BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
food stamps are right for those who r not lazy and are the poorest among us

No, no... free market trade works! See, the fact that we don't "let people grow their own corn" shows that America, despite basing its social structure off of Capitalism, is not truly Capitalist. But let's get back to the topic at hand, shall we? Yes, people who have nothing probably will be willing to work hard. Be this as it may, the situation that you proposed is not how the food stamp system works. Tell me, if you could get 5 pounds of Wheat Thins for two days work OR you could get 5 pounds of Wheat Thins for no work, which would you choose? Obviously, you would choose to not work. Food stamps promote laziness. If I get free food for not doing anything, why should I pursue a job? I therefore believe it would be far better to lighten the apparently ferocious regulations regarding corn-growing rather than give free food to everyone who is to lazy to get a job. VFD
food stamps are right for those who r not lazy and are the poorest among us

if you are in poverty enough to have food stamps, you dont have much going for you. i dont knw many who would rather have no monety and food v have monety and food by working a little. there might be a few bad apples, but you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. you say they sbould be able to eat but you dont want to give them food stamps. how else are they suppose to eat? we won't let them grow corn, either. how does the capitalist theory fix this? i fear it doesn't. that's why laissez faire capitialism is unfair and doesn't work.
food stamps are right for those who r not lazy and are the poorest among us

Yes, hard-working people who are unable to obtain sustenance should be given an opportunity to get food. The government, however, is under no obligation to provide this food. See, in this Capitalist society, people must work hard to obtain necessities. If the government starts giving away food, there is less incentive to actually work. Food Stamps therefore change hard working Americans into lazy leeches who steal from the tax payers. Now, while this is not guaranteed, examples of this are seen in Socialism and Communism. Take, for example, the USSR. The people, promised that they would be fed in exchange for hard work, agreed to the system immediately. However, upon receiving the same amount of food as a lazy person, a hard working person would not work as hard. Food Stamps are the same way. Hard working Americans take advantage of the system, stop working, and get food for free from the Federal Government. How is this fair? Since Food Stamps cannot be used effectively, they should not be used at all. VFD
Does God Exist? Part 3

Hello :) I'm sorry it took me a while to start part 3. It would be nice if you would continue the conversation with me, click decline if you do not wish to. If you do want to, I would like you, in this round, to explain why god DOES exist, just like I explained why he DOESN'T in first part. Because morality was a very big issue in part 2, I would also like to talk about that topic. The bible is full of stories that present false morals, which I VERY much hope you can agree, I gave a few examples in part 1. These morals are extremely wrong. According to the bible a man can marry two women, which of course in our modern society it is not allowed. Do you really think this is the way we should live? People can be immoral AND religious. That's why there are christian (and other religions) hate groups, and there ARE people who do BAD things (raping for example) and they are often not atheist, therefore - believe in God. that proves religion and faith and God have nothing to do with morals. The 'Everyone's-a-sinner-only-Christians-go-to-heaven-regardless-of-their-sins' to me is the ultimate proof for why religion has nothing to do with morals. According to that, you can be a KKK member, or you (for example), which I hope you are are not a lawless criminal (? :) both deserve to go to heaven. And that also means a Buddhist, who is just like you except his religious point of view, goes to hell, and also a raper, killer, thief of a religion who is not christian should also go to hell. That actually says: Good=Bad, which I can't accept. That puts the belief issue the thing that matters the most to god, not our morals, and how we choose good or bad. To me, this is WRONG. If God exists and he has his own morals, then why do his morals don't make sense to me - and a lot of other people? And then, he judges me for not believing he exists ? He's actually judging HIMSELF! There is no point in hell (other than scare people into religion). I think you made a comparison between hell and prison, and i would like to tell you this: Prison has a very clear purpose: -to remove dangerous people from society to protect it -to make people stop breaking the law by Rehabilitation. -warning for other potential criminals but hell, has absolutely NO purpose! Think about the start of this idea - heaven and hell according to Christianity. Doesn't it look like the perfect way to get people to believe in your religion? I would like you to answer those questions if you can. Waiting for your positive/negative response.
does friendship need technology to survive

I do concede that there are some negative aspects of social media, and that sometimes it can be a burden on relationships. However, the benefits of social media greatly outweigh the disadvantages. In retaliation to you point about events and not being invited: that has nothing to do with social media. In fact it has nothing to do with technology. Social media only serves to let people know of the events that are happening around them. The idea, organization, and hosting of any event are all actions of humans, not social media/technology. So blaming social media for people's actions is entirely unfounded. I also don't think that the drama caused on social media is totally the fault of social media. As I mentioned before, social media is only a medium through which individuals communicate, and express themselves. And just like any other medium, the users are solely responsible for their actions through the medium, and not the medium itself. I don't have numbers, but it stands to reason that when teens experience drama on facebook, instagram, etc; it is more likely that the conflict is caused by the teens' behavior, and not by a simple misunderstanding, though that can rarely happen. Again as I said before, social media is a fairly new invention. It will definitely get better as the time goes on, and the problems that we are facing now will surely be a thing of the past. It will allow people to connect much more effortlessly than ever before. It will help people to maintain relationships across different parts of the world, and even forge new ones.
does friendship need technology to survive

53% of teens who use social media have seen people post about events to which they were not invited. FOMO is never fun. And 42% have had someone post things on social media about them that they cannot change or control. Sadly, 21% report feeling worse about their own life because of what they see from other friends on social media. We all experience this though, and it"s important to remember that your feeds are probably making someone else a tad bit jealous too. Instead of feeling envious, try questioning yourself about why you"re feeling the way you do. Chances are, it"s something you can change, join in on too or aren"t even really interested in! And it can cause major drama. 68% of teen social media users (52% of all teens) say they"ve experienced drama among their friends on sites like Facebook, Instagram, etc. And 26% of all teens have had a conflict with a friend over something that happened online or over text messages. If you know this person IRL through, it"s always a good idea to talk it out in person next time you see each other. It"s super easy to have a misunderstanding when you"re not face to face. So, as you can see, technology can cause some friendships to end or create animosity
does friendship need technology to survive

Technology has allowed us to live in the world we are living in today. Technology is the medium that allows people to communicate, socialize, and have interests. Without technology there would be no jobs, since any type of career requires a certain level of technology, even centuries ago. In a world without technology, humans would just be another species of animals on this planet. They would have no interests, hobbies,or ambitions. They would just live to eat, drink, and reproduce. Aside from the fact that there would be no opportunities for friendships, there would be no need for friendships.
does friendship need technology to survive

To start with Technology and friendship are two very distinct entities and to say one depends on the other would be silly. Friendship has lasted throughout the centuries and it did not need technology to sustain it. Good friends bond over mutual interests and respect for one another. While technology might help them keep in touch over a long distance, our ancestors have done the same in the past through simple mail. Technology is merely a tool, and the survival of friendship does not and never will depend on it.
Nintendo Death Battle: Player's Choice

Thank you for accepting. Here's why I'd believe Meta Knight could win;Strength: Meta Knight is capable of fighting through various areas, defeating Dyna Blade (a powerful giant bird), destroyed his own ship Halberd (by breaking the vital areas), and taking down the universe's greatest warrior, Galacta Knight, on different occasions. [ 8:00 is Dyna Blade, around 16:53 is infiltrating Halberd, 30:02 is Galacta Knight. I posted a speedrun since you'll waste less time.][Here's Galacta Knight's page: http://kirby.wikia.com... ]Durability: Meta Knight can take a few hits from the enemies mentioned above. He's also fought Kirby several times and puts up quite the fight. With Galaxia's powers, he can heal himself to full.[http://kirby.wikia.com...]Speed: Meta Knight is rather quick, especially with Meta Quick (previous source).Galaxia: Galaxia is Meta Knight's sword, and it's helped him in various fights. It can light fuses, pound pegs, destroy large obstacles Kirby'd need a robot for, and take Meta Points from its victims, storing at most 50. These points allow him to use Galaxia's powers to heal, increase speed, and use attacks such as Mach Tornado (a full screen attack), and Galaxia Darkness (he swings his cape and damages anyone caught in it).I think that's enough for now. What can Link do?
Nintendo Death Battle: Player's Choice

I've decided to get back into Death Battle debates. You're allowed to choose almost any Nintendo character you want in Round 1.Rules:1) Your character can't summon or have any assistance. It will soley be 1v1.2) Neither character can teleport. This is to negate potential loops of teleporting to dodge attacks.3) Pokemon are allowed (if you're choosing a "3 in 1" pokemon like Magneton, I'll allow it).4) Whoever would get knocked unconscious or dies first loses.5) The fight will be in an arena 30 meters wide and 30 meters long. Fleeing isn't an option.6) Each character will be in their prime (most powerful, and usually most common) state.7) Both characters have time to ready their weapons, but otherwise they have no prep time.8) You can choose any character from the following series by Nintendo: Mario, Legend of Zelda, Star Fox, Kirby, Splatoon, Arms, Pokemon, Metroid, Kid Icarus, Fire Emblem, Punch Out, Yoshi, and Donkey Kong Country. (If you're wondering if your character counts as Nintendo, ask in the comments before accepting)9) Here's a list of characters that seem too powerful, and thus banned: Hades (Kid Icarus Uprising), Palkia, Dialga, Arceus, Yveltal (Pokemon). There's still plenty of characters to choose from, though!10) All claims you make should be backed up with evidence. Matchups or tier lists in Smash Bros won't count as reliable evidence.11) Removing the opponent from the field won't count towards a victory. Even if this means into a volcano or whatever, it won't be allowed.12) No adding information in the final round as I'll be unable to properly respond.13) If you fail to follow these rules, you'll forfeit the debate.The character I'm choosing is Meta Knight (from the Kirby series). Good luck to both fighters.
A one world government

Perhaps a one world currency isn't such a bad idea but there would be no need for a one world army seeing as we aren't going to be invaded by Mars or something. Plus what about power addicts? Thinking about world war two for example. If there had been your idea of a one world government the world would be in a worse state. People like Hitler will always exist. Those who want power and won't rest until they get it. When these power maniacs come into power the only reason we can stop them is because we have something of more or equal power. For example we could only defeat the Nazi Party and end the Holocaust because we had a British Government which was matched in power to Hitler. If we didn't have that we wouldn't have the ability to beat him would we? Things like that aren't only happening in those days no no. There are many Hitlers in the world. People always come into power. And when these power maniacs do the only reason we can stop them is because we have equal power. Supposing one of these power maniacs got to be the one world government. We do NOT have equal power. There is no equal power. There is only one government remember? and this government has all the power in the world. For this reason we have nothing of equal power. Thus the Hitler of this century wins. A OWG for that reason could do some very very big harm and might possibly lead to the end of humanity.
A one world government

It would defeat the idea of a OWG if there were departments for each country. Because when you think about it the departments may not have the TITLE "government" but they match the definiton dont they? "the group of people with the authority to govern a country or state; a particular ministry in office."-definition of government The departments match this definition dont they? So there you are. Plus without the idea of these departments then the government for the whole world won't be good. If it was just one group of people in charge of running the whole world it wouldn't fit would it? As I have explained. Taking the example of currency. Each country has different needs for currency don't they? Each bank is different and thus needs different things. If there was only one group in charge of all these banks they would have to fit ideas into all the banks needs. And what one bank might need the other bank might not. It would be so much work. What's more convenient? One group to look after all the banks in the world or one group for each bank? As you can see it'll be a bad idea if option two is not taken. And if option two IS taken it does defeat the idea of being a OWG because while it may have the title of "department" it has the definition of a government. So it more or less for that reason IS a government.
A one world government

In Australia things work quite oddly. The middle of the land is very very hot. Where as the outskirts are much cooler. So people tend to live around the outside. Their needs as you can see from that will be very different from the needs of that of Britain which doesn't need as much help keeping cool. With a one world government the only thing you could really say to solve these mixtures is that there will be a department in the government one for each country and each one is supposed to meet its national needs. But that kind of defeats the idea of it being a one world goverment doesn't it?
A one world government

Just because a government doesn't have it building in a certain place doesn't mean that it can't stop crimes. What you said is silly. The government doesn't deal with serial killers the police do. So the police will deal with the issue in that country. That's like me saying because the government is based in London they can't deal with problems in Leeds? & yes other countries do have different needs to others. But the role of a one world government would be to attend to these needs as best as possible. It'd be good if countries from all over the world could vote in one person to represent their country. Then whoever they vote in goes into the one world government. There wouldn't be 'one ruler' it'd be a group of people. A new world order.
A one world government

Well each country is on a different land isn't it? each country is separated by an ocean. If there were to be a one world government where would it be stationed? Let's say for example the one world government was in Australia. The role of a government is to protect the people. There is a serial killer in London which is killing residents of the city. As the government they must stop it musn't they? But... From AUSTRALIA its quite hard to protect Britain. Unless you could say the one world government had more then one base which was stated on each country the plan wouldn't work out. Even when there is a base on each country its not REALLY a one world government then is it? Plus each land that is a country needs different needs. So the government itself would have to think of solutions to each countries problem. Where as a solution to a problem in America may not be the solution to a problem in Russia. Each of the countries needs are different. Plus think of the LEADER of this government. He has control over the entire world. He is more or less the king of the world. You say as long as they make choices for the good of people then its ok. Supposedly you are correct. But as I have said the good of the americans may be different from the good of the british. Let's say one country is swarming with disease which is killing many residents. But another country is clean and no disease is spread. There are a lot of problems in countries which are much more convientently solved if each country has its own government rather then there being a one world government.
A one world government

And the problem is? There would be nothing wrong with a government to have full control, would there? As long as they make choices which is for the good of the people, and corporations, then what is the issue? And people could still speak up if they wanted to. It's not like it would be an evil, fascist group, which would kill anyone who stands up, would it? It'd be a democracy. You'd still be able to vote on things. and have a say on things.
A one world government

I would have to disagree. It would mean so much power. If all the nations were gathered into one and there was only a single goverment that one government would have all the power in the world. There is an amount of power in the world today. This power is split into equal bits for each government. Supposing all this power was given to just one government of the whole world. That government would be so powerful they could just do as they wished. All the power would be theirs. There is no opposing them. What you are basically saying is lets say all the power in the world belonged to one government. You cannot oppose them. This government can do as they please and nobody can stop them. You CANT oppose them. No matter how strong you are. Because this government has all the power in the world. No opposing them.
A one world government

So I was wondering about how the world would look if we were to have a one world government. The world would have just one government with complete control over all nations. This would obviously require so much hard work for it to ever come true but I believe that we could do it, if we joined together as one. There wouldn't need to be countries as we would have only one flag. We would all live together as one. We would be greater, richer and smarter. What do you people think?
White privilege exists

This "bad faith debating" you think I'm doing is just an ad hominem, it's not an actual argument. I never moved the goalposts because I've had a consistent standard all throughout: you have to prove society as a whole is doing something, which you have never done. Nobody's getting angry either, you're just saying that to make me look irrational even though I've been pointing out simple flaws in your argument. No, I'm not gonna google your claims, because they are your claims and it is your job to back them up, not me. I never said somebody should have to change their name to get a callback, that is a straw man. Names do not have a race, they are names, not people. You provided very little evidence that this is a societal trend and even if you did, that would prove people are judged on their names, not their races. Merely saying people should vote for you is not gonna do anything; if you were confident in your argument, you wouldn't even have to ask :). Good day to you.
White privilege exists

Con continually refuses to engage the Pro advocacy. They move the goalpost after burdens have been met, get caught in actual instances of affirming white privilege, and get angry when they're told to read a source posted in the debate. It is impossible to have a debate with someone who won't engage the arguments in good faith. If my opponent won't do the work to understand the arguments I'm making, yet still demand that I explain myself better, then he deserves to lose. This debate has had a 24 hour time limit for posting, Con has never taken more than 1-4 hours to post. This debate could have been far more productive, so for both substance and conduct I urge a Pro vote. Voters- 1) Black hair - I explain in round one how typical standards of professionalism unfairly privilege white hair, and how natural black hair is somehow determined to be unprofessional. At Con's request I offer three more examples in round two, and go on to explain how this isn't an isolated thing. All you have to do is google black hair discrimination, and you will more data than you know what to do with. Con can't be bothered to do this, so this flows Pro. 2) Whitewashing names - People of color can have 'white' names. Yes, I get that they're western names and they're common in the US; that is not the point. Just because Luke is a common american name doesn't mean that someone named Lei should have to go by it to get a job callback. The fact that the same applicants can double their callback rates with a name change is white privilege. There is absolutely no effort on Con's behalf to engage this argument. 3) Conduct is not an explicit voting issue in this round, but I ask that voters use their RFD to reflect how bad-faith debating harms the activity.
White privilege exists

Ok you keep using the term "good faith." You cannot just say I'm not putting up a good enough argument because I have a disagreement with you, and merely telling people to "vote pro" is not actually gonna convince them. The reason I say it doesn't apply to everyone is because you have not proven it applies to everyone. If there is a systematic discrimination then you must prove it's more widespread than a few anecdotal examples. That goes for names and hair; you would need to prove it is a societal trend to discriminate. Preferring someone for the culture is not the same as preferring their race. How do I know that? If a black person subscribed to typical American culture (key word: American, not white), then by your logic they would be fine, but if people were actually discriminated by their race, a black person would be at a disadvantage no matter their name or hairstyle. You'd have to prove that race is a factor, not the way people dress themselves or act.