of something much greater then we comprehend. This existence could all be nothing more than a dream. Nothing more nothing less. It is all very interesting once you truly think about it. So in short. You must figure out if you exist before you can understand anything else that may or may not exist.
Build the Border Fence

I hold that a physical barrier built along the US-Mexico border should be pursued by the American government because it would provide security and safety to the American Public. 1) Such a barrier would hinder the drug trade that is becoming ever more violent in Northern Mexico. Buyers in the US spur drug cartels to illegally cross the border to sell their drugs. We stop or severely hinder their access, we effectively slow the drug trade. 2) Since border agents would not be required to be omnipresent along the border when such a fence is built, less would have to be hired and thus money would be saved in that regard. 3) Illegals enter the country everyday, and many do not survive the journey. A fence would force them to turn back, stopping a trip that would otherwise prove fatal. 4) It is in our best interest to know who enters the country. Be it for obvious national security reasons, or that fact that our society is taking on more people than it can support. 5) Illegals have access to publicly funded services, and can and do vote in elections, since proof of citizenship is not required to do so.
Abortion after heart beat

In order for this debate to be productive, we must agree on a definition of life. I'll accept your definition, with one change: "the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from an inanimate object". A car, a desk, or a dead body are all inanimate objects. This encompasses your definition, but widens it enough to be realistic about what life is. According to this definition, both a sperm cell and an egg cell are 'alive'. That is, it has capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and ability to reproduce, which distinguishes it from an inanimate object (and yes, even a dead body). All human cells carry life, but no one gets lynched for exfoliating. Preemptively countering your next argument, I'll add this: You say that being alive requires a heartbeat, but would you consider a tree to be living? It meets the 7 required characteristics of life (1), but lacks a heartbeat, but nobody would argue that it is inanimate. In addition, you must realize that, regardless of the presence of a heartbeat, a fetus () would not survive outside of the womb at 6 - 8 weeks. A fetus is not considered viable (able to survive outside the womb with a natural or induced birth) until 23 weeks of gestation at the very least. Any abortion after 20 weeks is considered 'late term', typically only occur because the health of the pregnant parent is at risk, and only account for less than 1.2% of all terminations (2) There are two main causes of death during pregnancy and delivery. Ectopic pregnancies (3) can cause both fetus and pregnant parent to bleed to death if not terminated. There is also preeclampsia (4), which can cause death of both parent and fetus by seizure, stroke, or organ failure after a family has been waiting the entirety of a pregnancy for a much-wanted child. There are other high-risk pregnancies (5) that can be ended in abortion for the benefit of parent and fetus. All of this without mentioning the fact that rape is a horrific and violent act that causes incredible amounts of emotional and physical stress on a person, and the survivor of that sort of trauma deserves to handle the fall out however they see fit. The emotional toll of a wanted and expected pregnancy is hard enough, but to know that it is caused by the most painful and tragic experience a human being can experience is enough to cause permanent damage. (6) I argue that, regardless of the presence of a heartbeat, abortions should be available on demand for pregnant people under any circumstances, including (but not limited to) those stated above. (1) http://infohost.nmt.edu... (2) http://amplifyyourvoice.org... (3) http://en.wikipedia.org... (4) http://en.wikipedia.org... (5) http://www.webmd.com... (6) http://www.secasa.com.au...
Abortion after heart beat

Greetings Internet, Before I address the issue of abortion you first must address and define life. Life:the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body. Being dead, lack of a heart beat. Six to eight weeks the child inside its mother has a heart beat. To extinguish the heart beat intentionally as in abortion should fall under the same category as murder both morally and judicially. A popular question the other side likes to discuss is "What if the mother is raped" Or "Incest". Once that child has a heartbeat it should be aloud the same rights as an other US citizen. Is it not the child's fault the mother was raped? I am not by any means taking away from the horrible nature of a woman being raped. But by committing another violent act to cover up another will not take the rape away and will not close the mental wounds inflicted on the woman.
GCSE matters for future jobs

A career-related degree may also have subject-specific entry requirements: Engineering courses such as chemical engineering: you'll usually need A-levels or equivalent in chemistry and maths, and physics for other engineering courses, which in turn means you"ll need to have good GCSE grades in science and maths. Medicine: competitive courses like medicine may ask for a whole suite of good GCSEs. The University of Birmingham"s medical school, for example, specifies "normally, applicants must offer A* grades in each of English (either English Language or English Literature), mathematics and all science subjects. Integrated Science (double certificate) is acceptable as an alternative to single sciences. Overall GCSE performance will be considered." Social work and secondary school teaching: these professions won"t consider you without at least a grade C (or 4 or 5) in maths and English language at GCSE. Nursing and primary school teaching: grade C (or 4 or 5) in GCSE English, maths and science. And when it comes to employment right now - for that weekend job while you're doing your A-levels or a part-time job at uni - your academic grades will go on your CV, too.
Extra Circulars at Schools

The academic portion of school is the priority and must continue to be paid attention to more in schools and colleges than the extra-curriculum. Students should be receiving an education and gaining qualifications that will soon help them progress in their career. Extra-curricular activities distract students from focusing on their academics. Students should be allowed to focus upon subjects that will help them with their future career. Even professions today still provide a range of career opportunities, without the need to compromise academic education by non-academic activities. There are concerns that schools do not focus enough on core subjects. In most aspects of life skills specific to an individual job are more important than whether they are "well-rounded". Coping with both academic and extra-curriculums put a possibility of students dropping out because he or she may not be able to cope with the demands of both.
Law Religion and Ethics

Law, religion, and ethics. Laws are sets of rules that we humans have made for thousands of years to keep people in check, to control the people. Ethics are rules that are not necessarily laws, but if broken, they are frowned upon by the vast majority of society. Religious rules are set by many holy books, and many of these rules are vastly different in each book. For instance, in the bible it frowns upon working on the Sabbath (Sunday for Christians, Saturday for Jews). And in other religions it frowns upon actually leaving the religion. Now, these rules are rarely enforced, and often in these holy books the author leaves it to the people to deal with the ones that do break the rule. Here is a quote from scripture. And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. -- Leviticus 20:10 Now, of course god will not strike them down with a fiery arrow of lighting, but many people have been killed over this quote by the humans that saw it said that it was bad enough for the death penalty. In many other countries, (mostly countries where the most prominent religion is the religion of Islam) many people are put to death for adultery (it is also a law that no one commits it). And also in the Islamic religion it is OK for a grown man to marry a child. This occurrence in our western society would be frowned upon. As you can see, the religion of the people also dictates the ethics and laws of the people. So you could say that everything is unified by religion (for better or for worse). We don't need religion in our daily lives, just laws and strong ethics. This ensures that people are in check, and that everything is fair and balanced in life (because people can go crazy in mass numbers, riots, uprisings, etc.). However, since religion is a prominent thing among humans, a lot of the laws and ethics come from it. So you could say that religion was a driving force for us to develop our laws and ethics in society. That is my stance, feel free to edit it with your opinions. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://skepticsannotatedbible.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.islamicity.com... (My stance is one of agnosticism)
God Exists

It should be noted that, for the purposes of the debate, that I am not arguing in favor of any one religion or type of god. This argument simply covers the plausibility of the existence of a god. In this debate, god is defined as a being or beings, who is outside the universe and able to create the laws of the universe and matter. God also has will and the ability to make decisions. I consider this to be a minimalist definition. The Kalam Cosmology Argument P1. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause. P2. The universe began to exist C1. The universe must have a cause This is a perfectly valid argument. The conclusion flows logically from the premises. The only way this argument can be wrong is if P1 or P2 is false. Defending P1 Premise one I believe is fairly uncontroversial. Something cannot come from nothing. I cannot make a pizza with nothing. If I could we would it would lead to logical absurdities. Defending P2 This is more controversial and where I expect my opponent to spend most of his time refuting. However The Big Bang Theory, which is the currently accepted model for the creation of the universe, states that the universe is expanding and had a specific point of creation. Also, this model shows the universe is expanding, which means the universe must have a point of origin. Hilbert's Hotel The only other option to the universe not having a specific point of creation is for it to exist eternally. However, such a universe is a logical absurdity. To illustrate this, I bring you the example of Hilbert's Hotel. A hotel with infinitely many rooms is fully occupied with infinitely many guests. However one person comes in and asks for a room. So we move the occupant of room one to room two. The occupant moves from room two to room three for all the guests. However the hotel was already full. How can this be? This clearly shows an actual infinite cannot exist. This means several things. First the universe cannot be eternal. Nor can the universe be the result of an infinite regress of events, as it is an actual infinite and thus impossible. Something did not come from nothing and current evidence proves the universe had a specific point in time. The universe could not have created itself or existed eternally. Any naturalistic account for the creation of the universe is logically impossible, as it would either have to have to be an actual infinite or have something come from nothing. The nature of the universe and the laws that govern it mean that the cause must be uncaused and immaterial. Only the minimalist definition of god can fit that description. Thus god exists.
Stalin was the most influential leader of the 20th century (meaning he effected the world the most).

I appreciate all of the definitions you gave. You state several leaders who had considerable influence on world: Gandhi: Ghandi was influential, but he was never the sole leader of India. Ghandi returned to India in 1915 and helped to overthrow the British in 1947. However he was not so influential because India broke up into two countries after the British left. Ghandi argued that Hindus and Muslims could live together in one country and other political leaders said that this was not possible. After much fighting, Gandhi's influence was not enough to keep the people together. Freud: I do not know who he is but I looked him up. It is clear that he was influential only in sciences and the humanities. He was never really a leader. Churchill: Churchill never spread much influence beyond his country. It is easy to prove that Churchill was not a more significant figure than Stalin. He was only the leader of Britain for a five years. And Stalin effected the lives of his people much more than Churchill effected the lives of his people. - Stalin had huge influence. Not one other leader had such complete control over his people for so long. He spread his influence across Asia, Europe, and the globe. When Stalin first came to power, only the USSR was under the influence of Communism. After Stalin died, communism was spread globally and for many countries Stalin's ideology became a threat. He had more control over a larger part of the globe than any other leader of the 20th century. Stalin also transformed the Soviet Union more than other leaders transformed his country. From a poor agricultural country, the USSR became a global superpower. Hitler and Mao did not do this in the way Stalin did. Hitlers country ended in ruins and Mao never really made China into the equal of the USSR. No other leader of the 20th century transformed a country in the way Stalin did. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.cbv.ns.ca... http://www.politicsforum.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...