BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The black bear is the best kind of bear.

I would like to first point out that pro's sources are very unreliable. Jim and Dwight are sales representatives. As such, they know jack shi.t about bears. As for my own points, brown bears in the wild live anywhere from their late 20's to early 30's. In captivity, they can live to the late 40's! [1] Black Bears, however, commonly live to their late teens in the wild, with the average life span of a brown bear being equal to the record age for a wild black bear. [2] This shows that black bears are little bitches who get killed off years before the brown bear, which dies in a blaze of glory.Now, since size matters, look at this. Even if this man was only 5-feet tall, that would make the bear approximately 8 feet tall. And that's a conservative estimate.Now, let's look at the black bear. My god, is that a raccoon? A medium-sized dog could kill that thing. You could curl that up into a ball and play rugby with it.If you try and curl a brown bear into a ball, it will rip your face off.Native Americans even could see the pure might of a brown bear. A brown bear hunt was given the same amount of preparation that inter-tribal warfare was given. [3]In short, comparing black bears to brown bears is like comparing Andy Dick to a petri-dish grown lovechild of Chuck Norris and Jesus Christ. I.E., a really bad comparison.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...
The black bear is the best kind of bear.

Pro posits that the black bear is the best kind of bear. As evidence, pro cites this discourse from the TV show "The Office" Jim: Question: What kind of bear is best? Dwight: That's a ridiculous question. Jim: False. Black bear. Dwight: Well that's debatable. There are basically two schools of thought- Jim: Fact. Bears eat beets. Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica. Dwight: Bears do not - What is going on? What are you doing?! WHAT"S GOING ON HERE? WHAT ARE YOU DOING? Impersonation is a sincere form of flattery, so I thank you. IDENTITY THEFT IS NOT A JOKE JIM. MILLIONS OF FAMILIES SUFFER EVERY YEAR! MICHAEL! Jim: MICHAEL! http://www.youtube.com...
Rap Battle

Empty streets, Just you and your headphones. Volume low, Focused on the unknowns. Hear nothing, But the friction of your jawbones. See nothing, But the King being dethroned. Eat nothing, But the food that your body needs Share nothing, But the news of your goodly deeds. Tis the life of the place of emptiness When you alone Only you define sexiness. No one cares If you're rich or you're penniless. Problem is, You're stuck with this loneliness Is this how God feels with His Godliness? Nay brother, He Knows and He Sees all. He controls Your rise or your downfall, We're nothing So we ask for His Guidance "Thou art the Most Kind and Generous!" Empty streets, Just you and your headphones. Volume off, God answers all unknowns.
Rap Battle

Chicken snap wrap? You kidding me? My little brother can do better than that. I'll tell you the truth Here's a fact You ain't nothing Never are never will be Don't understand that two people can love unconditionally Believe a woman's life is lesser than an unborn baby Open your eyes and see I ain't no fool You should learn to use a mirror properly. (I went on your profile to learn more about you. It makes for more ammo. Feel free to check mine.)
Privacy is endemically bad thing

Well, before I attack my opponents claims, I would just like to mention that his arguments are very hard to read and follow. From what I can see, there was no new material in his last post. So I guess I will just have to make do with defending my arguments. my apologies for not presenting my defense in thematic refutation style, its rather hard given Pros hard-to-follow post. Ill just tackle this paragraph by paragraph. In his first paragraph, Pro points out that his case is based on the argument that '...[privacy] does not achieve anything useful or meaningful.' I would like to state some errors with this type of thinking. Assuming Pros definition, then privacy does indeed have a beneficial use. a) Comfort b) Anonymity I don't wish to have an argument about utilitarianism, so we will work from the assumption that Comfort is a positive thing that makes people more happy. With this in mind, I would like to question the Pro's claim that Privacy is worthless given that it provides us with a level of peace of mind. A sense of Anonymity gives most people further peace of mind too. It is rare to find someone who enjoys having other people stick their noses into his or her business. Now that we have established that Privacy has a use to us, Pro has a BOP to support his claim that Privacy is a fundamentally bad idea. In his second paragraph, Pro attacks one of my arguments and says that I need to state why privacy is a fundamental human right. I will not however, as that is irrelevant to the debate. Furthermore, even if it were relevant, I don't see why I would need to explain why its a right. I was just stating that Privacy is a basic human right, recognised in 50 countries[1]. Pro says in his last paragraph that privacy is not very clearly defined, So I will ask him to refine his definition simply because all of my arguments fit perfectly into it. If he does not, then due to the insubstantial rebuttals, my arguments will stand.
Privacy is endemically bad thing

First of all before I begin I will point out my opponent was very broad with what I am going to call for lack of a better word his "definition", of privacy and I want to clarify my argument for this , my revised definition of this will be simple if this pursuit of imformation will break any physical boundary ,such as ransacking someones house in the night, then it will be disregarded, this may seem unfair but the point I am trying to make is not that poeple should be able to hurt poeple for their curiosity ,or even that poeple should be forced to give up privacy, but that privacy is fundamentally a bad idea, that is does not achieve anything usefull or meaningfull.That, it is illogical. Also my opponent points out that privacy is a fundamental human right but he does not me tell why this is the case his opening phrase is certainly a nice rhetoric but it it is not usefull in the context of this debate. My opponents al point out that "there are times we dont want the rest of the world to know about" now I am a little confused about this could my opponent please clarify. Also finally ,my opponent also points out that imformationin a form of a key such as a pin or a locker combo is a bad idea to give out, I completly agree with him because imformation such as that represents something other an it is more like a key than pure information and and therefore outside of the purview of this debate. In conclusion privacy is something that encompasses alot of different fields and that is not very clearly defined, it is something that blurs the line with other subjects and the etherial nature of it makes it hard to debate about , but I hope that I have made this debate clearer.
Privacy is endemically bad thing

first of all thankyou to my opponent to agreeing to debate with me on this issue and secondly this argument may seem short but I wished to be consice and clear. Now first of all I will start with the definition of privacy , I am going to use for the purposes of this debate.If my oppent disagrees with this definition I encourage him to challenge replace it. privacy Noun: 1.The state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people. 2. The state of being free from public attention. sourced from the google result for a unbiased opinion point My point (yes point) is a simple and fundemental one whats the point of privacy? Can anyone give me a reason to hide something from another person unless it is something of the worst nature. In other words why would you hide something that is not bad ?
FairTax is a viable tax reform option and should be adopted.

I had never previously looked into the FairTax system, but after extensive research, I have concluded that it is not a very effective or well-thought out tax reform system. I believe it would not work, not even getting close to providing the kind of money the Government needs, as well as hurting businesses and the economy. Refutes: 1. Simpler Yes, it's simpler. 2. Everyone Pays Yes, everyone pays. 3. Increased Revenue These calculations are based on the amount spent in the country last year. It is assuming that people would spend the same amount under the FairTax system. With such a high sales tax, people would not spend nearly as much, and instead invest and save their money. 4. Lowers unemployment Your argument here makes little sense. First off, you do realize the tax does not go to the business, right? The business would pay tax on its purchases and get no bonus from the extra sales tax. Even if they did, they would have no obligation to pay their employees more. 5. Deflation Again, what? The business will have to pay more to purchase their inventory from the vendor, forcing them to raise their prices, forcing even higher amounts on the sales tax. 6. People can choose how much taxes to pay Yes, people can and will cut back on purchases, meaning less money for the government, and for the business. All around pain. Arguments against FairTax: 1. The system will drive spending into the ground: With such a high sales tax, even if people have more money, they would not be willing spend with that kind of tax, while they could be saving and investing. People will buy necessities, but nothing else. As said above, this hurts the Government and businesses. 2. Who would pay for those checks? I assume the Government would be paying the necessity checks. This is rather counter intuitive. The consumer cost of necessities is about or more than 25% of the total non-necessities. In other words, the Government would be losing money on this deal, and as there is no other tax, the Government would actually net an annual loss. Feel free to calculate it yourself. URL: http://www.investopedia.com... 3. Discourage American businesses Due to the greatly reduced spending on non-necessary inventory, or at least the threat of it, many American corporations would be forced to make cutbacks, including layoffs and pay reductions. Also, many of the enterprises would be moved out of the country to pursue other, more charitable overseas markets. My conclusion is that FairTax is very flawed, and would not work if implemented in the United States.
FairTax is a viable tax reform option and should be adopted.

FairTax, to provide background, is a twenty three percent sales tax rate and the elimination of all national taxes other than the national sales tax. In the plan, a check would be sent to each household at the beginning of each month to cover the estimated taxes on life's necessities like food and water. Furthermore, only new items would be taxed and only the final product would be taxed. This is why the plan works. 1.Simpler You get your pay check. The pay check is significantly larger because you keep all of the money that you earn. You go to the store. You pay your taxes just like you would when you pay for anything today. You go home. You do not have to worry about April 15th. No problems. 2. Everyone pays The hookers, drug dealers, and illegals, who do not pay income taxes, would pay taxes. 3. Increased revenue According to FairTax.org, the United States revenue would increase by 352 Billion dollars in the first year alone. 4. It would cause unemployment to decrease. Businesses will not have to pay taxes on their products but instead, tack on the tax when selling to the consumers. Thus, businesses have more money to pay employees. 5. Deflation Businesses will no longer have to pay more because the vendors have to sell for higher prices to cover the cost of taxes. 6. People can choose how much taxes to pay. Now, you make more, you pay more. You are punished for working hard. With this system, you don't want to pay, you don't have to pay. Just cut back on purchases. I am going to leave the debate at this for now to see where you want to take your argument. Go FairTax!
children should be put on a leash

Wow. I only have 5 minutes. Children are property until cognition and should therefore be treated according to the whims of their parents or guardians as long as they are not beaten or killed. The argument that children should not be put on leashes because children are not animals is moot because humans are animals themselves. the only distinction between humans and other animals is that animals never gain cognition. Source: John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding
children should be put on a leash

Leashes are not punishment. They are a way to keep children safe in large crowds and public areas. They keep children from getting lost, abducted, and sexually abused. My opponent's argument that it isn't right to treat children like animals is still moot. Children, and all humans, are animals. This fact has been conceded. Leashes not only keep children safe, but also serve as a convenience to parents. Sources: . http://www.associatedcontent.com... . http://kidsstuff.stores.yahoo.net... In conclusion, the child is safer with a leash. My opponent has not addressed this point and has conceded it. Thank you.
children should be put on a leash

Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited round 2. In addition to the ethics mentioned before (here's the link to the book; I was referencing the beginning of chapter one http://books.google.com...), there is also a practical argument. With increasing child abductions and numbers of sexual predators, child leashes for younger children just learning to walk increase their safety(http://www.essortment.com...). Responsible parents would put their younger children on leashes. There is practical benefit and ethical justification.
A free market economy is harmful to society

This stems from an earlier argument with my opponent, Anarcho about whether the free market is beneficial to society or not. I'll begin by presenting several arguments from the earlier debate. Good luck to both of us! 1) Minimum wage: My opponent is in favour of it. There are several reasons to be opposed to it, however. One of the obvious is the fact that it can harm the economy. Businesses are expected to pay a certain amount, even if they can't afford it. This can affect how much goods they're able to produce thus hindering their ability to produce profit. Less profit can also result in less jobs available as they would only be able to afford to hire a limited number of workers. On the contrary, by removing minimum wage laws there are no such barriers to employment. Businesses would be able to pay whatever they can afford while still being fair. If an employee doesn't like the wages offered by a particular business they have a choice to not work there. They could seek out a business that pays better wages. Also, most businesses would be inclined to pay fair wages anyway; if nobody wants to work at a particular place due to bad wages then that business would risk bankruptcy. Paying unfair wages wouldn't be worth the risk for an established businessperson of losing their hard-earned business. 2) Welfare/social security: It is inevitable that in every society there'll be poor people. Both the left and right have different ways of approaching this issue. I am in favour of the right-wing view of abolishing the government social services. This has a few advantages. It, of course, requires paying taxes. With lower tax rates people would have more money to spend on other things, including donations to charity. This is a completely voluntary action and doesn't involve citizens being told what to use their money on. One may question these motives and think that few people would donate and leave very little money for the disadvantaged. However, with more money available it is possible that more donations would occur than what presently occurs. Another obvious issue is the abuse of current welfare systems. There are many people who receive funding through welfare who are either lazy and refuse to work or are addicts and want money to support their addictions. I'm sure most reasonable taxpayers wouldn't want their hard-earned money going to these people. Without government welfare programs these people are given incentive to go out and work and even if their regular wages aren't enough there is opportunity to do other things on the side to earn more money. These are just a couple points to start off what I hope will be an interesting debate. I conclude that a free market is more efficient than a controlled economy. I'll bring up more points to be addressed as the debate progresses. Again, Good luck to both of us!
A free market economy is harmful to society

I would have liked to post more but by the time I wrote up the rest my opponent had already finished their rebuttal and my apologies for not doing it beforehand but school gets busy at times. I would like to remind my opponent that there is already an overproduction of goods and oddly the prices for food is still pretty expensive. Making anymore food would be redundant and just a further screw you the billions starving when we have more than enough food. Secondly, she says that people in a fee market would not work for unfair wages however the sweat shops in Hong Kong a very well known area for free market would detest to that being true. Nobody would WANT to work in a sweat shop and this "decide where you want to work or starve" argument is no different from Lenin's "Work or starve". The choice between working or starving is not a fair choice and anybody would naturally choose the work regardless of how much it pays. If there were no minimum wage laws yes many more people would probably be employed but why would a majority of corporations pay as much as they can to get employees interested when they could simply pay very little as a "take it or leave it" option and the more employed to produce more of the product will make the pay more and more less. Lastly, I think public money could go to better places than paying cops and it seems like she is stereotyping Michigan as a murderous and thieving state. I used third world countries because many of them are prime examples of free market systems that abuse the workers to make a massive profit. And my opponet is only being nice. ;)
A free market economy is harmful to society

My opponent begins his argument by stating that without a minimum wage law that employers will be paid lower by default. However, this would be non-issue due to less inflation. With more goods being produced due to more money available to a company to use, their value goes down. With the price of goods dropping people wouldn't need as much money anyway. Even those with more money could buy more goods, thus putting more money back into the economy to produce more. It's a continuous cycle that is beneficial to the economy. Secondly, my opponent is worried about employers not paying fair wages. However, as I've mentioned before, this would not occur in a free market as nobody would want to work for people paying unfair wages. The business owner would not want to risk going bankrupt and losing their business. To run a business you need employees. Another point that needs to be addressed is my opponent's concern over lack of jobs available. Again, it's because of minimum wage laws that there's less jobs as it makes it more difficult for businesses to be able to afford to hire people. My opponent also brings up a point about depressions. While this is an interesting point it's also irrelevant to the topic of focus so will not be discussed here. Lastly, my opponent goes back to the point about Michigan unemployment. He claims it's higher than what is actually recorded due to the state not wanting to pay. This could be a result of lack in funds. Government programs such as social security are expensive to maintain and are ineffective so it's natural that the numbers would be exaggerated in order to try to avoid this. Without having to worry about paying for social programs governments could focus on more important things such as fighting crime. Also, my opponent mentions me thinking third world countries are good examples as to why we shouldn't have minimum wage laws(seems like a bit of diversion from the original topic to me). Why this was mentioned is beyond me as third world countries were never mentioned even once in this debate. My opponent also failed to address my final rebuttals in round 2 about drug testing and welfare. Please vote con! I thank my opponent for an interesting debate. It has been a learning experience for us, both being inexperienced in the field of economics. I look forward to final rebuttals by my opponent. Good luck!
A free market economy is harmful to society

Yes I unfortunately got wrapped up in something at the worst time so my response was delayed. My opponent seems to be contradicting herself about minimum wage. If the business is more inclined to pay less to the employee in order to keep the business going then by default the employee will have a lesser pay. You can't get around that, if they cannot afford what the minimum wage is now then how could they be able to pay the same amount or close to that when the law is abolished? It is not even that high of pay anyways why make it even lower? Employers would most certainly not be more inclined to pay fair wages, they know that you are in need of a job and will use that as leverage to make you settle for it. There are not a vast array of jobs out there that you can go out looking for, if there are not many jobs available and no safety net to keep you on your feet until you find a job you will go for any job regardless of pay. While it may be true that it hurts the economy in the sense that they have to pay employees higher wages that they cannot afford due to depression, the same thing could be said the other way around. How can you come out of depression when the products being made, cannot be bought due to low wages? My apologies for not providing a source to the unemployment rates for Michigan. http://www.csmonitor.com... As you can see the rate is 13.6% but from reading the comments of presumably Michigan residents it appears that it is a made up number and it is actually higher but the state just does not want to pay for unemployment. I would like to ask my opponent from refraining using third world countries that pay their employees less than a dollar an hour as a good example of why there should be no minimum wage. That is a poor example and just shows how little buinesses will pay even in a thriving economy. Look to comments once again and I apologize for doing it twice.