BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Trump Supporters should all be lined up and shot

Look around you. Watch CNN or ABC. Trump's hatred is destroying America and poisoning the minds of the already broken trump thumpers. Muslims are being attacked, mosques burned. Victimization of the LGBTQIA+ is on the rise. Women are more unfairly treated than ever thanks to Drumpf's anti-equality mindset. It's fairly simply to comprehend that. I'm not surprised you're enabling this sort of hateful behavior yourself. I hope you regret being on the wrong side of history.
Trump Supporters should all be lined up and shot

You have not proven they are all of these buzzwords. You have not shown that they act on these alleged thoughts in an illegal manner. You have not explained how mass killing because they disagree with you is justified. I have brought up the immoral, nonsensical, and frankly idiotic points of your argument. Oh, and since it seems to trigger you. #freekekistan Gender is not a social construct 100% Same with gender roles The gender pay gap doesn't exist Minorities are not oppressed in western society Have fun with your bleach induced rage.
Trump Supporters should all be lined up and shot

Trump supporters enable and openly SUPPORT hate crimes of: anti black anti hispanic anti asian anti native american anti woman anti LGBTQIA+ anti democrat Go to any red state and you will definitely be harassed non stop for being a member of any of the above. it's disgraceful and in order to protect them we must do what is necessary to stop hate and fascism. Trump did not win the presidency. He lost the popular vote by 3%. This is unprecedented and undemocratic. He only won the electoral count due to interference from outside parties (and you know who i mean). He is illegitimate yet trump thumpers fail to realize this. Hillary would have been the opposite of trump in every way. Trump has utterly destroyed america as what it was and will hopefully be put down sooner than later.
Trump Supporters should all be lined up and shot

Let me begin this by stating that I am not a trump supporter. I would have voted for him, but I see way too many flaws in him as a presidential candidate to be beneficial to the country. Hillary, on the other hand, is perfectly suited for the white house. Not the one for presidents, the one that holds criminals. Now I present my arguments. This behavior is clearly unlawful and unconstitutional. I assume this would be done by the government because how the hell else would this be possible. This would put us back further than the 18th century and into the barbarian times, as far as morality and thinking go. With this I urge voters to vote for Con as my disadvantage far outweighs Pro's advantage IF it is even true. Thank you for your time and I look forward to your rebuttal
The Funny Debate Pt 2

It's all about the subtleties my man. Joe was not the one dead. I will explain the fate of all the characters. Joe: Rode off into the sunset on his motorcycle, while singing and staring at clouds. The final line was a decoy. Larry Birdy: Witness to the murder. Happy Melark: The murderer, who bought Barbies that were actually weapons, which she could throw and cause screaming. So when everyone screamed after she threw the Barbies, it should have been obvious she threw them at someone and everyone else screamed. Becuase the victim should have screamed, but everyone didn't care, so they screamed. Lovely Smith: The one actually killed. He was the only one who was not paying attention to the murder weapon, and also was the only one who didn't scream or do something after the screaming, because he was dead.Sherriff Eddyson: Witnessed the murder weapon being bought, but it wasn't be used and because no one cared he didn't arrest Happy Melark.Kylo Ren: The wife of *hint hint* Lovely Smith, and the one who *wept* at the end, not scream. Chewbacca: Witness to the murder. Not much else to say.So there you have it? That is the real cast and their roles. Confused? Also did you like it?
The Funny Debate Pt 2

The premise is simple. Come up with a story, where someone dies, but make the pronoun game vitally important, because whoever dies better be difficult to guess. If we can guess the right person who died in each others stories, then we both win. But if only one of us gets it right, that person wins by default.Characters: Joe Schmo, Larry Birdy, Happy Melark, Lovely Smith, Sherriff Eddyson, Kylo Ren, Chewbacca. It is a day in Who Cares. No one cares what day, it is one though. On this day, a decision was made. No one cared. Except for Lovely Smith. This decision involved death. Whose death? No one cares. But Joe Schmo did care. Joe Schmo wanted to be a bad boy, so he bought a motorcycle. The dealer didn't care. Happy Melark wanted to be a good girl, so she bought Barbies. The Sherriff Eddyson didn't care. Except Sherriff Eddyson, he seemed appalled. While Happy Melark used Barbies in a way that only Sherriff cared, Lovely Smith headed home to his wife Kylo Ren (no homosexual, Kylo Ren is a she), who didn't care. Joe Schmo was singing to the clouds, but they didn't care. Happy Melark threw her barbies, but no one cared. Chewbacca screamed, no one cared. Chewbacca screamed, no one cared. Larry Birdy screamed, no one cared. Sherriff Eddyson screamed, no one cared. Kylo Ren wept, but no one cared. Joe Schmo stared at clouds, and no one cared. Who died?
Skeptical Debates 1/6 - Homeopathy

I have started a new series known as 'Skeptical Debates', in which I will debunk bad science.I thought I'd start with an easy one, but I'll give you a list.1. Homeopathy2. Gillian McKeith3. MMR- autism link4. Acupuncture5. Patrick Holford6. LHC 'disasters'Your role in each of my debates will be to eitherProve that what I am saying is not true by counterevidence orAsk questions of my data, sources etc. which I will then answer.
School uniforms should not be allowed in schools

Thank you for the debate. I will present my main arguments on why I think that school uniforms should be in schools and are overall beneficial. 1) School uniforms in fact save time and money. So much time is wasted with students sorting out what clothes to wear on what day. The demand for a variety of clothing pieces is reduced to just the ones that meet school policy. Yes initially uniforms do cost some money but parents save in the long-run. Students don't need a constant closet of clothing combinations to wear to school. The uniform does it all. Uniforms therefore save both time and money. 2) School Uniforms equal the inevitable variety of social class If there is no uniform then students who come from families of lower economic status may be embarrassed about their cheap clothes they have to wear to school. The uniform fixes this problem. Students don't have to be embarrassed if they can't afford the latest clothing trends. If every student wears identical clothing i.e a uniform then the social status division is much less of an issue and therefore more beneficial to the student. This also potentially reduces bullying. 3) School uniforms improve student safety. When students are required to wear uniforms, the wearing of gang symbols or colors becomes harder, and therefore, reduces student risk and danger. Also a uniform means that baggy clothing is not allowed, so there is less opportunity to hide weapons or drugs in clothing. Therefore school violence is reduced. School theft is also less of a threat, because there is no ability to steal sneakers, expensive jackets etc. To back this up, schools where uniforms are required have seen a 95 percent decrease in crime, 90 percent decrease in suspensions, and vandalism on school property decreased by 69 percent. Source: (www.educationbug.org) I feel that uniforms are very beneficial to students. They protect them, make them feel equal and are very convenient even if the students don't realize it.
School uniforms should not be allowed in schools

In your first claim that uniforms save time, I have never seen or heard a student be late for school because I couldn't find anything to wear, or some other reason to be tardy. Also we must not infringe upon the rights of the student. The right to individuality is vital for academic development. Individuality boost self-confidence and if the student is self confident they can get focus on what is important, learning. We must embrace and celebrate individuality. If everyone clothes look similar a student may feel weak or worthless even since they are just another face in a indifferent crowd. You say that uniforms will reduce the ability of harming other students. This is just a simple band-aid that will not solve the problem of school violence therefore uniforms do not provide safety but only a false security. Uniforms are in fact a burden to families who are paying for a free education for there children. Uniforms may prove difficult to enforce in public schools. And a study showed buy the today show says that families pay 15% extra money for uniforms. These facts of my argument provide sufficient evidence that we should hold on to our freedom of choice and that uniforms should not be allowed in schools. Also my opponent filled to notice I did cite and have statics in my argument .
School uniforms should not be allowed in schools

To start my rebuttal I will find counterexamples or disprove your claims. 1) You are prepared to state that "school uniforms save both time and money" But that is not exactly true. a) There is many uniforms that cost from 8 to 50$ a piece, meaning 50$ possibly for a single shirt, polo, skirt, pants, etc. ab) There is many types of uniforms i. e. Regular uniforms, rally uniforms, p. e. and formal dress uniforms. Thus causing to pay a whole lot of money for clothes were regular will cheaper. B) The family will still buy regular clothes because since the student will probably want to wear something more comfortable in their free time. Thus defeating the whole "uniforms will save family money" claim. 2) You are prepared to state that uniforms will end a social class discrimination. A) Families who have less money can only afford to pay for a couple complete uniforms options thus making the student wear the same outfit often causing it to get more worn and more used thus causing wear so the outfit may be torn and worn out. And the student may feel embarrassed to know his/her family can not afford better clothes. B) Other students will still find ways to gossip and bully other students. Even with the clothes factors out of the equation kids will still bully that is a given fact that has stood the test of time. 3) You are prepared to state that uniforms may improve student safety. A) There is still going to be a bullying problem causing a unsafe environment B) People can still hide weapons and drugs in backpacks, in their in their waistband of their pants, and cars if they have one. C) Uniforms can still be stolen to. Cited: How much is it. org . http://education.newarchaeology.com... and some various opinions asked at my school.
The U.S. should stay in the Iran (P5+1) Deal

Let us start with a clear understanding of this resolution and what it means. I define the U.S. as the United States Federal Government. This definition is probably not necessary but there it is. Should -- ought Since the word should is in the resolution this is a debate about whether it is best for the U.S. to stay in the Iran Deal, not a question of whether we will. Iran (P5 1) deal -- the multilateral agreement, crafted in 2015, concerning Iran's nuclear program. The standard for judging this debate should be U.S. National Security. Whichever side can prove that when you weigh the pros and cons, on net the people of this country will be safer (either within the deal or outside of it) wins the debate. Well, now that we're clear on what we'll be debating (which is a relatively less thrilling task than actually debating it I can assure you) I'll save my opening arguments for round two. It would be wonderful if my opponent can do the same.
grade system in school should be abolished

My opponent has misinterpreted my entire argument, and it is evident that my opponent did not read my argument. The "some students are brilliant and don't do the homework" was a REBUTTAL to my opponent's claims. My opponent's argument was that brilliant students do not get good grades, therefore making them unfair. Ironically my opponent has stated his/her argument is irrelevant in regards to "brilliant people get low grades" as that was a rebuttal. It is also quite clear that my opponent has not read any further. I am not referring to the HOMEWORK stimulating the real life, rather how grades act as a paycheck, encouraging kids to perform better despite their intelligence. My opponent failed to read my argument
grade system in school should be abolished

Ok, so my opponent's argument is that the most brilliant people get low grades, and that is unfair. Lets look at the logic -Smart student gets low grades -Reason for low grades? Did not do homework -Does not change anything because in the "real world" if smart people do not do their work, they are NOT going to do well in life, despite their intelligence Not only do grades provide an excellent system for letting teachers know where the students are. On top of that, grades provide an exceptional taste of real life.
grade system in school should be abolished

-Grades offer a reward system to the students thus increasing the drive to learn and perform qaulity work-Grades can help teachers visualize the placement of each child, and see where each student belongs therefore increasing educational productivity -Grades actually mean something via the alphabet to help the students visualize if they need to do better work -By driving the students to better grades, they get more intelligent thus performing better on standard exams for college acceptance Truly, the meaning of grades are to give students a way to drive themselves to become more intelliant. If the students perform better, they get better grades. This also gives a taste of the real world by stimulating the paychecks.
If God were Pepsi, then atheism would be Sierra Mist

My opponent has provided a thoughtful counter to this debate: however he fails to recognize one thing and fails to address another thing. His failed recognition includes the seriousness of the debate. In by that I mean, it is not serious in the least bit. Perhaps I should have said that in round one, however, if I did, my opponent would have not accepted this debate because of his instinctive behavior to hop on whatever train he can to disrespect those with different views than him. Also, I figured a child could realize this was a not so serious debate due to the title of it. My respectful and mature opponent has also failed to address how religion is not like pepsi from his perspective and how atheism is not like sierra mist, thus rendering his first argument null and invalid. I will go on to state my views on this. We all know Peps-cola is a wonderful soda. Invented in 1893, just seven years after its rival coke, it has shown and proved time and time again that it has a bolder taste to it than its rival's coke less sweeter and provocative taste. I compare this to the almighty God who has an infinite knowledge and supreme character thus making it equivalent to pepsi in many ways as regards to taste. Pepsi's colors are red white and blue, resembling America, the greatest nation on Earth, and also comparing it to God, the greatest being in the universe and all of existence. This is my simple compare and contrast statement on pepsi, and will counter if my opponent so willingly states an acceptable response. To me, Sierra Mist is just another lemon-lime soda as is Sprite, 7up, Sun Drop, and Mountain Dew. Although I don't find this one as desirable and explorative as the other three examples. I compare this to atheism with due respect (as I have nothing against atheism, it is a very valid set of views). Sierra Mist came into existence in 1999. That was just fourteen years ago. This is comparable to atheism as its prominence came thousands of years after religion did, thus making the time span here much more proportionate. Because Sierra Mist doesn't really have much originality, I can compare this to atheism in a way in which people don't believe in any higher power (Pepsi is definitely a higher power, yum!). Sierra Mist was just another soda that the world has seen. This is my respectful response. I hope to clarify things more and give my opponent a rebuttal provided he actually follows the topic of debate.
Anger can be a good moral motivation

IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THAT people are the problem with anger. It's just an unstable emotion. The most tolerant person has their breaking point. Anger is an emotion that once a person enters, it's har for them to get out of that state. Their are several reasons why anger shouldn't be used. What if a person is angry because they did not get the cookie they want for the cafeteria? Then they go punch the person who makes the cookies. Anger motivated him to do it, but was this a good moral motivator. Doesn't sound like one to me. Another example is a cop who gets angry because the girl he pulled over did not give him her number. Then he writes her a speeding ticket. He was angry, but was his actions morally correct? Anger is definitely better off left out of the equation when making rational decisions. Or decisions that can affect others. Anger is a horrible motivator. It will cause poor decision making and judgement. Also, it will cause irrational behavior, which could have negative outcomes. Anger is of no use when deciding what's morally right.
Anger can be a good moral motivation

And still a lot of students try to show their work and how they can be better by anger. The thing is that you can start to control it, the problem is not with emotions, but in people. We are the ones who should take control and make anger behave the way we want. If we take it in our hands we will know the outcome of anger. What I meant is that in comparison to other emotions and stimulus anger is strong enough to let you go till the end. And people more likely to finish their plans with anger, not for example with love. It is irrelevance, because we talk about anger, not the alcoholic motivation. And it is not necessarily the case that you want to fight everybody when you are angry. But it is used as help when you need a little more courage. People fight for the right thing and with anger it becomes easier.
Anger can be a good moral motivation

What you said about the test is a possible outcome, but people who really start failing in college get angry and at times end up dropping out. I think students dropping out is more likely. Anger is a very strong emotion, one that is also unpredictable,unreliable, and something you can't control. In most cases you don't know your going to get mad. So how I could you control the outcome of something you don't know. It's literally not possible. Saying that anger will keep you from backing down is IRRELEVANT. People get angry and quit everyday, a million times a day. In some cases people do try harder, but once again, I think more people quit than actually try harder. Not only can drugs compare to anger but so can a alcoholic beverage. Have you ever been with your friends and you take couple drinks? But that one friend takes it too far, and wants to fight everybody. He is not angry, however that's how he's acting. Anger is of no use in a moral situation.
Anger can be a good moral motivation

But is not necessarily the case that other things will be as strong as anger is. So we can consider it as a really good factor. It is irrelevant to compare anger with drugs, because people use drugs in order to feel better and anger is something that is natural to human being. But with anger you won't back up. You will stay till the end, which does not apply with drugs. People cannot do their deeds and do not feel anything, there must be any emotion. It is not necessarily the case that person will go crazy and destroy himself. But for example, if you fail exam, you become angry and next time will try to do it much better. Russians fought not because of actions, but because of anger.
Anger can be a good moral motivation

You quote Aristotle saying that a man fights harder when using anger, however IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE THAT anger makes man fight harder. Seneca said that virtue needs no vice to suffice. Things are done because they should be done. Based on the way you use anger it can be compared to a drug. A man may sniff cocaine and feel like the strongest man in the world. This is not a good moral motivator but it's the same as what Aristotle explains. Anger is nothing more than a cowards drug used to be brave for a moment. Actions that are good are always good, with no emotion needed. The statement you made about people becoming morally better as person through anger is IRRELEVANT. People become unstable and irrational when angry, because once you get mad, you will end getting angrier until you eventually explode. Anger is the proper way for a man to destroy himself, rather than do what's right in a situation. People fought the germans based on the actions they were doing being morally wrong. No emotion intended.
Anger can be a good moral motivation

According to Aristotle we should develop a right way of feeling the anger and a correct way way of channeling it into an action. (1) Some sensations perform as support if they used for good. (2) Anger is necessitating: no fight can be succeeded without it, without its filling the mind and lighting enthusiasm. (3) People become morally better as persons by anger on themselves. (4) Therefore, anger is a good moral motivation People should adopt it and it can have some good consequences. For example in World War II people would not fight and win against Germans without anger. Or when people feel angry at themselves they try to make others feel different and do moral deeds.
The alphabet doesn't have a true order.

Upon consideration of the issue, there are a few problems that can arise from a lack of order. However, I do have solutions. The Dewey Decimal System relies on alphabetical order of the author's last name when 2 or more books have the same topic number. Now, Dewey Decimal is a rather outdated system, but it still is an important one. So, my advice would be to break the tie by the ISBN number, a unique code number already given to every book. Dictionaries use alphabetical order to sort the words. Nowadays, with technology as it is, I don't see a purpose for print dictionaries. If the company needs the money, I would recommend selling an app that would use a search and define method, similar to the way dictionary.com does it. Lastly, Scrabble uses a drawing of the letters to determine who does first. Closest to a goes first, with blank tiles beating anything. In 2 player games, a simple coin flip will settle it, but in 3 or 4 player games, you may need to pull a name out of a hat. If you still want to use the tiles, draw a full rack. Whoever has the most points drawn will go first. Feel free to address other problems you see.
The alphabet doesn't have a true order.

Duck, I understand this sounds like a weird topic, but I do ask you to act as a professional. This is not a topic that you would expect to hear on the street, much less in the newspaper. But, nevertheless, this is an issue of respect. My point is, for some reason, alphabetical order exists. It was not chosen by anyone currently alive. I think it might be time for a change or even absolute abolishment. This would not change the letters, or the frequency that they are used. There would just cease to be an order.
The alphabet doesn't have a true order.

We tend to put the alphabet in an order easily singable to the song twinkle twinkle little star. Is that actually the right order? Look down at your keyboard. Is that any less accurate of an order? Man put the alphabet in the order it is. What about this random order? s n e v t c h w k f o y r z j i p q g a x d m u l b In all reality, the alphabet is 26 letters long. Those letters were put into an order. Society has demanded that we recognize it in that said order.