BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Teachers should have guns in school

Lol you copied and pasted r1 to r2 Okay on to the argument Teachers should not have guns 1. The presence of a gun can turn a petty or small situation into a lethal one When a teacher needs to diffuse a uncontrollable situation they have to call the school police officer. If they happen to obtain a gun then the teacher may pull a gun on them or the student themself may snatch the gun and use it against a teacher or another student. The school is a gun-free zone for a reason. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com... (This source is linked to police shootings but can easily be applied to any situation) 2. Intimidation Students may feel intimidated or threatned with the very notion of a gun near them. I am a high school student myself and lockdown drills (Drills where a shooter is in the school) make some kids very scared, one even passed out. Now make that a gun in the classroom and you will see my point. Not only this but this will make teacher to student interactions a lot more tense. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 3. Talking can be a greater weapon than a gun If a student or an intruder comes into your classroom pulling your gun will not only endanger you but the children as well in the classroom. Pulling guns on people makes them even more enraged and can lead to a massacre if you aren't the fastest trigger puller. Talking someone out of it is not only easier but is widely used by teachers to defuse situations. Here is a story of a teacher who defused a situation really quickly with just words. http://www.theguardian.com... 4. Guns just make things worse Guns are 22 times more likely to be used in suicide than for self defense A gun in a petty situation can make it lethal and not even for the defender. Sometimes the defender is the one who dies. Do we really need that in our classrooms? http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...
Necrophilia Should be Legalized

Here is my argument against legalizing Necrophilia: 1. It is Unsanitary This link states that "To those in close contact with the dead, such as rescue workers, there is a health risk from chronic infectious diseases which those killed may have been suffering from and which spread by direct contact, including hepatitis B and hepatitis C, HIV, enteric intestinal pathogens, tuberculosis, cholera and others" (https://en.wikipedia.org...). In other words, if getting in close contact does these things then it is dangerous for a person to even consider having sex with a dead person. These diseases could then be further spread when the necrophiliacs encounter with other people. 2. It is Immoral Not only does this disrespect the dead (when they have permission or not), but it is a practice that is highly immoral. Having sex with the dead does absolutely nothing good. It only causes harm to the necrophiliacs mental state and it causes diseases to spread. The only thing it does is satisfy some creeps desire to have sex with a dead course. I can guarantee that the majority of people will not be interested in allowing some creep to have special privileges especially since the practice causes harm to society. 3. If you legalize this for the reasons mentioned you could also legalize pedophilia (https://www.google.com...). Are you aware that there is a movement for pedophiles to have the same rights as homosexuals (http://www.greeleygazette.com...)? These ideas about legalization are so bad that I couldn't have made it up. Your arguments could literally be used to support pedophilia. As long as the children agree to what happens and as long as it is deemed as safe, it should be legal. Don't you understand how messed up your argument is? The line has to be draw somewhere. Most of the time we make decisions on what benefits society. Since Necrophilia and pedophilia only (sort of) benefits some creeps and not the society as a whole, it should not be legal. Refuting your arguments: a. Economic Benefit? You make a huge assumption with this point. You assume that there are enough people out there that want their bodies to be molested by some creep after they die. I can assure you that most people don't want this to happen. The business' would fail because the majority of people wouldn't want necrophilia to be legalized. Normal people don't want to have sex with dead people. You also need to provide some evidence that this would benefit the economy. b. Happiness Benefits? This sure wouldn't make me happy. The only people it would make happy are the lunatics that want to have sex with dead people. But legalizing it would cause unhappiness to society since it causes diseases to spread. And furthermore, the governments main focus (if at all) is not on the happiness of the people. Governments have to think of the society as a whole and not just on the very few people out there that want special privileges. You also make the assumption that there will be many people would be willing to pay for such a service.
Necrophilia Should be Legalized

In order to win this debate, I have to prove that necrophilia should be legalized. I do not have to prove that every instance of necrophilia should be legalized, just that it should be under certain circumstances. Outline: Under my plan to legalize necrophilia it will be legal under the following circumstances: 1-Permission was given by either the dead person prior to their death or by their family to be used for sex after they die. 2-The body is preserved, the same way bodies are before burial and thrown out if deemed unusable. (1) Now that has been established, I’ll enter my arguments. C1-Economic Benefits This is simple. The majority of people who would be willing to have their or their family’s corpse for sexual reasons would need some sort of incentive. Incentive wise, this will probably be financial. This means that a business will probably have to be formed dedicated to necrophilia and people would have to pay for it. This will create economic growth, because it will create jobs needed to preserve the body and could be a quite profitable industry. The extent to which this will create economic growth is unknown, but it likely will occur. C2-Happiness Benefits Legalizing necrophilia would increase happiness. If people are willing to pay for necrophilia, it is clearly something they want. Governments obviously want their people to be happy and necrophilia can bring pleasure to people (while not harming anyone). Everyone knows people like sex and necrophilia can be an easy way to get sex, for people who may otherwise have trouble doing so. Plus, many people have sexual fantasies of various types and necrophilia opens up the opportunity for that. However, even if some people don’t understand it, it need not be understood to know it increases happiness for people paying for it. If anyone wishes to pay for something, they deemed it worthwhile. Pretty much everyone values money (to at least some degree), so anyone willing to part with it felt that they would receive something better. Thus, anyone who would pay for necrophilia would see it as worthwhile way to spend their money and believe it is a positive impact and therefore it increases their happiness. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *This argument was pretty short and to the point, but I imagine Con will have a lot to rebut with, so I’ll have more to say in rebuttals and defense.* Source: 1-http://www.afif.asso.fr...
The US Should Enforce a Mandatory Military Service Law, Similar to Israel.

I believe that there should not be a mandatory military service law similar to the one in Israel. Let's start by stating the obvious: The law in Israel is discriminatory against Arabs. Arabs are not conscripted into the army, and this would need to be fixed if a law like this were to be implemented. People who are conscripted are usually unable to pursue higher education, and although some join the army for free education and similar benefits, I doubt a conscription law would allow this, beside if we decided to implement something similar to the Talpiot program, which is only for the highest achieving students and would not let others get a college degree. This seems like it would be similar to the draft, but on a larger scale, which would bring back so-called "Draft Dodging," which was a very common occurrence during the Vietnam war, and would cause the population of the US to take a small bottleneck. Another way to dodge being conscripted is doing drugs, which would cause many people to start using drugs such as Marijuana and Cocaine, which would degrade society for obvious reasons. Finally, Israel is following in the US and Europe's footsteps by trying to copy how they ended drafting. Draft-dodging is at an all time high in Israel, as well as budgetary reasons calling for its closure. I look forward to seeing my opponent's justification of his side of the story. Cert
The US Should Enforce a Mandatory Military Service Law, Similar to Israel.

I will be taking the pro stance on this one, and the opponent will be delegated as con. Rules: Round 1 - Opponent may make opening argument Round 2 - Argument Round 3 - Argument Round 4 - Rebuttals Round 5 - Opponent will use this round for a brief summary ONLY, and pro will be allowed to continue and summarize argument, for an equal distribution of speaking time. Definitions: Enforce - (verb) Compel observance of or compliance with (a law, rule, or obligation) Mandatory - (adjective) Required by law or rules; compulsory. Military - (noun) The armed forces of a country. Service - (noun) The action of helping or doing work for someone. Please, no trolling or offensive language. I am looking for a serious argument. Sources: https://www.merriam-webster.com...
The Body Positive is not really positive

Ok! Thank you for your answer once again. The information seems to be quite interesting. I've watched some videos about Kristina Golovchenko. Though I believe this case has nothing to do with The Body Positive Movement - Kristina just requires some medical and psychological help. She doesn't even love her body, right? Thus, the case represents a perfect example for my first argument, which was health. Besides, I agree with you that "there is something in us that needs to be accepted" though I've already mentioned it above claiming that "self-acceptance is a long road." Like self-acceptance, tolerance is something that need to be learnt.However, let us go back to the Body Positive Movement. And here goes my third argument, which is FASHION. I explain it below. I will try to be as brief as possible.On the one hand, there are some people who like to show off. On the other hand, there is social trends (such as The Body Positive) that provokes a disruptive social reaction. As a result, people who aim at drawing public attention use these social trends in their own selfish way. For instance, some girls cease shaving their legs and armpits only to post the hairy body parts photos on Instagram etc. People sometimes do stupid things just to show off. The Body Positive Movement here works as an instrument of crime. I do not want to say that showing off is a crime (an instrument of crime is just a figure of speech). Still, we should be careful with such peculiar trends and shouldn't cross the line of prudence unless we want be freaks of course. Besides, people shouldn't follow all the trends blindfold. Fashion changes but a bit of critical thinking is never too much.Considering my third argument, I stick to the opinion that The Body Positive is negative and in particular cases even harmful. Thank you for your attention!
The Body Positive is not really positive

I understand you perfectly. I share your opinion that it is necessary to work on ourselves. and we must do this, so as not to justify our flaws in appearance. But what about those people who, for example, have burns all over their body, the most terrible form of acne, which can not be eliminated even by the beauticians of Hollywood, or a psychological dependence on food in connection with a child trauma due to rape (for example - Kristina Golovchenko). Sometimes there is something in us that needs to be accepted, because people are not almighty - they are sometimes really powerless.
The Body Positive is not really positive

To begin with, thank you for your answer. I find your arguments quite curious. I agree with you that The Body Positive was meant to serve for solely positive goals. Still, as I've already said above something went wrong. Thus, I can't agree with you completely. So here goes my second argument, which is JUSTIFICATION. I suggest to take a look at the argument, considering two major aspects of each person's life: self-acceptance and self-improvement.Firstly, I insist that self-acceptance is a long road. Even Rome wasn't built in a day therefore it may take you years and years to make the skin you're in better. Self-acceptance is a winding road. It requires direct action including physical exercises, medical intervention, psychological training and so forth. No one disputes that perfection is unreachable. Still, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't try. They say practice makes perfect. I say action makes perfect. Self-improvement is a continuous process that shapes our personality, making us stronger and boosting our confidence. Conversely, The Body Positive Movement claiming that "Women of any weight, age, race, measurement or proportion can be/are BEAUTIFUL" may serve as a justification for inaction.Secondly, there is a well-known fact that some people are lazy, weak or simply indifferent. They simply lack initiative or boldness to take action. Therefore, some Body Positive ideas including your argument "The <...> movement sets the challenge of getting women to accept themselves and other women on a fundamental level, in spite of "flaws" and "imperfections," so that we may embrace and adore those oddities." may serve as a justification for indifference. Such concept make you calm down, sit down and be happy with what you get. Personally I suppose that people should not stand still. Conversely, I suggest that self-improvement constitutes an essential part of every person's life. Unlike self-acceptance, self-improvement is a road without an end. Seneca once said that Vivere militāre est which meant to live is to struggle. Now let me paraphrase it saying that to live is to develop as self-improvement is a struggle as well. Considering my second argument, I stick to the opinion that The Body Positive is negative and in particular cases even harmful. Thank you for your attention!
The Body Positive is not really positive

MEDIA makes us believe that there is something wrong with our bodies. After all, companies and organizations gain greatly when women waste millions on diet fads and untouched gym memberships, when those women could save hundreds by being comfortable in their own skin. The body positivity movement is about health, identity and self-respect. Women of any weight, age, race, measurement or proportion can be/are BEAUTIFUL. The appreciation of curves and physical diversity reduces fat-shaming, bulimia, anorexia, depression and bullying among women everywhere, based on the fact that it"s about acceptance. The body positive movement sets the challenge of getting women to accept themselves and other women on a fundamental level, in spite of "flaws" and "imperfections," so that we may embrace and adore those oddities. A great way to talk about what body positivity is, is to talk about what it isn"t. It isn"t about eroticizing or sexualizing, nor is it about tolerance" it"s about softening the frown of superficiality, and revisiting points in history where women were praised for curvaceousness outside of a subgroup.
The Body Positive is not really positive

Perhaps, many people have heard something about the recent trend - The Body Positive Movement. At first the movement seems to be completely healthy. What could be wrong with accepting your body as it is? Still, the question is not as simple as it may seem. The concept of the Body Positive is often misinterpreted. Such misinterpretations are fatal not only for a single person, but also for a whole society. Therefore I insist that the movement can't be called positive. And here goes my first argument, which is HEALTH.Firstly, you can accept your body as long as it's healthy. I believe there are some things that can't be accepted. Moreover, there are some problems that can't be solved by simple acceptance. For instance, health problems. The thing is that by chance particular health problems affect our appearance, thus causing lack of self-confidence and making the unhealthy person disgusting for other people. To solve the problems person should consult a doctor, which sometimes represent another problem due to psychological and economic factors.Secondly, I'm convinced that one can't make himself or herself love his or her body simply saying "Ok, I accept myself as I am because each body is perfect" It's a delusion. It's a self-suggestion. It's a placebo. Time spent on worthless declarations and exclamations may negatively affect your condition leading to the health aggravation. On the contrary, to love your body means to respect your body. To respect your body means to take care of your body.Finally, I believe The Body Positive Movement represents a radical reaction to another recent trend which is plastic surgery. While the 2nd variant helps you achieve fake perfection with an operating knife, the 1st one denies perfection as it is. And as a result, it cuts both ways. These two variants only create the illusion of self-confidence. The Body Positive, just as plastic surgery, works for those who refuse to take direct action. Besides, both are unhealthy. People tend to see things in black and white. Why couldn't we see the shades of grey? Or - what is even better - why couldn't we mix them up with more vivid colours?Considering my first argument, I stick to the opinion that The Body Positive is negative and in particular cases even harmful. Thank you for your attention!
Whoever can write the worst essay wins!

YO LISTEN UP NIGGAZZ MY ESSAY IS BOUT TO DOW DOWN YO.... http://www.youtube.com...1, 2, 3, on the page I write my poetry,This is meant ot be an essay but I structure it stupidly,The writer of the worst essay is me that's too easy to see,It's like a mystical, beast that came in the midst of a bunch of sexy... mother? sister? grandmothers?... sh!t dude... I need to rhyme better...Anyway... LEMME GET STRAIGHT TEW DA POINT YEH?!!BAYSIKALLEE I CANNOT POSSIBLEE FAIL TEW WRAYTE DA WERST ESSAY CAWS YA MATHA, MY MATHA, YOUR SISTER AND HER FRIENDS AWL DISAGREE WIV DA STATEMENT INIT BRUV?!!!Wait what the fck am I writing 'bout?!... Oh sh*t I'm meant to not be writing as I think... Oh sh*t WHAT THE HECK YOU LOGICALLY CRAZY BRAIN SCREW YOU STOP IT I MUST GET TO DA POINT OF DA ESSAY BLADRIN! FOW FARCK'S SAKE DEWD!!OH YEHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????WTEWYHERETE%$$^%RTU^%DA PONT OF DEE WHOLE ESSAY IS AS FOLLOWS...DA NEEDS OF DA MANY IS ACTUALLY LESS IMPORTANT DAN DA NEEDS OF A POWERFUL FEW COS LAIK WELL... YEW SEE...Basically, if I were to take your mother, and believe me the MAJORITY of guys needs dat b!tch all up on their d!cks, and say yo niggaz dis white b!tch is up in da ghetto let's bang here as a gang you know bad man 'ting? DEN she would be all like... "NOOOO SAVE ME!" YOu gettin' me blud?! So DEn you comes in wiv your... like guns an' sh*t and you iz all laik "YO LISTEN ME I GON AN AK 47 bout to blow yo brains out to save my muttha and actually DIS IS IMPORTANT!" now yew iz powerful few while dem is da majority ad your muttha DOES NOT GGET RAPED THANKS TO SELECT FEW BEING POWERFUL WOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!Dat is all for now bladrin, I wish you a nice day, a nice life and hope to see your muttha some time soon innit ;)
Whoever can write the worst essay wins!

Assignment: Should the needs of the many outweigh the desires of a powerful few? This is my essay that I wrote and I am here today to talk about the prompt that you had gave. I agree that majority rules and the few shouldnt be special. My examples are next The majority rules cause on my basketball team thats what my coach says. Also! in school my teacher says that our class gets to vote on what we do sometimes. And sometimes we get to do what we want. These are my examples This is my first example heres my second one out of the 3 that I will be talking about today. Sometimes when I don"t want to do something I will tell my parents what I shoud do; and they say to do stuff. So I listen and I am the majority and they are the special few so that happends someitimes. I don"t have a 3th example cause I forget I only have 2 not 3. SO: as you see by many many well thoughted examples. my essay is very nice and thoughtful. and I hope that you see how well it is done. My conclusion is yes to the prompt if you had been wondering.
Marijuana legalization

I believe in freedom for all. If you really are afraid of getting addicted to marijuana from others second hand smoke (LOL) my advice is to avoid such places. Especially cool cities such as Vancouver and Denver. I don't think your medieval thinking would go over that well. One would think if we truly did live in a democratic society the majority would have a say on the subject and we both fully understand that the overwhelming majority can think of better ways the police and courts could use their tax money. The law truly is as laughable as the rule of thumb law that was one day actually in writing. Do you believe marijuana to be a gateway DRUG ? (Lol)
Should drones be illegal in the USA

The Pro repeatedly mentions the fact that he/she fears the idea of a drone/plane collision, and bases their arguments on that. This fear is not illogical. Plane/drone collisions are possible (though not frequent, if existent), and have lately come closer to colliding than other times. [1]However, the Pro argues that drone should be completely and utterly illegal, which I strongly disagree with. The FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) sets rules and regulations as to who and what are allowed in the big blue sky; and they are seemingly coming closer to an agreement on approving drones above. [2]As the Con, I am arguing that drones should not be illegal in the USA, but rather that the FAA aproves drone use with the given rules and regulations. I do believe there are limits to what drones should be able to do, however, they are generally beneficial and should not be outlawed in this country.[1]: http://www.washingtonpost.com...[2]: http://www.usatoday.com...
Should drones be illegal in the USA

while I do agree with some of your points, people flying these drones could and have caused major problems. Personally I would be freaked out if a drone hit a plane I was on and the pilot had to turn it around because the engine was failing or if the plane fell. Planes carry dozens of people and it would be a serious tragedy if all of them (or most) had lost their lives to some guys joyriding their toy drone for amusement.