BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nike should be banned from the USA!

Nike should be banned from the USA. Why? 1. They cheat you out of your money! *gasp* i thought they were fair! Nope. Only about 16$ of your 120$ shoes are actually sent to the plant that made them. How much do these shoes really cost? 16$. About 70% from those 120$ goes to advertising. 2. Where does all the other money go? to making factories? no! Nike owns how many factories? how many shoes are made by them per year? none. All of it is outsourced to other countries, the only places that they could get away with spending so little money on the shoes. 114$ are left. about 60$ of that go toward making you increase the only thing nike really owns. It's name. Nike is a name, thats it. When you pay all that money you are paying for the little swoosh on your shoe. 3. Sleep. How can you sleep at night when you can hear the screams of the underpaid, overworked, abused people who are making your shoes? Nike: "wages per hour: $0.16 Hours: 77-84; 11- to 12-hour sifts; 7 days a week." Enough said. Source: No Logo, Naomi Klein.
chicken c0mes first before egg

Why the creation story of the Bible should not be taken literally: Creation of Day and Night: Day 1 Creation of Heaven: Day 2 Creation of the Earth, the Seas, and the Plants: Day 3 Creation of the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars: Day 4 Creation of Fishes and Birds: Day 5 Creation of land animals: Day 6 No Further Emergence of Life Forms on Earth: Day 7 According to Genesis, God created the Sun on day four. But without a sun, there are no actual days. Without a sun there were no morning/evening changes in the time of day. Likewise, without natural sunlight, plants could not have grown and survived. Plants however, were created before the Sun. If the length of time is billions of years per day (as some Christians claim), then it is impossible that plants could survive before the Sun was created. We know, and would assume, that the writers of Genesis did not know that the Earth revolves around the sun, or that days and nights are effects of the Earth's rotation, that light is electromagnetic radiation, and that darkness is merely the absence of light. Whoever wrote the text of Genesis were clearly fallible, pre-scientific Human beings. If God had inspired these texts, although it could not have inspired a technical account because the words did not yet exist, it surely would have dictated or inspired text that wasn't out and out erroneous. So with that, I urge you to vote on behalf of the innocuous egg.
chicken c0mes first before egg

s0 wHat y0u mEnT wAs .. theoriEs AnD popE JoHn ,, iS more true .thaN God? .yOu waNt t0 saY thAt God iS wRoNg tO HiS oWn cReAtioN .. h0w cAn A Egg bE maDe WHen there is no chicken ?? because God .. the creator of everything said hE wiLL maKe animaLs .. g0d didnT reALLy sAid thAt hE wiLL mAke eggs.. thE bibLe iS the first of aLL first , iT staTes the creatoin of God .. cAn yoU reAd iT ?? s0 yoU caN meSs uP wiTh God witH yoUr theory2x ..it's eveN wriTen aT tHE first page of the bibLe .. REad bibLE .. spiral !
chicken c0mes first before egg

Jurassic Non-Chicken> Egg > Triassic Non-Chicken> Egg> < > Great Grandmother of Chicken> Egg> Grandmother of Chicken> Egg> Mother of Chicken> EGG ï¿½ FIRST CHICKEN ï¿½ Egg ï¿½ Another Chicken> and so on. Darwinian Theory states that all animals were preceded by, and evolved from, ancestors that were not exactly like them. With each consecutive evolutionary change, there is inevitably a creature that lacked the full characteristics of that which later evolved. In birds, including chickens, the eggs of the pre-evolved creature contained the newly evolved living animal. Specifically, a pre-chicken laid an egg that contained the newly evolved chicken; the egg that contained the newly evolved chicken preceded its hatching i.e., prior to the arrival of the first zygotic mix of male and female pre-chicken DNA that combined or mutated to form today's chicken, there were only non-chickens. The DNA mutations occurred at the cellular level in the zygote developing inside the egg. Therefore, the egg clearly preceded the chicken. Theological issues aside, even if a chicken was instantly created at some distant period, this does not demand the elimination of the process of evolution. Further, Pope John Paul II issued a papal letter (encyclical) to the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church acknowledging the possibility that God used evolution as a part of the creation process.
Oregon's Death By Dignity Law.

Just looking for someone to debate Euthanism and the Death with Dignity Act passed in Oregon. I am looking for a 4 speech, organized debate in which the first speech will be a constructive speech outlining your contentions and points, the next two will be rebuttals and the final speech a conclusive speech, no new points may be brought up in these conclusive speeches or the second rebuttal. Since I haven't brought in any points in this post, please limit your first post to one accepting this debate. Thank You (: Looking forward to debating you!
Religion & Spirituality are NOT the Same

Are you saved? The reason I ask is because you seem to be very ignorant. So that leads me to believe that you really have no understanding of the Lord. To someone who believes the Lord well enough to tell you about the free gift you can receive, called SALVATION. Salvation is the only way you will enter the kingdom of heaven. You have to believe with all your heart that God sacrificed his only begotten Son Jesus Christ for all our sins. You also must believe that Jesus died on the cross, was buried and resurrected in 3 days. I will pray for you that you allow yourself this gift and become a true Christian in the army of the Lord. If you choose to remain ignorant lost soul, enjoy your life in hell.
Religion & Spirituality are NOT the Same

Religion & Spirituality are NOT the SameMany argue that the only way to be spiritual is through a religion - in particular - believing in the right religion. I believe this is false.Debate Stipulations:1) Serious Debate2) Semantics are Welcome3) We Can Agree to Further Terms in the Comments4) First Round is for Acceptance OnlyDefinitions:Religion : devotional and ritual observances, the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices, the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faithSpirituality : the quality or state of being spiritual; sensitivity or attachment to religious values [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Teachers need recess just as much as kids!

Teachers have a recess, its when the kids go to recess. Depending upon the type of teacher, kindergarten teachers use their recess to clean up kids messes, straighten everything up for when the kids com back in. 1-6 grade teachers use their recess to get caught up on grading and talk with kids if they are having problems with homework or such. 7-12 grade the students don't get a recess, and by your logic the teachers their shouldn't either. I am going by my schooling we dont get recess from 7-12
The United States Federal Government should continue to invest in a missle defence system.

My opponent has forfeited and concedes all arguments. How Doth The Little Crocodile Lewis Carroll How doth the little crocodile Improve his shining tail, And pour the waters of the Nile On every golden scale! How cheerfully he seems to grin, How neatly spread his claws, And welcome little fishes in With gently smiling jaws!
The United States Federal Government should continue to invest in a missle defence system.

You stated that 122 billion dollars have been spent on missile defense since the end of world war two but when you look at the scale of things, how much is 122 billion dollars? In the hands of a person or a corporation 122 billion dollars is an unfathomable fortune, but this awe factor cannot be associated with governments, 122 billion dollars is "chump change" to the government, especially when spread over 6 decades, assuming it was spent equally each year, it would only be around 2 billion a year, a rather small price to pay for the security of our nation. You stated that the government has spent 5.6 trillion dollars on nuclear arsenals but nuclear weapons are not used in defense against missiles. Your argument on the ABM treaty is flawed in that the treaty doesn't say that there can be no systems for missile defense, rather that they should be limited. With more investments these limits would not have to be crossed to protect our nation. Your third argument is illogical in that the missiles used by NMD are not the same as your run of the mill ballistic missile. They work in an entirely different way which never requires them to leave the atmosphere. I would also like for you to show evidence that a missile can evade missiles launched by NMD with current technology. You have stated that the software and technology in NMD are flawed but you have overlooked several things. 1- Your evidence is from 2000, since 2000 we have come a long way. 2- Your evidence refers to analogous systems, which are often flawed and rarely used in today's warfare. 3- The fact that there may be flaws is more reason to invest money and get the problems fixed. You have provided one example of a missile which may work but that missile would; not be able to carry a nuclear warhead large enough to be highly effective not be able to carry large conventional munitions not be able to carry large amounts of chemical or biological weapons To sum up my arguments, my opponents arguments have been exagerative, irrelevant to current technology, and have not been in depth enough to show us the whole picture. To stop a program like this simply because it costs money and risk the lives of Americans is foolish. A missile attack has never happened, as we know, but before 9/11 had a terrorist ever used an airplane as a weapon so effectively? Before the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima had an atomic weapon ever been used? Before the revolutionary war were the "guerrilla" tactics of militia members used? The answer is always no, and the effects of these changes in warfare have always been devastating, to assume that the norm in warfare will stay the same is foolish, and risky. Finally, many of the problems with current and past systems can be solved with enough money and research, and although pushing money at the problem is seldom a solution, in this case cutting funding could be fatal.
The United States Federal Government should continue to invest in a missle defence system.

A missile defence system is crucial to any country's defense. I will list some of the advantages to a missile defense system. 1- It shows any aggressor that they cannot use an intercontinental ballistic missile -ICBM- against us successfully, which could help to deter any attacks. 2- It helps protect citizens from any possible missile attacks, including chemical, biological, or nuclear. 3- It provides an early warning in case of an attack which takes the element of surprise away from the enemy. Will the increases in technology missiles are becoming more and more widespread. North Korea has recently tested missiles which could cary nuclear warheads, there is reason to believe that Iran may be looking into similar options, and tensions in Pakistan and Russia could cause nuclear weapons to fall into the wrong hands. Iran poses a serious threat. They are known to aid terrorist whose only goal is often to bring the destruction of America. If they gave terrorists missiles with nuclear warheads a missile defense system could be the only thing between us and nuclear war. To be caught with our guard down in today's world could be catastrophic and a missile defense system allows us to be ready for attacks 24/7. There are many other reasons for a missile defense system, and I cannot think of anything bad about a missile defense system. I look forward to seeing what arguments you come up with.
No underwear is better than wearing underwear 2

First, let me start by stating that I do not wear underwear. I don't believe it is necessary to wear underwear. Not wearing underwear is better than wearing underwear because it is more comfortable and it makes you feel more free. It is also better for your health to not wear underwear because air can flow freely when you are not wearing underwear. Your also less likely to contract an infection because your parts can breathe freely. For women, not wearing underwear completely eliminates that dreaded VPL! How can you have a VPL if your not wearing panties? Not wearing underwear, for the most part is sexy. And last but certainly not least, not wearing underwear is more comfortable than wearing underwear. You don't have to deal with wedgies and there is simply nothing more comfortable than wearing leggings without underwear if your a girl! For men, not wearing underwear can promote healthier sperm because wearing underwear for long periods of time can create heat that can ruin sperm quality. I may not be a man but I think not wearing underwear is more comfortable for men as well! Sources: https://www.bustle.com... http://elitedaily.com... http://www.mostinside.com...
Song Battle

My next song " believe it or not " is "Let it Go" from Disney"s Frozen! I know I"ve criticized this movie " I still think it"s overrated! " but the song is just so darn catchy and I think it carries a deeply-veiled significance to release your potential, to dream big, and to let your inhibitions go! Now, I"ve read into the context of the movie and what Elsa (I think that"s her name?) was apparently letting go was the fact that she couldn"t manage her own power and hurt her sister"but let"s ignore that and enjoy the fascinating song! Thanks for the debate, Mikal.
Song Battle

Choice :Titanium by David Guetta http://www.youtube.com... this song is one of the most vocally challenging songs ever to be released in the past few years. The song itself is about strength and courage and endurance, but what adds credibility to this song is the remakes that have occurred because of the original. Some of the people that have covered this song have did as good as a job as the original or better. see video 2 and 3 These are covers from Christie Grimmie and Boyce Avenue, their vocals are show cased and tested to the fullest. It is a vocally challenging and inspiring song. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Both boyce and Christie acknowledge that this is one of the most powerful songs they have played/sung [1] [1]
Song Battle

My next song is "Memphis Blues" by W.C. Handy: I chose it first and foremost because of I find it so uplifting: I actually listened to this song whilst cramming for my last three final exams and it gave me the confidence to proceed " ironically enough, since we tend to think of the "blues" as the antithesis of uplifting. Then there"s the historical context. W.C. Handy is said to have written for Edward Crump who ran for mayor in Memphis Tennessee, so it"s fascinating to consider how campaign music has evolved over the past century.
Song Battle

*cough suck up* *cough* Choice : Texas Flood by Stevie Ray Vaughn http://www.youtube.com... Long version of Texas Flood by stevie ray vaughn ! Texas Flood is an electric blues album by blues guitarist Stevie Ray Vaughan and his band Double Trouble, released in 1983.Although "Texas Flood" has three verses of lyrics, the song is more of a prolonged guitar solo, allowing Vaughan to show off his characteristic electric blues style. During live shows, he would often play portions of this song behind his back, arousing an enthusiastic crowd response. Stylistically, "Texas Flood" is structured around the common three chord blues progression. Written and performed in the key of G (sounding F# because of Vaughan's tuning), it is in 12/8 time, or compound time[2], which gives it a "slow burning" feel that is common in Texas blues. [1] [1] [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Song Battle

My apologies for not giving my explanation for the last round. Mikal agreed to let me post it this round. I chose "Imagine" by John Lennon because it speaks to a hypothetical world without the divisiness that follows from religion (I should clarify that I am speaking about fanaticism, generally speaking). Though controversial, and certainly not appealing to everyone, I believe it"s an interesting thought experiment that challenges us to look within ourselves for inspiration, and question what truly provides us meaning. My next song is "Love Never Felt So Good" by Michael Jackson and Justin Timberlake: First, the song is a tribute to the talent that was Michael Jackson. Second, it speaks to the the sheer virtue and rapture of being in love, and feeling as though you have found the one and know that "the night's gonna be just fine", as YYW and bsh can attest to -- for that reason, the song is dedicated to them.
Song Battle

http://www.youtube.com... Choice : The Wicked Games by The Weeknd vocally stunning, all around a great song. The weekend is an up and coming artist/band who has received offers from young money and other noticeable members of the hip hop/rap community. The vocalist and main member of the band is Abel Tesfaye and his lyrics are real, his voice is amazing, and his vibe is like none other. This song is about how he is finding love in all the wrong places, and how it hurts him and how he cannot escape it. It is about a journey of finding love
Song Battle

1: Choice - Gimme Shelter by the rolling stones http://www.youtube.com... This is the opening track for the rolling songs album "let it bleed". The song itself is a reference for the Vietnam war and how people objected to it and hated it. It was the premise behind the entire album. This is one of the best if not best classic rock songs of all times. You can feel the vibes and the beat in the music, It still sends chills down my spine. Great great song
Animal experimentation for the benefit of humans.

I think animal experimentation should remain legal for the benefit of human society, people dieing of cancer,aids,diabetes,and etc. These animal experiments may help prevent and/or cure these illnesses and benefit society. My opponent thinks the lives of human beings are equivalent to well what you eat every day at Mc Donalds, yes you see that hamburger your eating yeah its equal to the life of your best friend, mother,father,sister,brother,aunt,uncle,wife, and or kids on the totem pole of the chain of life. My opponent also claims these animals are abused or not adequately anesthetized i am sorry i don't believe you for one you have not sources for proof and two these things have regulations. The Animal Welfare Act was signed into law in 1966. It is the only Federal law in the United States that regulates the treatment of animals in research, exhibition, transport, and by dealers. Other laws, policies, and guidelines may include additional species coverage or specifications for animal care and use, but all refer to the Animal Welfare Act as the minimum acceptable standard. The Act was amended six times (1970, 1976, 1985, 1990, 2002, 2007) and is enforced by the USDA, APHIS, Animal Care agency. http://awic.nal.usda.gov... Now if you want to dive into this source and see all the regulations there too much for me to post so . Ending speech: Let me ask a simple question? let say you have a dog and a hot Gf/Bf now lets say they both get caught in some train tracks, omg the train is coming and at which point you can only save one which one do you save? Now lets change that example to: your Bf/Gf gets cancer, Oh no what to do is there anything we can do Doctor? Doctor: Im sorry but we have not found a cure yet all we have is kemo and its too big to cut out im sorry but we haven't had much experimentation on cancer since animal testing was banned so we probably won't find one a cure even longer than we thought. Well if your wife or husband or Bf/Gf don't make it well don't worry you will always have your dog. ( till it runs out into the road).
Animal experimentation for the benefit of humans.

Animal experimentation should be illegal and frowned upon. It is unfortunate that many people are selfish enough to believe just because we are humans that we are the only ones that deserve to survive. Animals have a right to be treated with value. Injecting monkeys with AIDS and exposing certain other animals to toxic chemicals and radiation is unacceptable. MILLIONS of animals die each year because of experimentation. Not only because of the things that they are exposed to but because they were not adequately anesthetized or abused by the handlers of the experiment.
Reproduction is not a rational choice

Burden of Proof is on PRO to establish that reproduction is not, under any circumstances, a rational choice. That is, that when people decide to have children, they do not do this on the basis of things such as compatibility, reliability, financial security, or other such factors.I look forward to seeing what arguments PRO will bring to the table.My only job in this debate is to refute PRO's argument. If PRO's arguments don't hold up under scrutiny, or fail to affirm the resolution, points for arguments should be awarded to me.
Reproduction is not a rational choice

As the title suggests. If you want to accept just comment, and I'll go ahead and present my argument in the first round so we don't have to waste time with formalities. I really don't want to include definitions because I don't want this debate to be about meanings of words. We all know what reproduction is and we all know what irrational means. But just so we're clear I'm loosely using this definition: not logical or reasonable. If you don't want to use that strict definition that's fine so long as we're talking about the same thing/it doesn't detract from the actual debate.
Gun Control

" Gun control" seems like the only viable way to curb these mass shootings and the gun violence we're seein in lower income communities. Educating people on the value of life and funding mental health treatment sound like great long term solutions, but what about right now? The question we should be asking is "how do we stop these shootings?" If banning a super powerful, super-fast gun helps do that, or at least reduces the impact a shooter can cause, why aren't we doing that?