BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Airplanes should put parachutes under seats instead of lifejackets

"Thats called survival of the fittest! Its all natural and the way of nature"Except we have laws preventing survival of the fittest (i.e. murder) I see no difference here. And did you know that my mom sat in 22B on our last flight? I cyber-punch you for saying such a thing about MY mother! My little brother was crying because he had the Haitian Flu and needed an IV for the past day!" Thats what those safety instructions they give on the plane are for!"OK, I'd love to see that when the flight attendant demonstrates a full parachute jump from inside the cabin. "So basically its a massive crowded bounce house at a party. Whats so bad about that exactly? "The difference is that at the end of this party, the house explodes. " Assuming they even make it to the water in the first place....." So, I pretty much made that argument and you debunked it using "survival of the fittest." You just debunked your own argument using your own argument. Plus, there's more time to get out floating in the water.
Airplanes should put parachutes under seats instead of lifejackets

"there can be hundreds on modern aircraft. All these people couldn't get to the tiny, few, and far in between doors that lead out of the aircraft."Thats called survival of the fittest! Its all natural and the way of nature Besides, I dont think anyone will mourn over that b*tch in 22B whose kid was crying the WHOLE FLIGHT and didnt do anything to stop him.... "Also, none of those people would probably be trained to jump"Thats what those safety instructions they give on the plane are for!"Just imagine it for a second: dozens of people trying to escape. Mass chaos. And people who didn't make it out would be tossed around the cabin at the point of impact"So basically its a massive crowded bounce house at a party. Whats so bad about that exactly? "On the flip side, any idiot can use a float."Assuming they even make it to the water in the first place.....
Airplanes should put parachutes under seats instead of lifejackets

A chance to debate imabench, what an honor. In movies, they often say to jump, but there are only a handful of people on military planes while there can be hundreds on modern aircraft. All these people couldn't get to the tiny, few, and far in between doors that lead out of the aircraft. Also, none of those people would probably be trained to jump. They'd either a) Break their legs when they fell. b) Get sucked into the engine and make the odds of the survival of the whole plane go down. c) Be unable to find the stupid pullcord. d) Be so freaked out about jumping that they'd stop at the door and not go, stopping the rest of the untrained passengers from jumping. (Actually, that might be preferable.) Just imagine it for a second: dozens of people trying to escape a turbulent plane. Mass chaos. And people who didn't make it out before the plane crashed would be tossed around the cabin at the point of impact. It's a lose-Lose situation. On the flip side, any idiot can use a float.
God didn't really do these bad things from the bible as is said that he did

I believe that God created the world perfect and our DNA is becoming more damaged with each new generation making problems with inbreeding more and more serious. Noah and his sons and their wives repopulated the earth and inbreeding was not a problem because their DNA had not been damaged by Sun, so yes we are all inbreed. Prior to Noah's ark there was a barrier of water above the earth that prevented direct sunlight. The flood is believed to have been caused by this barrier of water coming down at once. Keep in mind the Bible does not say how deep this flood was but there is scientific evidence pointing towards a global flood. The Bible never says that millions of species were on the Ark and it does not say they were adults, it was probably full of young creatures. The Ark had the same storage capacity as about 450 standard semi-trailers. A standard livestock trailer holds about 250 sheep, so the Ark had the capacity to hold at least 120,000 sheep. After the flood there were land bridges and the different animals populated the different countries, even the kangaroos. The fresh water did not mix with the salt water, even in a flood the fresh water remains fresh until the flood water meets the ocean and then it will become salt water. The creatures in the oceans wouldn't be affected because the fresh water would not make a huge impact on a body of water the size of the ocean and the fresh water creatures if washed into the ocean would die but if enough were able the stay in their original lakes to repopulate then their species would not be in danger. To answer your previous question,"how is there all kinds of races of people that takes hundreds of thousands of years to differentiate, when the flood happened suppoedly within the last ten thousand years?" People are not that different and all the changes we see in races are possible to have happened within less than 10,000 years. https://beyondflannelgraph.files.wordpress.com... The Punnet square above shows the range of skin color coded into the genetic potential of two middle-skinned people. In fact, there is only 0.2% difference between any two people, no matter their ethnicity and so-called "racial" differences [skin color, eye shape, etc] only account for 0.012 of human biological variation. In fact, twins of differing ethnicity are sometimes born to a couple. This supports the Biblical view that God made us all of one blood. Text taken from the following source. https://beyondflannelgraph.wordpress.com... What evidence did you think you would find after a global flood that you can not find?
God didn't really do these bad things from the bible as is said that he did

the story of noah is impossible because there is no evidence for it. when a miracle occurs, there is evidence for it.... it's corroborated by science. wasn't there breeding issues with two of every animal? inbreeding etc? did kangaroos jump from australia and swim to get to the mainland? are all humans inbred given it was just a story of a family being saved? how did freshwater fish survive given all the salt water that was mixed with the fresh water? where is the evidence of a mass flooding in the geology? how is there all kinds of races of people that takes hundreds of thousands of years to differentiate, when the flood happened suppoedly within the last ten thousand years? how'd they get the millions of species onto a relatively small boat? this is just the tip of the iceberg. it's full of holes. the apostles took the story as true, and jesus seemed to too.... so we can't just write it off as not literal. either it happened, or it didn't. if our interest is in dedication to truth, and not just defending a religious ideology.... we should be willing to accept that the bible can have errors in it if that's what the evidence indicates.
God didn't really do these bad things from the bible as is said that he did

First let me correct some of your errors, the Bible was written by men but inspired by God so It did come from God. God does not expect mankind to live perfectly and nowhere in the Bible are the rules, laws and punishments laid out for us to create a perfect society. The reason the Bible talks about how to treat a slave is not because the Bible encourages slavery but because the world is evil and slavery will always always exist, the Bible just outlines the proper way for slaves to be treated. Anyone who says slavery does not exist or is illegal has never considered the correctional systems in place in America and other countries today. Almost all governments will throw you in jail and make you work for little to no reward if you stop paying taxes or commit any number of crimes. The Bible teaches how to treat slaves not how to beat them. The Bible does not tell us to stone virgins but it did teach the Jews to stone people for what you may consider minor offences. You seem to misinterpret the Bible a lot and jump to extreme conclusions so I will need you to give me chapter and verse for any more examples. What makes you say the story of Noah is false? The problem you seem to have with God and the reason you find him evil is his extreme punishments and ease with which he ends human lives. It all boils down to the question why is killing wrong. Death and murder are difficult concepts for us to accept because we are the center of our own universe and full of pride. You may not think it is morally justified for God to kill a human, simply because you have humanized God and consider him an equal to us with some sort of magical power. God has created this universe and has every right to destroy it if he so desires meaning that killing is only wrong if God says it is. The Bible teaches its alright to kill animals, man has dominion over the beasts of the field and we are encouraged to hunt for food and clothing. The reason we can not kill each other is simple, man was created in the image of God. An artist who creates a statue of himself is the only person who can deface or destroy that statue. Anyone who damages an image of God would be insulting God. One of the things making us different from animals is that we are made in the likeness of God and only he has the right the end our lives early but keep in mind we all die eventually and the world will always be full of death. The stories from the Bible that make you think God is cruel only show how much greater than us he is. Pride is a sin and only a proud person can believe God doesn't have the right to do what he wills. God has every right to kill or punish people and he would not be cruel or unjust. God is holy and his judgments harsh because sin does anger him, its not a sin for an artist to destroy his art or a creator to destroy his creation. I believe everything in the Bible literally and the only issues are when its poorly translated or taken out of context. Meaning you sometimes need to read deeper to see what the author is trying to say. Please show me anything in the Bible that isn't true and the evidence for it.
God didn't really do these bad things from the bible as is said that he did

here are some tripped out stories that are supposedly from "God". the thing to note, is that a lot of the bible isn't justifiable but isn't from God to begin with, perhaps. such as how to treat women as property, how to properly beat your slaves, or to stone virgins. but the bible says these following things came from God. 1. God killed everyone on the planet in a flood per noah. notice all the flaws in the story that are way too far fetched to take seriously. 2. God commanded a dude be stoned for gathering sticks on the sabbath. 3. God caused the first born of every person who didn't smear blood on their door to be killed. 4. God told someone to kill their innocent kid to prove his allegiance to God. 5. a laundry list of bad things God has done (put in a humorous way) https://io9.gizmodo.com... the thing to note is, such as we can tell that the story of noah is blatantly false (when a miracle occurs, the science should corroborate it, not contradict it, as occurs with the noah story), plus we have at least arguably other inconsistencies in the bible.... why should we take this stuff as true given all that? i think trying to say this stuff is figurative or something is just a scapegoat. the bible and the people who read it have taken this stuff liberally. but that doesnt mean it has to be true. the only way a person would think it's true is because the bible says it is. i've yet to hear decent justifications for any of these sorts of stories. yet, we see some of the stories are objectively false. religous people don't get a "get out of logic free" card to think as they please just because they take the bible as it says, or have beliefs that are religious in nature. if their logic is "well the bible is true so this must be true", that doesnt fly with me and is illogical. i can't say just because the bible isn't always reliable that this story isn't true, but i can say on its face these sorts of strories dont make sense to sane people. it's clear there's a defect in the minds of people who try to justify this stuff, and that they have a hard time dealing with reality.
Smoking Ban

PrefaceSo, snowbunny approached me interested in having a debate, and we settled on this topic. I think that this should be a fun debate, and I look forward to it :)Each debater has 9,000 characters with which to make their case. There is also a 48 hour response period. Full TopicThat, in the United States, recreational tobacco products should be banned. Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling or semantics6. Pro will offer a generic means of implementing the ban; such a means can be gradual, so that the ban will come into effect over a series of years7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. AcceptanceR2. Pro's Constructive Case, Con's Constructive CaseR3. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's CaseR4. Pro defends Pro's Case and Crystallizes, Con defends Con's Case and CrystallizesThanks.
Smoking Ban

(Con fails to rebut most of my arguments about the dangers of smoke). There's nothing to argue. Many things are dangerous, but are not banned. Alcohol is dangerous. Furniture can be dangerous. Pro basically says that because marijuana has reduced some of the use of it that it will do the same with tobacco products. That is false. It will only push the products underground and into the black market. Tobacco is really addictive and if people are kept away from their addiction, they can show the signs of being clinically addicted and sometimes be aggressive. Smoking should not be banned, it should be controlled in the public. Places like restaurants and bars should be able to chose to be smoke free or not. In public, government funded places it should be smoke free, but even then it's a hard thing to enforce.
Smoking Ban

Thanks to Snowbunny! Con agrees that part of a government's job is to protect the welfare of its people. Con also concedes that smoking is dangerous both firsthand and secondhand (Con fails to rebut most of my arguments about the dangers of smoke). Con's argument basically comes down to one point: that any prohibition on smoking could not be enforced. The closest comparison that we have to tobacco products seems to be marijuana, which Con even discusses himself. Marijuana bans have been effective at stymying and reducing the use of marijuana. States with the highest rate of consumption of marijuana are States that have legalized the practice. [1, 2] This seems to indicate that laws do have a suppressant effect on the use of marijuana in a give region. Moreover, the popularity of marijuana stems from the belief that it is a safe drug to consume, making people less concerned about purchasing it. Tobacco is not, however, seen in such a light, so it is unlikely that the general populous will be as eager to acquire marijuana as tobacco. This would make enforcing a tobacco ban easier, and likely make the ban more effective. So, empirically, we see that similar drug bans do help stave off consumption of illicit drugs. If even a small chunk of people can be deterred from consuming the product, the U.S. will have met its core obligation of promoting the general welfare. Furthermore, Con offers one brief argument about choice. It is important to note that secondhand smoke victims are unjustifiably injured. They chose not to smoke, but yet were harmed through no fault of their own by the choices of others. To protect their freedoms and rights, smoking should be curtailed. Vote Pro. Thanks. SOURCES 1 - http://www.governing.com... 2 - http://www.cbsnews.com...
Smoking Ban

I just want to apologize again for round two. "Ultimately, a government's core obligation is to the welfare of its people" Their job is to also protect the freedoms and rights of its people. My opponent, it, arguing that because smoking can be dangerous to the smokers it should be banned. Yes, it can be dangerous, but it should not be banned. People should be taught about the risks, but banning it won't make everyone stop. The people should be able to make the choices that they want to do. My opponent also brought up the idea that if tobacco products are banned that basically the spending would go down. Yes, some people will stop buying which will cause it to go down, but not everyone will stop. They will find a way to buy or make it even if it's banned, like during the prohibition of alcohol. They said in their implementation they said "Years 6-15 I would allow sales of tobacco to users who could demonstrate that they were clinically addicted to tobacco and needed to continue to purchase the product to avoid withdrawal." How would they be able to prove they are clinically addicted. They also said "I would also subsidize programs to help people go through withdrawal, just give those people an alternative to smoking." What sort of alternatives would give to the people? The war on smoking is almost as useless as the war on marijuana, except it's not as ridiculous. My opponent wants to ban smoking, and if we do that history will repeat itself. Even though states are starting to legalize marijuana, its still illegal in a lot of states. The ban has not stopped people from smoking it. There was the prohibition which later failed. http://www.history.com...
Chihuahua are terrible pets

Chihuahuas are mean and they do nothing but shake bark and bite. They are annoying and unfriendly. They make terrible pets and they are usless. They can't be trusted around kids because they might bite. They can't be used for protection because they are to small. They're annoying to because they bite your ankles and they are annoying to have around the house because they're so small they get around your feet and you trip. Vote for me if you hate annoying mean little ankle biters.
Girls should wrestle guys

Girls will get hurt no matter what, but that is what lifting is for. In my(team) case we work on our upper body strength as much as we can as well. We do row boats with the grip going outwards so we can strengthen our latossimus doris which is the muscle that we use often when we snap a person down or somewhat push them. I've wrestled for three years already and I have wrestled against guys for two of my years when I was in a wrestling program. I was able to stand against them and not get injured to badly, I got small bruise and cuts but that also happens while wrestling against girls. Weightlifting can help strengthen your body so strength is not much a problem, it just takes some training maybe its a little more than a normal girl wrestler but I don't think of that as a problem.
Girls should wrestle guys

I'm writing a touching romance visual novel; so I'll just write this for now.Let me start with this:"Strength and muscle characteristics were examined in biceps brachii and vastus lateralis of eight men and eight women. Measurements included motor unit number, size and activation and voluntary strength of the elbow flexors and knee extensors. Fiber areas and type were determined from needle biopsies and muscle areas by computerized tomographical scanning. The women were approximately 52% and 66% as strong as the men in the upper and lower body respectively. The men were also stronger relative to lean body mass. A significant correlation was found between strength and muscle cross-sectional area (CSA; P < or = 0.05). The women had 45, 41, 30 and 25% smaller muscle CSAs for the biceps brachii, total elbow flexors, vastus lateralis and total knee extensors respectively. The men had significantly larger type I fiber areas (4597 vs 3483 microns2) and mean fiber areas (6632 vs 3963 microns2) than the women in biceps brachii and significantly larger type II fiber areas (7700 vs 4040 microns2) and mean fiber areas (7070 vs 4290 microns2) in vastus lateralis. No significant gender difference was found in the strength to CSA ratio for elbow flexion or knee extension, in biceps fiber number (180,620 in men vs 156,872 in women), muscle area to fiber area ratio in the vastus lateralis 451,468 vs 465,007) or any motor unit characteristics. Data suggest that the greater strength of the men was due primarily to larger fibers. The greater gender difference in upper body strength can probably be attributed to the fact that women tend to have a lower proportion of their lean tissue distributed in the upper body."(1)"Men are 50 percent stronger than women in brute strength.Female lung capacity is about 30 percent less than in males."(2)This shows there are physical differences between men and women. Men are, on average, stronger than women."Females appear to sustain concussions at higher rates than men, with women playing basketball, lacrosse, and soccer at highest risk. They often have more severe signs and symptoms, and recover less quickly than men.Women also experience shoulder injuries more often than men. Compared with men, they have less upper body strength, weaker rotator cuff and periscapular muscles, and looser supporting tissues. This creates shoulder instability. Sports that use the shoulder muscles extensively (eg, swimming, softball, volleyball) increase the risk of rotator cuff injury, tightness, and pain. Shoulder injuries are more likely to recur than other injuries"(3)This shows women are more likely to get injured compared to males. Let's put this together.Weaker + Higher Risk For Injury= Separate LeagueIt's the wisest thing to do. Put women into a separate league like the NBA did to women. That away, they can still play and be competitive. It won't be one-sided.Anime OP: Arigatou! Watch the anime OP! The songs and animation are amazing! Some of my favorite anime are there!1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...2. http://drjamesdobson.org...3. http://www.pharmacytimes.com...;