BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
trump is a bad president

"he said that all mexicans are rapists"No, he did not. He said that most illegal immigrants from Mexico are rapists, Trump said: "Thank you. It's true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists." [1] Which is true, 80% of all Central American women and girls (since the age of consent in Mexico is only 12) are raped while crossing into the U.S. [2]Not including the other immigrants who rape young girls and women, for the coyotajes that smuggle them into the U.S., sex is actually seen as a currency for them to cross the border, they let their daughters get raped, they let themselves get raped, women actually have to take birth control before leaving because it's just a thing that happens, you get raped, it's a part of their culture. [3]1.) http://www.breitbart.com...2.) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...3.) http://fusion.net...
trump is a bad president

"Racist"When a club that discriminated against black and Jewish people, Donald Trump fought back against the anti-Semitism and racism [1] in the club, Mar-a-Lago—unlike other Palm Beach clubs at the time like the Bath, Tennis Club and Everglades Club—accepted Jews and black people. He filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, making it the first club in Palm Beach to accept black and Jewish people. More black, Latinos and Asian Americans voted for Trump than Romney. [2] More black people voted for Trump than John McCain or George W. Bush before that. [3] In 2000, when Trump explored a presidential bid, his favorability rating among minorities was one of his biggest selling points. According to a Democratic pollster by Rob Schroth, Trump scored a 67% favorable rating among blacks (with only 21% unfavorable) and 62% among Hispanics. [4]Jesse Jackson, a black liberal politician, even praised him for helping the black community numerous times. [5]"Homophobic"Trump vowed to protect the LGBTQ citizens: "As your president, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology." He even went off script to acknowledge the ecstatic Republican support for that message saying "And I have to say as a Republican, it is so nice to hear you cheering for what I just said." [6] Trump is backed by Peter Thiel, one of the most successful and intelligent gay public figures in America. [7]Trump even waved rainbow flags on stage that said: "LGBT's for Trump," the first Republican to do so. [8]1.) https://en.wikipedia.org...2.) http://www.nbcnews.com...3.) http://www.pewresearch.org...4.) http://fortune.com...5.) 6.) 7.) 8.)
All opinions are equal

My opponent's opening: --"Firstly I'd like to ask my opponent why we should consider each opinion carefully if there is indeed no element of equality to all opinions. "— Only where variance exists must an evaluation be made. --"If we immediately rated opinions then it wouldn't make sense to consider every possibility. "— We can only evaluate opinions by comparing them to others. --"Only if all opinions are equal would it make sense to consider them carefully each one on the same level of importance as the other. "— To the contrary, if all athletes were equal, none would ever need to be evaluated. --"My opponent's argument therefore doesn't make sense in that aspect, and education and experience which everyone does have does make all opinions equal and necessary for consideration. "— My opponent ultimately argues that only if every opinion is equal, is it necessary to ever evaluate them, thus making my argument senseless. Let's take a look at this pseudo-mathematically: In my opponent's model, all opinions are equal, (Model Pro) Opinion A = 1 Opinion B = 1 Opinion C = 1 My opponent argues that only if all opinions are equal must they ever be evaluated. (Model Con) Opinion A = X Opinion B = Y Opinion C = Z I argue that only if opinions are unequal must they be evaluated. We can see from the two models that there is only one model that presents any reason for evaluation at all, and only by evaluating Opinion's A, B, or C, in Model Con, can we even begin to compare them and assign values to X, Y, or Z. In Model Pro we see that no evaluation is required as taking the first opinion will invariably be equal to any following opinions, making them unnecessary to consider. Thus only when all opinions are –not- equal, must we carefully evaluate them. My opponent's second argument: --"If we evaluate opinions, the diversity goes"— If we do not evaluate all opinions, the diversity serves no purpose. --"if we evaluated religions like Hitler did in World War Two with the Jews there would be less religions and less diversity as a natural consequence of evaluating these opinions as a society"— It's possible that this debate focuses too much on Jews. However I'll reply to this by saying that the opinions of racists, sexists and prejudice individuals are not equal to opinions of tolerance and equality. These (positive) opinions have a greater positive impact on society throughout our history. I believe the rest of my opponent's final arguments have been addressed in the previous rounds. Society should consider all opinions equally, in an effort to evaluate which opinion is best, thus the resolution is negated, as not all opinions are equal.
All opinions are equal

I'd agree with my oponent that you need some education or experience to form an opinion. What my oponent has failed to understand is that everyone has had some kind of education or expeience. Different people have different experiences which is why each opinion must be considered, and every opinion is equal. Because of the variety of education and experience in our society that makes evey opinion essential. We need that diversity as a society to help everyone progress. This diversity is definitely beneficial to our society, and opinions are one of the most important areas in which we need that diversity. Overall I'd agree with my opponent that some expeience is needed, but that is something that everyone has, and because of that variety, it helps benifit our society as a whole. Secondly having a right to an opinion does make all opinions equal. Because of the fact that everyone has opinions it makes them equal because like I said above everyone has had different experiences in their life.If someone is poor and has never had a good education they might have had a valuable experience on the streets which is just as good as somone's opinion who has gone to a great university. Therefore, all opinions are equal because of the variety of opinions through having different education and experiences which makes anyone who has an opinion has an equal opinion to anyone else. Thirdly I wouldn't take the opinion of the person who has more experience. If somebody had had a heart attack in the past,and I told them my experience and symptoms they might diagnose it,but a doctor might not. Therefore, the person with more experience doesn't have better opinions. Also my point with the collaboration was not that the person with more experience had better opinions. My point was that they needed to work toghether in order to produce a better result. The person with less experience needs the person with more experience simply because they can help each other. Maybe the person with less experience has an amzing idea,but just doesn't have the expeience to execute it. Overall my opponent misunderstood my point about collaboration,and it was simply to show how all opinions are equal and how two opinions can help each other to progress our society. Finally the point about Einstein is that education didn' matter. He may have gotten a degree in the end,but he didn' do well with education in the beginning. My opponent even admitted that it had very little to do with his education as to whether his opinions were accepted. It doesn't matter if they weren't accepted early,it just matters that they were accepted in the end. Therefore,Einstein showed that education doesn' matter. Overall there are some major flaws in my opponent's argument, and I still believe that all opinions are equal.
Mothers should stay at home 24x7.

nowadays, we make an argument according with the fact. most of the broken home happen on the family who their mother working. that's fact. and if mothers stay at home, she still can make or working to adding the income for their family. and mothers should not work outside to supplement their income. for example like business via the Internet. because you have to know that so many successful housewife. so, in this globalization era, they can still take care of their children while providing more income for their families. easy right? anyway if the mother works outside, the negative effects will be more easily found. You need to know that in this 21st century, women has a right to be free to work outside the home. but the biggest problem, as is so much abuse of jobs for women. to employ them as "commercial sex workers". and then, where their self-esteem as a mother?! actually you have to think about that
Mothers should stay at home 24x7.

The cases you refer to can happen even when mothers do not go out to work. Whoever told you that a working mother does not have any affection for her children?I am a working mother and like thousands of others like me have never shirked my duties in bringing up my kids as strong, well-behaved human beings. A woman may go out to work because she realises that the money is required her family which includes her children or she may go out to work because she has the ability and wants to make use of her ability. Both ways she has a right to do it. She definitely does not require any permission for that from her husband. The relationship between a husband and wife is not one of master and servant, it is one of love, understanding, cooperation,affection and respect. We are living in the 21st Century where women have found a place for themselves and have earned respect in the eyes of their counterparts whether man or woman. Every child who gets into criminal activity does not have a working mother. Law of religion? What's that? No religion states that a woman once married and a mother must stay at home. That is misinterpretation by those who want to curb the independence of woman. Infidelity? You can be an infidel even when you are staying at home. In fact I feel when you are not busy enough and have a lot of time there are more chances that you get into a relationship outside the wedlock. Working women may be too busy to do that. Please my dear as a citizen of the 21st century broaden your outlook and learn to respect your identity as a woman who is an independent individual.
Mothers should stay at home 24x7.

the "cases" I mean is "broken-home" and "misbehaviour" on their children when their children lost affection from their mothers. and I just say from early, you can say in now era, mother shouldn't stay at home and mothers have freedom to make other activity in out there. but mom, please understanding. first, you look and found there are so many children (most of boys) near with crime act, misbehaviour such as street fighting. I take for the example in Indonesia. that's all because of what? because they have mother who working mother and their mother is so busy with her job 'till can't to give more affection for their children. and if you say that mothers must working and shouldn't stay at home, definitely it can open the big chances for infidelity and it is the one causes why the broken-home often happen around us and the most happen on their family who have working mother. according to the law of every religion in the world if the ladies who have married and have children as a mothers, she should stay at home. and as you know, mother if want to go out from home or perhaps make other activity in out there, she have to get permission from her husband. what the meaning of it all ? yes, that mothers should stay at home.
Mothers should stay at home 24x7.

I am confused too. You are talking about globalization where a woman's activity has changed and then you are talking about mothers staying at home 24x7. If mothers stayed at home all the time then the 'cases' you refer to would not have happened? Is that what you are trying to say? That's absolutely wrong dear. I really don't know what 'cases' you are referring to but I presume what you are trying to say is kids would not go astray or there would be fewer rapes, less of drug addiction etc. Is there any guarantee that stay at home mothers can control all this. I reiterate the fact that it is not how much time a mother spends with her kids but what quality of time she spends is what matters. You mean to say that women should stay at home to police their kids. Unbelievable in this age and day. Anyway that would also mean that the kids would have to stay at home 24x7 and we would have a generation of unschooled and uneducated human beings and then? God protect us from a world like that. Will you also please clarify what you mean by "CARRIER" woman.
Mothers should stay at home 24x7.

well, I almost confuse when I read your argument that "Why on earth would every lady stay at home when they have been married and are mothers?" first of all we can look on our topic whole is about mothers. because mother who gave birth to a child and in this world and not her husband. expert for every problem of their children. You can say if definitely mothers should stay at home, and that's ridiculous moreover 'till the mothers death. but right now we live on globalization era and the whole system until life style every people (woman's activity) is changed. there are so many case in out there often happened if mother work and they failed to take control even care with their children, keep focus on her job and this is biggest cause why "broken home" often happen and the fate their children near with crime act. and you must know that in basicly, a woman when they have married and have children , they should stay at home to give good protect for their children. no matter they carrier woman or not. thank you
Mothers should stay at home 24x7.

Why on earth would every lady stay at home when they have been married and are mothers. How does staying at home relate to being a good mother. Motherhood does not finish with the infancy of the child it lasts till the mother's death. Is it not ridiculous to waste ones ability by sitting at home. Definitely when I am talking about mothers not staying at home 24x7 I am referring to working mothers. Bonding with a child does not happen with the quantity of time spent with her offspring but the quality of time spent. Baby sitting maybe expensive but it does not last throughout the child's entire life and it is worth spending the money if the future is going to see the mothers contribution giving a better life to a child. Dear MissWiwid a mother definitely is not expected to be a "carrier" woman but surely being a "career" woman would make her feel worthy of her husband and her family and most of all herself.
Mothers should stay at home 24x7.

Mothers should stay at home 24 x 7. I agree with this topic. why? because every ladies definitely will stay at home when they has been married as mother for their children. so, as a good mother, her should stay at home 24 x 7 to take control for their children moreover if their children still baby or newborn, to give full trust or pay the baby sitter, it's not give best solution. why? because to take control for every problem on their children in home, the baby sitter still need the mother. and the mother isn't need to be carrier woman for their children because her husband definitely working to fulfill they needed annually, monthly even each day. thank you
Mothers should stay at home 24x7.

I can guarantee that every time a woman goes out to work his will broken. I learned about the facts. if you say women have the right to work outside, can you about providing solutions in the present age when many women who care only got the job because it was familiar influences out there?! and what happens if at the time it was also the mother forget her identity as a good mother to her children? family harmony is now dearer every person. many mothers who work in an office for rent only eat meals catering for children and even her husband. and the biggest problem in the loss of family harmony. stay at home mom does not mean spoiling the child. mother also would be more understanding when he had to teach his children to be independent and when to create family harmony amid job problems. where do you know if a woman is at home just Sit back and relax with their feet and eating of their husbands productive? The current era is modern. housewife was able to use the internet. when the mother's home, the mother can do business on the internet without having to find a job out there. mother could generate revenue from business done. when mothers should stay at home, mother can do business via the internet to supplement her husband's income while keeping the integrity of their family harmony.
Mothers should stay at home 24x7.

I think you are convinced that women ought to be submissive and remain at home and cook and clean and look after the family sacrificing everything else in life. I am sorry but you have not been able to convince me. Women can do all of these as well as work outside the home. Of course she has the option of supplementing the family income by working from home but that is her choice she does not have to do it. Can you guarantee that every time a woman goes out to work her home will break up? A mother who is working away from home can be a successful housewife as well, in fact I feel she is more so because she knows she has to juggle between the two responsibilities. She develops the skill of time management which her family also learns, her children learn to take more responsibility and thus become more successful in life rather than pampered children. You are stuck with just one point and have not given any argument as such against my points. I already know that women have the right to be free to work outside and I also know that they choose their work. Why you think that all women will get employed as commercial sex workers is rather amusing to me. Do you actually think that all working women are employed as that? That is rather a ridiculous observation I must say. If working in that capacity is a woman's choice then that is her call so she does not lose her self esteem either. I completely disagree that a working mother always means a broken home. When I started working, there was no option of working from home so I chose to work outside home. I knew what responsibilities I had to fulfil before I left for work and it was done. My kids learnt to do things independently at an age when children of stay at home mothers were dependent, they did not go for any outside help for their studies because I sat with them during the evenings. My parents educated me and my husband helped me with my professional course. You mean to say I should have stayed at home and wasted all that money that went into my education? Definitely not. I feel proud that I made use of my education. Children today start schooling when they are around two years old and then what does the mother do? Sit at home and relax with their feet up and eat off their husbands earning? Does that increase their self esteem? No it does not. That's when they start suffering mentally because they know they are wasting time. An unhappy woman can cause more harm to her family than a happy working woman. When you put in your next round of arguments, make sure that you refute the points I have put forward.
Animal testing

Cooldudebro.Hello. I am here to show you animal testing is okay, and should not be looked down apon.Scenario 1:Rose invents a new vaccine! The new vaccine is supposed to cure HIV. Before it is distributed, Rose's product must be tested on a chimp. They then infect the chimp with HIV. They administer Rose's vaccine in the chimo. The chimp develops a high fever, and passes away. They reject Rose's product. Now, you are telling me you would rather have all the humans infected with HIV die, and have one chimp live?Scenario 2:Kyle makes a new shampoo. Before distributing to the public, Kyle's shampoo must be tested on an animal. Kyle's shampoo causes severe, irreversible damage to the scalp, and makes all the chimp's hair fall out. Kyle's product is rejected. See. Just for that one chimp to lose his hair, is more important for millions to lose their hair? This is noy correct.See, we need animal testing. Thank you.
Resolved: That Donnie Darko is the best movie of its genre

Now I'm going to refute my opponents points Contention 1: Suspense "certain details (the bubble that comes out of people's torsos, the bunny suit guy) pop seemingly out of nowhere with only the briefest of foreshadowing or introduction" This is not suspense, it is completely arbitrary. My opponents argument is on shaky ground here. Yes, that may seem suspenseful, but it's not. Suspense has the viewer at the edge of their seat. Having arbitrary bubbles and a man in a bunny suit is not suspenseful. Now, in Clue, you have a man who was murdered and you don't know what is going to happen. You don't have the arbitrariness that throws off the rhythm of the movie. And Donnie Darko is off rhythm. And no one likes when a movie is off rhythm. Clue, on the other hand, has a good rhythm and there is no offset. The movie flows. So that is how Clue is better. Contention 2: Multi-genre "He told me to forcibly insert the life-line in my ANUS! ") Clue, on the other hand, never feels completely serious: its components of comedy preclude the framework of mystery it resides on. Clearly, Donnie beats out Clue in the genre straddling debate. " Okay, first of all, how does this make logical sense? My opponents argument is both illogical and contradictory. You can have both a comedy and mystery movie. And Clue not seeming serious? How is bubbles coming out of peoples' torsos and a guy in the bunny suit serious? My opponent has pretty much stated that Donnie Darko is not a serious movie, yet its better then a semi-serious movie. I just don't see the logic behind my opponents claim. And as for the one liners, I don't think its acceptable that having references to shoving things up anus's is exposed to little kids. Clue is more acceptable to show to little kids. Again, Clue is better then Donnie Darko. "Contention 3: Originality For a movie's quality to be evaluated, one must consider the freshness of its ideas and their execution. Clue was based on a board game. I ask of you, ladies and gentlemen, how can a movie spun off of a family board game ever hope to match the cinematic genius that is Donnie Darko--a movie based off of nothing but the ever-present precedence of its influences? Truly, Donnie achieves higher pinnacles of creativity than Clue can ever hope to match. " Again, this makes no logical sense. Donnie Darko has many aspects of movies such as Jay and Silent Bob Strikes back, with the arbitrary scenes, Drop Dead Fred, with the character that no one else can see except for the main character, and Back to The Future, with the whole time travel concept. So my opponent has failed in even this argument. Vote con because Pros arguments are really shaky, and not only that, I have refuted his points. Also, Pro claims that Donnie Darko is an original, however, I have given movies that came out before that movie. So even that point has been refuted.