BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The US Government Should Legalize & Encourage Rape

In order for the U.S government to legalize/ban an action, it must be under the intentions for the general good/benefit of society. The government should only concerned whether the legalization/ban will benefit the society as a whole or not. With that being said, the government must function in a way so it guarantees rights to all citizens, to create a practical society where no specific group is discriminated or harmed. (1) The first duty of government: Protection, Liberty, and the Fourteenth Amendment. If a government legalizes rape, rape cases will go up. India"s rape cases have been on the steady increase due to poor government/law systems. (2) Protection means when a government grants its citizens 3 basic rights. The first right is related to the status of the individual: To be under the protection of the law meant to have the status of a freeman and a citizen. Second aspect referred to substantive rights: Protection meant that the law recognized and secured an individual's rights to life, liberty, and property. Finally, the most basic meaning of protection referred to the enforcement of rights: the specific ways in which government prevented violations of substantive rights, or redressed and punished such violations. Legalizing rape literally guarantees none of these protections, and it is safe to say that rape is counterproductive. This means, the victim of the rape has lost his/her liberty, since it was not under consent, they might lose their life due to harmful beatings during the rape. Death occurs in approximately 0.1 percent rape cases, however this will increase since rape cases will increase. With this being said, women or men are not biological objects in the eyes of a federal level, however human with certain rights. Even if it was viewed as the former, it would not benefit the society as a whole in any way. This is why, rape cannot be justified on a federal level, however can be further argued on a philosophical level.
There are multiple universes

I think that there are infact multiple universes. I think that this is the second universe documented. I mean what was documented after the acts of the apostle and 12,00 years ago??? I think that God created the first universe then it disappeared( I haven't thought up why yet.) And then the Big Bang happened and life started again but with knowledge of science and the planets. I also think that we have evolved after the Big Bang. But seriously... there are multiple universes and dimensions.
Stampylongnose is better than jk Rowling

*Almost dies* What do you MEAN, "no one is famous from a page with words on"? What?? J. K. Rowling is one of the most famous people of all time. And believe it or not, there are still people who can read books. I think the only reason you like Stampy more is because you don't have to do the "hard work" of processing what you have read and turning the pages. I'm sure a lot of Potter fans and many other people on this website will agree with me in that reading is better than watching someone play a game. I don't see the point with you listing those people. What does Steve McFadden (I've never heard of him) got to do with anything? And her name is J. K. Rowling, and Rick Riordan and all of the other people you mentioned have a capital letter at the start of their last names. Logically, when you think about it, J. K. Rowling's fans can read; they must have read the books (Please don't mention the films, I'm not talking about them). So if you think about it, all of them are better readers than Stampy's minuscule amount of fans, having read through thousands of pages and tens of thousands of words. And people who are good readers (and maybe writers; having been inspired) will do better in school. So it's better to read J. K. Rowling's work than watch Stampy Longnose play a game. (I would write more but I need to do my homework now!)
Stampylongnose is better than jk Rowling

Well I see where your coming from with your pervious post but stampy is a more modern person from the 21st century but the thing is as you said j.k Rowling was the first one to be a billionaire off books because no one is famous from a page with words on you see anymore they have moved on to things like broadcasting and being a tv presenter imay list them bellow Broadcasting: Stampylongnose Iballisticsquid Sky does minecraft Diamond minecart And a lot more..., TV presenter: Ant and dec Matt smith Jeremy clarkson Arthur Lowe Richard Hammond James May Clive Dunn Danny dyer Steve McFadden Lots more... Books:: J.k doggy (what ever her name is a) Rick riordan Suzanne Collins And no more 😂😂😂
Stampylongnose is better than jk Rowling

Maybe you didn't see her, but J. K. Rowling was on BBC Breakfast. You can see it at http://www.bbc.co.uk... J. K. Rowling is worth $1 billion, according to http://www.celebritynetworth.com... but Stampy Longnose is worth only $13,032 according to http://www.worthofweb.com.... Yes, they are different websites, but I could not find Stampy Longnose on the first website, which I guess proves that he is not a celebrity. J. K. Rowling was the first person to become a billionaire by writing books. I don't know if Stampy has written a book (and neither does Google, clearly), but I'm pretty sure he isn't a billionaire from writing books; I don't think he even is a billionaire at all.
Stampylongnose is better than jk Rowling

Harry Potter was not written in the 1950's; it was written on the 26 June 1997. And becoming and author is following their dreams; J. K. Rowling has inspired many people. And I don't know many people who would like to play a game for the rest of their life. And people DO like reading books. What would you do if the Internet wasn't there? People would read!
Vaccination has improved people's lives and helped eradicate diseases

Welcome to my first debate ever! Before proceeding, I'd like to lay out some ground rules: 1: Be courteous and remain relevant. 2: See #1. The evidence for vaccination's effectiveness is, in my personal opinion, sufficient to make it difficult (if not impossible) to argue against vaccination. Keep in mind that this is not a debate for or against mandatory vaccination. We are simply debating its effectiveness as a preventative measure for illnesses (I must emphasize "preventative", as vaccines aren't cures). As a starting source, I will post the World Health Organization's fact sheet on Poliomyelitis, a disease that has been eradicated by vaccination: http://www.who.int... If this is insufficient, we can continue onto measles, which has been proven time and again to be effective. Here I post a study by Rob W. H. Ruigrok and Denis Gerlier titled "Structure of the measles virus H glycoprotein sheds light on an effective vaccine": http://www.pnas.org...
Gun rights in the US

I will start by listing multiple incidents of where guns cost many life's and frankly national security at large was penetrated. INCIDENTS OF MASSACRE .I First I reference Columbine, injuring 24 people and 15 killed. These two teenagers 17 and 18 years old got a hold of guns and caused much damage, I think the concept of everyone having relatively free use of a gun is frankly stupid in the 21st century. .II Then there is the Longhorn Tower Shooting, in my hometown in fact. In 1966 a massacre took place perpetrated by a ruthless killer who again, had no monitoring on his use of guns. CONCLUSION I have shown that my opponent's argument is an outdated one indeed.. It has been debunked since his main ground was Militia activity and a document written in September 17, 1787. A very outdated document in a time where there was a constant threat of Native American attacks and war, I don't think that applies in this age. Sources http://www.cbsnews.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.usatoday.com... http://www.thenationonlineng.net...
Gun rights in the US

C1: The US constitution "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms." [1] The second amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." [2] One common argument against guns is the militia statement, well this disproves that statement: "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason The militia is the people! Also the second part even words it out: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" "… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" [3] the courts: "The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states." [4] C2: more guns less crime "Despite increases in gun sales, gun crimes continued to decrease in the United States for the fourth straight year in 2010, according to the FBI." [5] "The statistics indicate that between 2008 and 2009, as gun sales soared, the number of murders in our country decreased 7.2 percent." [6] Due to the fact I am lazy, I will make the opening round short and sweet. http://en.wikipedia.org... [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu... [2] Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2 Article on the Bill of Rights [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://dailycaller.com... [5] http://www.nraila.org...= [6]
Gun rights in the US

I cite multiple incidents and studies proving how guns can harm the average person and in fact do not save lives but instead take more of them. .I "Martin Killias, in a 1993 study covering 21 countries, found that there were significant correlations between gun ownership and gun-related suicide and homicide rates." Sources for study: http://www.crim.upenn.edu... http://en.wikipedia.org... .II My opponent argues how making guns illegal will just increase the amount of gun use. How is that possible? If you make something illegal it forces somebody to have to smuggle it into the country. Much like drugs, the price of a gun will be much much more since you have to take into account your paying a whole new party in the system of you receiving your product. .III Almost every school or public institute in the US makes guns illegal to have on the property. That doesn't mean it is well enforced, and if the government makes it illegal to own guns it makes it even more harder to get guns and they become more expensive so the same argument as .II applies here as well, since security guards on school grounds aren't well armed enough. .IV Militia's are no longer neccasary, instead of using our money on providing gun licences, gun checks etc. etc. that money could be used to provide officers and the army more weaponry. Then guns being illegal the amount of gun crime would go down vastly. Also statistics show that most household guns (if the house is robbed) end up being used for crime. Sources: http://www.stophandgunviolence.com... http://hematite.com... http://www.policyalmanac.org... http://www.afsp.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.guncite.com...
Proactiv is a terrible product.

Woah woah woah, first of all, I said that it affects people differently. I said it works.. for SOME. And DOESN'T for MANY others. ONE friend experienced a decrease in blemishes (but many other new issues). Another (along with many people on the "non-unique" links I posted) experienced an INCREASE. They are NOT the same person. See? I'm not going crazy- no 'double bind' here. And I never said that Accutane was the only other alternative. Didn't you read my conclusion? The only mistake I made in this debate was in Round 1, when I said "I know this product does not work". My poor choice of words, because I was leaving out the few who have experienced positive results. I should have just left it as "it's definitely not what it claims to be", because it's not, and THAT is what I have been backing up this whole time. My debate is titled "Proactiv is a Terrible Product" because it IS. The commercials encourages FALSE hope for many children, teens, and adults. The product has caused so many DIFFERENT problems for DIFFERENT people while the company is getting paid. Anyone who has benefited from Proactiv could have benefited from something else, with the help of a dermatologist if need be. Which reminds me, you never answered the question I asked you in the beginning of Round 2. DID you try anything else first? Lastly, I'd like to point out that if Proactiv is as wonderful as it claims, NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON would have acne, or even a zit for that matter. You admit yourself, that it's not a perfect product, but even if it was as good as you are making it out to be- and the only people who it doesn't work for are the ones who are allergic to some of the ingredients, then ALMOST no one would have acne. But anyway, I'm obviously not gonna get through to you- so I will end here. Good luck, and have fun with all your girlfriends!
Proactiv is a terrible product.

I'll happily stand up for the miraculous product that has made my life so much easier. I would also like to note for the viewers that my opponent's case relies on outside facts and second-hand knowledge. So if I can provide a better source than my opponent, then I will be sufficiently be outweighing my opponent's claims. I myself am a Proactiv user, and I am more than sufficiently happy in the product. Before I started using Proactiv, acne was a huge problem with me. My complexion was absolutly horrid, and people often played conntect-the-dots on my face when I fell asleep in class. A fellow classmate got me a one-month subscription to Proactiv as a joke, but I decided to take the joke seriously and started to use it. And within a week, I could see results. The number of acne marks on my face were decreasing and decreasing in size and redness. Within a month of taking the Proactiv, my face was practically clear of acne! I decided that it was pure coincidence that it happened to clear at the same time I used Proactiv, and stopped using it. Within two weeks, my acne was back and the teasing and slander continued renewed. But this time, I knew that Proactiv worked. Now, being a two-year proud user of Proactiv, I'm acne-free and am fully enjoying life! I've had more girlfriends and have gained in popularity since it cleared, and my life is overall more enjoyable since I'm no longer being berrated for my complexion. To adress my opponent's arguments, it's true that Proactiv does not work for everyone. There are a few people who may be allergic to some of the ingrediants used to create the miracle product. But for the vast majority of Americans, this product works. I'm a living testement to that.
Proactiv is a terrible product.

The so called "acne miracle product", which has been advertised by stars such as Jessica Simpson, Jennifer Love Hewitt, and Katy Perry, definitely is not what it claims to be. I, fortunately, have never had acne or blemish problems, but I KNOW that this product does not work. I know this from reading reviews, seeing proof in pictures, and having friends who have used it and either saw no results or found that it worsened their skin condition. Even since it has been named "new and improved", many children, teens, and adults receive disappointment by the bottle.
Proactiv is a terrible product.

Okay voters, honesty moment. I probably wouldn't give me conduct. I'm going to drop the professionalism and just speak the honest truth this round. If you think it comes off as harsh, dock me points. I could really care less. Now, let's get started, shall we? Her round three was, more or less, a damage control round. For those that don't know, Proactiv is a product that people apply to their face to reduce acne and blemishes. AGAIN, she admits that while on Proactiv, her friend experienced a decrease in blemishes. Flaw number one. This is what puts her in a double bind, but I'll get to that point in a minute. Because she admitted that HER OWN ARGUMENT proves that Proactiv causes a decrease in blemishes, which proves that Proactiv works. That means that no matter what, right here, you can vote con. First and probably easiest place to vote con. Second reason to vote con. She gives no reason why her accounts of second hand proofs that I've already disproven outweigh my living, breathing testemony. She hasn't disproven it in any way, so my account is going to outweigh hers. Also, I've proven from the point above, why her second-hand accounts only prove my point further, so seeing as I have offense coming off of BOTH my case and her case, here's the second place to vote con. Third reason to vote con is the double bind. Let me explain how this works, since my opponent has seemingly missed this one and how it works. A double bind occurs when an opponent contradicts herself so badly that the only way to fix it would be to severely cripple their position or lose entirely. My opponent is put into a double bind when she, as the pro, must defend that Proactiv inherently doesn't work, then says that it does work. This is such a bad contradiction because she either must admit that a) the arguments made in her accounts (that it decreased blemishes) were true, and thus negating the resolution, which is a con vote, or that b) the arguments made in her case were false, thus giving her ZERO offense in this round, which would result in another con vote. Choosing not to do either isn't an option, only resulting in a dropped argument, which merits a con vote.
P.E. is a waste of time and energy

First of all, one must ask themselves why it's a waste and not a spending. aside from the blatant interpretation that Physical Education has provable health benefits let's stick to the definitios of P and E outlined by the proposition and work from there.Attack 1, Grammar/SemanticsJust to be clear, I spell it Phosphorus to please American readers but both 'us' and 'ous' are correct endings depending which English you use.The phrase 'Phosphorus Energy' is gramatically impossible to be anything (including a waste) since 'Phosphorus' is not an adjective and having two nouns together makes no sense in itself.If the resolution is read as 'Phosphorus and Energy is...' then it is gramatically impossible to uphold as that would have to be 'are' since it follows plurals and it's mandatory in English to switch 'is' to 'are' in such scenarios.[1]If it's 'Phosphorus of Energy' that makes no sense.If it's 'Phosphorus or Energy' then perhaps a debate can begin but that would mean that Pro has to prove that they are mutually exclusive in being a waste of time and energy (meaning that one can't be it while the other is).Attack 2, Phosphorus is not a waPhosphorus is found in many places on Earth is one of the single most reactive of the elements.[2]Now, interestingly enough when Phosphorus is part of the greater compound(s) that form dung and waste of animals it is not itself a waste at all. Just because we dub the excrement as 'waste' in no shape or form means that the Phosphorus within the compound goes to waste. Dung is a potent fertilizer and since I can't word it better myself I'm going to quote source, ad verbatim:[3]'White phosphorus is used in flares and incendiary devices. Red phosphorus is in the material stuck on the side of matchboxes, used to strike safety matches against to light them. By far the largest use of phosphorus compounds is for fertilisers. Ammonium phosphate is made from phosphate ores. The ores are first converted into phosphoric acids before being made into ammonium phosphate. Phosphorus is also important in the production of steel. Phosphates are ingredients in some detergents, but are beginning to be phased out in some countries. This is because they can lead to high phosphate levels in natural water supplies causing unwanted algae to grow. Phosphates are also used in the production of special glasses and fine chinaware.' Attack 3, Energy Cannot Be a Waste of ItselfHow can Energy be a waste of energy? It cannot. In fact energy is neither created nor destroyed so only forms of it can be wasted but not energy itself.[4]Attack 4, P in P.E. is wrongly stated to stand for 'Waste (of)'Since I have proven in Attack 2 that Phosphorus is not a waste even when it's in a compound known as dung/excrement then it follows that Pro was wrong to conclude that the 'P' in 'P.E' stands for 'Waste (of)'.Attack 5, How is P.E. a waste of time?Since P.E. is defined by Pro to be a stationary entity time-wise then how is time spent, let alone wasted via it?Sources:[1] https://www.grammarly.com...[2] https://www.ducksters.com...[3] http://www.rsc.org...[4] https://courses.lumenlearning.com...
P.E. is a waste of time and energy

P.E. is a waste of time and energy. Science even dictates this. P on the periodic table is phosphorous. this is found in plant and animal waste. therefore, p stands for waste. In the equation E=mc^2, e stands for energy. therefore, P.E. stands for waste of energy. It is also a waste of valuable time that could be used for preparing for exams or state tests.
Why Should Tony Abott Remain Prime Minister

I am going to assume that this debate is about 'that we should allow tony abbott to remain prime minister of Australia' So firstly, I'll rebut your case -He has helped 625 struggling Australian children When we have a PM with so much power, surely it is in his power and in his jurisdiction to help more than just 625 children? There are over 20 million people in Australia, in a hypothetical situation of 50000 struggling children (less than 1% of the population), he's helped less than 2% of this. Far too little given his circumstances. -62% of charities Where is your source for this? Even if he has helped 62% of charities, by what do you denote 'help'? Does a donation of $1 count as 'help'? Moving onto my substantive 1) He has made a significant amount of decisions that are questionable -Educational reforms, university deregulations -Fighter Jets -Newstart allowance All of these reforms have been met with severe criticism, something that has not been echoed with previous prime ministers for an extended duration. 2) 'Jesus knew that there was a place for everything and it's not everyone's place to come to Australia' -This very quote demonstrates the full extent of Tony Abbott's unfair prejudices to others. His justifications are founded on the weakest pillars of logic as he attempts to justify asylum seekers not being allowed to come to Australia because there will be economic implications. Abbott conveniently ignores the possible pain that is caused to these stakeholders.
Why Should Tony Abott Remain Prime Minister

Tony Abott should remain P.M, because first of all he has helped 62% of charaties in Australia... and BTW (BY THE WAY) HE HAS HELPED ABOUT 625 AUSTRALIAN STRUGGLING CHILDREN!!!!!! OMG.. YOU MIGHT NOT KNOW THIS BUT I DO WANT HIM TO BE SACKED IT IS JUST THAT I HAVE TO DO THIS DEBATE