BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Education in your motherland is better than abroad

So the question is what is better: education abroad or education in your motherland? In my opinion, education in motherland is much better. First of all, you feel calm and safe whereas in unknown country you are under the endless stress. And here lies the culture shock. You face different problems - another country, people, rules, traditions, food, manners, customs, laws, values and etc. This problems crush on you in one single moment and you can't think about education anymore. Stress leads to anxiety, panic disorders, depression, paranoia and other phobias. Any mental problems may become even harder with time. Secondly, money, money and money. Nothing is free. Studying abroad can be really expensive. And I am not talking about the cost of education itself, I am talking about additional expenses like food, residence, flights home and back... Moreover, most countries do not allow foreign students to have a part time job so you need to have some money before you arrive. This is two main things I wanted to raise. Of course, there are others such as a necessity of learning a second language, risk of losing touch with your family and friends, danger to meet suspicious people, differences between universities and so with credits, reversal culture shock and many others. What is your opinion?
That Criminal Records Should Be Secret From Employers

Hi everyone, I haven"t been on the site much but I"m looking for a good debate on some serious issues! Rounds: 1: Rules and acceptance 2: Arguments and rebuttal 3: Arguments and rebuttal 4: Rebuttal Rules: The debate should run basically on Australs 3v3 rules, which means: Evidence is weighted much less than logic and, especially, analysis. A winner should be decided based on persuasiveness, as determined by a reasonably intelligent, but open and impartial observer who knows basic things about the world but is not able to check facts outside of the debate. In other words, unless something is considered by most as an obvious untruth (eg: Obama was born in Kenya; Heroin isn"t addictive etc. ) it is up to the debaters to demonstrate why it is untrue. No dumb tricks. Nobody is actually persuaded by someone who dodges the obvious intent of the debate by defining the clash out of it. Definition: I"ll expand further in my first substantive round, but I will basically be arguing that potential employers will not have access to criminal histories, nor will they be allowed to ask about criminal history in a job interview. I will be arguing that judges should be allowed to, for example, permanently ban people from working with children. It is my burden to show how that is morally consistent with the rest of my case. This debate is set in the modern, western world. It occurs in places that have functioning judiciaries, welfare and economies.
Is Radical Feminism Hurting More than Helping

You have not stated any rules; therefore I will act as I please in this round.Definition Radical feminism-is a perspective within feminism that focuses on the hypothesis of patriarchy as a system of power that organizes society into a complex of relationships based on the assertion that male supremacy oppresses women. Harmful ProtestsThere is many cases of harmful protests with radical feminists. Namely, and In these videos, we are able to see the harm radical feminism has done. From blocking entrances/exits to pulling a fire alarm, much harm has happened with with radical feminists.This clearly shows the one case of harm done by radical feminists. Ruining The MovementRadical feminism is constantly having others believe feminism is a terrible movement. We can see comments from this video Dracoa797 months ago The more of this crap that I see, the more I think feminism is a terrorist group. oldsaltshippers4 days ago (edited) Feminists would like to think that they are all about equal rights, but there is already a name for those people, they are called egalitarians, something which feminists are not. As we see in these comments, many are bashing the movement of feminism as well as being confused by radical feminists and feminists. To these people, feminism will look like a terrible cause and one which will seem distasteful. Rebuttals I believe my opponent is confused. I am on the side of pro, meaning I am trying to prove radical feminism is hurting more than helping. You, as con, are trying to prove otherwise. Your argument helps my case. Conclusion A number of sources show radical feminism is hurting more than helping.
Is Radical Feminism Hurting More than Helping

Radical Feminism has been more abundant recently. There is one case where there was a protest outside of a lecture hall at the University of Toronto. Radical Feminists blocked the entrance of the building. One person tried to enter the building and was denied access and humiliated by the protesters. That person was looking for closure after two of his friends committed suicide. Radical Feminism is usually criticized for believing that men are the ultimate source of women oppression. The "patriarchy" , laws created by men, are not the reason women are in "oppression", it is the gender roles created as a whole society which creates harm to both genders.(Not true ,but stupid common stereotypes)"Females are physically weak" causes the gender role of males being strong protectors.If males are not "manly" they get criticized by males and females."Males always want sexual intercourse" causes men to believe that they want sex, and the stereotype stops them from reporting rape. "He probably liked it"Radical Feminism does not address these utterly important points. There is active sexism against men too and Radical Feminism harms and adds to the stereotypes of men.Protest I was referring to
The Rocky Horror Picture Show is very suitable for young children.

I will have to admit, when I watched the Time Warp, I IMMEDIATELY got hooked on that song. It is very catchy. However, your first two points make it obvious that you did not take into consideration the bad side of each. In reference to number 2, who is to say that children will not reverse the hypothesis you are making on that they will realize what NOT to wear? Maybe they will look up to Frank-N-Furter as much as you do, and will try to dress like him. Now to point number 3. You tried to derive from the whole hooker outfit. Fact is, he DID wear this outfit, and children can't possibly have the developed minds that will allow them to rationally think "Okay, maybe I SHOULDN'T wear this.." Also to number 3, tattoos are tattoos. Some see them as a form of art, but I personally see them as damaging to your body. When a person with tattoos is elderly, that tattoo won't even take the shape that was originally planned anymore. To point number 4 shall we? This is like saying that Grand Theft Auto teaches people the consequences of murdering someone. Yes, when you get shot it makes the cops go after you (and after a while, the National Guard), but it just makes the player want to kill again. If we connect this to RHPS, we can see infer that a child witnessing Frankie die would either scar them for life, or make them want to go out and kill. Number 5 has a direct correlation to number 4. It teaches revenge. That's all I have to say about this one. Number 6 may show skills of good choreography but it also teaches children that maybe, it would be alright to talk about sex and stuff in a public place. And, furthermore, in reference to your last statement, I did not say I was homophobic, nor did I insinuate it. The instigator is giving you false facts people, do you really want someone like that to win a debate?
The Rocky Horror Picture Show is very suitable for young children.

Well then, dbaldwin1215 (whoever you are, I have no idea what your real name is...) Let me give you the reasons as to why the Rocky Horror Picture Show is a stable, beautiful, and wonderful thing to get our babies started on. 1. It teaches them to follow directions. How, you ask? "It's just a jump to the left, and a step to the right. Put your hands on your hips, and bend your knees in tight, but it's just the pelvic thrust that really drives you insane..." not only does it give our kids smooth moves to attract the opposite sex, but we also learn how to follow directions. 2. Proper attire. It teaches our kids what NOT to wear in public. 3. Frank'N'Futer is a very good role model. Hell, the man's my hero. He's diverse, he teaches kiddos diversity, and also teaches them good fashion taste (not the whole hooker outfit, even though personally I thought that was the best outfit in the movie), in the last scene when he wore the studden jacket, you have to admit - THAT WAS A COOL JACKET, and not to mention his tattoos are filled with taste, not vulgarity. 4. It teaches you not to murder. Because when Frankie murdered Meatloaf, what happened to Fankie? He got murdered right back by Riff Raff. So, it teaches you don't muder cause karma is a bitch and you'll get murdered right back. 5. It teaches Commitment Remember in the very end when Riff Raff shot Frankie (and yes, I cry at the end. stfu)? Well what did Rocky do? He got pissed like a puerto rican. he was like NO FREAKIN WAY and he stuck up for Frankie even unto DEATH. It teaches love and passion. 6. Theatrics The end scene, when their all dressed up like wemon on the stage and singing about sex and stuff, is absolutely beautful. They act with such passion and these theatrics give our babies a door way where insight and creativity can flow in and create a beautiful little seed that can grow and grow. except when they all jump into the pool and start french kissing, but besides that, it's all about origional creativity. Which! who doesn't want a child who is a prodigy at theatrics because they saw the Rocky Horror Picture Show at such a young age, when their mind was still puddy, just waiting to be formed? Think about it, people. see. Rocky Horror Picture Show has done nothing but blossomed me into the bright insightful little Buddah I am. and this is the type of debate that a lot of people would be biased to dbaldwin's side because pretty much everyone is homophobic. So, vote on who argues the best.
Biological Evolution is true

Pro has asserted "Biological Evolution is True"This is his BoP, as he affirmed the resolution.This means he must be able to prove with 100% certainty that it is fact, or scientific law. As Pro has already claimed it is a theory, he has already contradicted himself. Nevertheless, I will make one point refuting the 100% truthfulness, or fact, of biological evolution as a theory.One of the definitions for "scientific theory" is " repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation."We cannot currently, or repeatedly observe and experiment for evolution. Only observations of past fossil and organisms can be made, this making it all assumptions on the evolution process.
Biological Evolution is true

First off the definition of Biological Evolution Biological evolution is defined as any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations. These changes may be small or large, noticeable or not so noticeable. and scientific theory A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. Argument Biological Evolution is more supported by evidence than gravity and it also has no competing theories. These five things help support Evolution. 1. the fossil record of change in earlier species 2.the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms 3.the geographic distribution of related species 4. the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations 5. experiments There is no alternative theory for Evolution.
I can blow your mind (figuratively).

I'll start by blowing your minds literally. If I do blow your minds literally because you have read this, I would've blown your minds figuratively. Since your minds would've been blown literally because I blew your minds figuratively, then I literally blew your minds in the same mindset that I blew your minds figuratively. Using similar means, if I were to literally say something, I would've figuratively said something. This works because I am literally saying something by using figurative language. I can use figurative language to literally say it. Case in point, if you were to literally do accomplish an action by an means, then you would've also accomplished that action by figurative means since you've done it literally. Similar to the commutative property in used in math, if figuratively=a and literally=b, and a=b, then b=a, since I've proved that a=b. To summarize, if you figuratively mean something, then you literally meant something, but you can also literally mean something by being figurative.
"Should cannabis/weed/marijuana be legal?" or "Should Alcohol be illegal?"

No, I do not. I am new to this site and regrettably forgot to keep up to date with the debate, and as a result it seems I missed my opportunity to post an argument. I am impressed at how much you have researched this. But what you have failed to talk about is how a lot of people, most likely the majority of people, drink alcohol with meals, and after a long day. Therefore, banning alcohol would bring about a huge uproar. The side-effects to alcohol you have posted are usually a result of drinking too much regularly. Also, the reason the rate of harm caused by alcohol is so high is simply because the vast majority of the population drink alcohol. The side-effects from smoking marijuana however, could be a lot worse than what you have stated. Weed can causes extreme paranoia, anxiety, and panic attacks. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) These are some effects: Pleasant- A "high" - a sense of relaxation, happiness, sleepiness, colours appear more intense, music sounds better. Unpleasant- Around 1 in 10 cannabis users have unpleasant experiences, including confusion, hallucinations, anxiety and paranoia. The same person may have either pleasant or unpleasant effects depending on their mood and circumstances. These feelings are usually only temporary " although as the drug can stay in the system for some weeks, the effect can be more long-lasting than users realise. Long-term use can have a depressant effect, reducing motivation. Weed has been proven to reduce GCSE scores, and interfere with a persons ability to concentrate and take in new information. While under the influence of cannabis, you are twice as likely to cause a crash than to be a victim in one. It can also trigger depression and schizophrenia, both are serious mental disorders. A debatable question is; is cannabis addictive? It has some of the features of addictive drugs such as: tolerance " having to take more and more to get the same effect withdrawal symptoms. These have been shown in heavy users and include: craving decreased appetite sleep difficulty weight loss aggression and/or anger irritability restlessness strange dreams. . These symptoms of withdrawal produce about the same amount of discomfort as withdrawing from tobacco. For regular, long-term users: 3 out of 4 experience cravings; half become irritable; 7 out of 10 switch to tobacco in an attempt to stay off cannabis. (http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk...) Cannabis is addictive and dangerous. It is popular among young teens. The side effects to alcohol are less dangerous than cannabis, and so it is legal and weed is not.
"Should cannabis/weed/marijuana be legal?" or "Should Alcohol be illegal?"

This is my first debate also and I can see it will be difficult. My main argument will be that Marijuana causes a lot of psychological and mental harm, whereas, aside from becoming addicted, alcohol does not. Alcohol is safe if drank in moderation, which is how it is supposed to be, but any amount of weed can damage you. I look forward to continuing this debate.
"Should cannabis/weed/marijuana be legal?" or "Should Alcohol be illegal?"

This is the first debate started by me. wish me luck. Rules: First Round: State main arguments and rules. Rounds after that: Debate! Basically my Main Argument will be that marijuana, as a drug, is a) extremely non toxic while alcohol is classified as a carcinogen (cancer-causing substance), causes liver cirrhosis and has a wide range of other effects. b) marijuana has a much lower death rate per user than any other common drug except paracetamol (as shown on this website http://www.guardian.co.uk... ) That will be all for now; feel free to challenge me and thank you for reading
"Should cannabis/weed/marijuana be legal?" or "Should Alcohol be illegal?"

To clarify, "rate" means how many per (hundreds or thousands of) users. It stays the same because it is a percentage NOT a actual figure.The http://upload.wikimedia.org... was obviously in percentages (top right corner "*with a maimum harm rating of 100").Geez, you obviously did not read my first link (http://www.guardian.co.uk...) fully because alcohol is still above marijuana in death-per-user count. There is also a comment at the bottom "The cannabis death's figure is a bit dubious in my opinion. Firstly, how can you die from cannabis? It's extremely non-toxic. There has never been a single documented case of fatal cannabis overdose. Also, the government's own figures don't tally. While drug figures from the Office Of National Statistics register 19 cannabis related deaths, the mortality stats from the same office log only 1 death." which seems to suggest that the marijuana rates could be up to 19 times higher than actuall figures. Also I would like point out that the main problem with alcohol is its widespread use-more people die of alcohol than any other legal drug.As for the unpleasnt effects you mentioned for cannabis, here is a link to an wiki article stating similar effects for alcohol (http://en.wikipedia.org...)All links hereAcohol and its effects http://www.dassa.sa.gov.au......Wikipedia articles http://en.wikipedia.org......http://en.wikipedia.org...Australian traffic incidents report http://www.abs.gov.au......Guardian datablog article (chart 1&2) http://www.guardian.co.uk......link to chart 3 http://upload.wikimedia.org......https://www.drinkaware.co.uk...
Fatness

I think we can debate on our opinions till we both die of old age. I think both sides have been using opinions and I think some of your points are more of conjectures than anything else. For the final round I challenge you to back up and support your statements with evidence as shall I. Normality: Source 1 clearly states that what is normal is set by the majority of the group. Therefore if the majority of the people in the U.S are fat then being fat is normal. In shape: I think source 2 takes care of this. I am not sure how much time you spend with athletes but I think that it would surprise you how many of them can be considered fat, at least at the high school and college level. Designed to be fat: I think you should reexamine your argument or maybe your phrasing Mandatory fitness: improving our citizens health is one thing forcing them to be healthy is another. America is the most unhealthy country in the world: Sources 3,4 and 5 disprove your argument Time, unknowing makes fat people: Source 6 and 7 are places for quick healthy food. Thus I think that people do know how to be healthy and you have constantly declared that people have enough time to make it therefore being fat must be their choice. You have stated many times that you think people should be able to make their own choices. Therefore if the baby wants the cocaine then he should be able to get it, or in a more relevant example if a man wants to go eat McDonald then go to sleep he should be allowed to. My summary: If someone wants to go get fat it is their choice and we should not inhibit their choices. One can be fat and still healthy and athletic. Fat people are still shunned and not accepted and society is not glamorizing being fat. Sources: [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]http://bleacherreport.com... [3]http://beforeitsnews.com... [4]http://www.globalpost.com... [5]http://www.news.com.au... [6]http://www.cookinglight.com... [7]http://www.foodnetwork.com...
Fatness

All this talk about being happy with your 'fat' self is not right. Wikihow says " "Fat" is a word that has a negative connotation, and it shouldn't! It should be a descriptive term, like "blonde," "cute," "short," et cetera. I don't believe this message is correct nor should it be given. Fatness is naturally stigmatized and stopping that will be almost impossible, also all this effort should be put towards fighting fatness. For we should aim for a nation of slim people, and not encourage or accept without acceptation, people who are overweight.
Fatness

Deadly: Drugs and smoking still kill more people than obesity. Not to mention automobile accidents. The world is very dangerous and you are more likely to die from a different reason then obesity. In shape: Where did you see that definition? The problem with that definition is when people are proportionally larger. Theoretically there can be a guy with a six pack and still have a 40 inch waist. That is why fat percentages are used. Unhealthy: What do you mean by unhealthy? America is one of the healthiest due to our healthcare and various laws regarding sanitation and pollution. Conclusion: Being fat is not glamorized nor will be in the for see able future. I apologize if I misunderstood your point. From the evidence you provided I do not believe being fat will be glamorized but the free choice of others will be. Thank you for the debate