BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homeless people are homeless by choice

No person would choose to be Homeless. In the United Kingdom, the main causes for homelessness are: 1. High accommodation costs 2. Lack of Jobs 3. Housing Shortages 4. Family Breakdown/ Domestic Violence None of these causes can be controlled by one person. If a homeless person could have a job, a family and a better life, I'm sure that they would do what it takes to get there. 'Laziness' is a word which is thrown around a lot when talking about Homeless people. It is true that some of them might be lazy. But, if you begin to talk to them and understand their stories, you'll learn quite quickly that many of them aren't homeless due to laziness. There is always a valid reason for why they are homeless. I was once speaking to a homeless person, he told me that people would stare at him as if he was an animal when in reality he used to be like them. He was evicted after a loss of assured shorthand tenancy (A law which states that if renting, there must be a time period between when one's being told to move out and when they do, so they can find an alternative housing arrangement). So are they homeless by choice? I don't believe so.
Atheist evolution vs creationism.

Atheist evolution vs Creationism. I will take the atheist evolution point of view, my opponent the creationism side. StructureR1 Acceptance & definitionsR2 ArgumentsR3 RebuttalsR4 DefenseBurden of proof Burden of proof will be shared equally. This is because I am making the affrimative claim and the instiagator, yet am arguing for what is normally accepted in the scientific community. Therefore, the burdens of proof cancel each other out resulting in neutral 50/50 burden of proof. Further explanation of r1 setup. First round is just for acceptance and definitions if need be. Common definitions are assumed, unless otherwise stated and agreed upon. Round two each person will make their argument, but no direct responses to the other person' argument. Focus on making a convincing argument that if not for your opponent's rebuttal would sell your audience. This is the only round to make new arguments for your case. Round three each person will respond directly to their opponent's round two argument pointing out any logical fallacies and attempt to find flaws. Round four each person defends their round argument against their opponent's round three argument. For example if I say that is a cherry picking fallacy in round three in response to my opponents round two, my opponent would explain why me calling their argument a cherry picking fallacy is incorrect.
Atheist evolution vs creationism.

Definition, creationism "Creationism, Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation," as opposed to the scientific conclusion that they came about through natural processes."I agree.Thank you for accepting the debate and being respectful.R2 ArgumentsAlternate explanations for originsThe weight of the scientific evidence shows there is not enough evidence for God to believe in God. Scientific evidence supports the theories that the universe formed from another universe, the multi verse theories. [0] Then, a big bang or series of big bangs occurred. This is the big bang theory and string theories respectively. [1][2]Note all these theories back up the scientific premise of atheism evolution. Just as multiple theories on how photosynthesis evolved all back up the theory of evolution.After the universe was created and the big bang occurred, Earth was formed. There was no life on Earth, but abiogenesis occurred. [3] Again, there are several theories on how exactly the first microorganism occurred, but all back up abiogenesis. Eventually, the first microorganism via evolution evolved into more and more complex lifeforms. This is consistent with Darwin's theory of evolution. Note, Darwin's theory is not the only theory, there is also another scientific theory of evolution created by Lamarck. [4] Again, both theories reinforce the hypothesis of evolution. Effectively, my opponent would have to disprove both Darwin's and Lamarck theories to win. Darwin's is the more likely theory and carries much more weight. As for God, there is no scientific evidence for God or any other supernatural being. Considering the number of people on the planet, this lowers the chances of God existing. Also, consider the number of fields science covers. Think if we look for unicorns in ten supermarkets and find none, we can conclude there is a low probability that unicorns exist. If we then look in another ten supermarkets and find none, this further reduces the chance. Now extend the search to the entire world, the Moon, and Mars and we find no unicorns. This doesn't 100% disprove the existence of unicorns, but it lowers the chances. After-all in another dimension in a far away galaxy unicorns could exist. The same is true with God.Thanks for debating, I look forward to counting this debate.Sources0. http://www.space.com...1. https://science.nasa.gov...2. http://science.howstuffworks.com...3. http://atheism.about.com...4. http://www.differencebetween.net...
Atheist evolution vs creationism.

Creationism, Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation," as opposed to the scientific conclusion that they came about through natural processes. By saying you are opposed to creationism you are taking the atheist point of view meaning you do not believe in the existence of God nor that there is a God, but how can that be, if you believe in science what do you believe? do you believe that there was a big bang, well then if you do, specify, when God created the world who knows? there might have been a loud bang, maybe the loudest, biggest bang you could possibly imagine, but what are you saying? are you saying that nothing turned into something. How can that be. And if you believe that monkeys turned into humans, how can that be? If that was the case why aren't monkeys evolving into humans now, there is absolutely no proof and is there proof that God created the world or that God is even real, but it is all down to choice, and freedom, freedom to choose what you believe, but it make more sense to believe that there is a loving God and a God that created the world and us Humans and animals, Charles Darwin even doubted his theories and admitted in his death bed.
Cigarettes Should Become Completely Illegal In America

1. The source was right there, the first one.2. As I said in No.4., even if people don't smoke in the public, the smell could travel from place to place and people will inhale it anyway, without even smelling it. 3. "...it is not threatening to to the public as a whole." It is. It's harmful to the environment. Because people keep cutting down trees without knowing how to make it grow back again, we're running out of trees by the minute. We don't have enough trees to breathe in the carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen. If we lack oxygen, we won't have enough clean air and it will cause Global Warming. The Earth will start heating up and soon, our planet will be too hot for anything to live!4. Sometimes you can't smell it. I've been educated, you know. It's not like I'm using fibs in my arguments. It can happen.5. "The people who smoke probably don't care about your teeth." You should have used "their" instead of "your". Nose rings are different. Cigarettes are a drug.6. Diapers are different. Cigarettes are drugs. Of course they hurt your health. Over 440,000 people from the USA and 100,000 people from the UK die each year because of smoking. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...;7. When I say appetite, I mean, the flavour/taste of the cigarettes. I'm not saying they're food or anything."All of your sources are off topic..." Why? They're the sources I used for my arguments. "Freedom of America" You can't risk your life just for freedom. I'm not saying that the people can't get their freedom, but I'm saying that you can't risk your life just to keep using a harmful drug, which is harmful to both people and the environment. People, as in smokers and passive smokers. "Drugs affect the mind so bad that people will KILL FOR DRUGS." That is why people shouldn't use them. "So think about how hard it is for cigarettes to be completely abolished by banning." It's hard, so that's why people created nicorette. Yes, both cigarettes and nicorette have nicotine, but nicotine itself is not harmful. It's the tobacco in the cigarettes that are harmful. If people get addicted to the nicorette, they'll forget about the cigarettes. Well, it only works for some people. And there's another thing that they use called nicotine patches. http://www.netdoctor.co.uk...;You got anything to say, Con?
Cigarettes Should Become Completely Illegal In America

It is in America because I was debating for the UK against Kellan01. You came along and vote bombed. I know you don't live in America, but I do, and I was the one getting vote bombed while I was debating for the UK. My opponent drops arguments relating to the health of people. I think that none of these point to completely banning cigarettes. 1. Where is your source for this? 2. How does this relate to completely banning cigarettes, you could ban them in public areas, and you don't face the problems that 3. We all know this you don't have to say it again, but we already have rehabilitation centers and smoke-free programs. We can't ban something that harms the safety of themselves, it is not threatening to the public as a whole. 4. Have you smelled cigarette smoke? It is really easy to smell. Your talking like we should ban crappy houses because they are disgusting to look at, don't you know the freedoms that America has and was made for? 5. The people who smoke probably don't care about your teeth. Again, we can't ban things that make you look like crap! We can't go and ban nose-rings and stuff. 6. Listen to arguments 4 and 5, we can't ban stuff that makes you look and smell like crap. People have their freedoms. We can't go banning diapers because they aren't pleasing to see. Also, how does number 6 hurt your health? 7. Appetite? APPETITE? We all know cigarettes affect your health in a bad way, but APPETITE??!?!? Please explain how a cigarette is a food. All of your sources are off topic... My arguments. 1. Freedoms of America Freedom; The right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. https://www.google.com... Banning Cigarettes Is Restraint Instead, tax them largely, increase smoke-free areas, support smoke-free campaigns, and encourage people to stand up to smokers. Give them a hard time, and you have the end result of abolishing cigarettes, without putting hindrance or restraint on people. People will still get cigarettes illegally if you ban them, but if you crack down on them as I said above, you abolish them and keep away illegal trafficking and manufacturing 2. Drugs affect the mind so bad that people will KILL FOR DRUGS. So think about how hard it is for cigarettes to be completely abolished by banning. I await a response in round two, The end argument don't post any arguments or rebuttal, because you went first.
Cigarettes Should Become Completely Illegal In America

I voted you down because I agreed with the other side, but the other side really did convince me. And why does it have to be in America? I don't even live there! Please be aware of where people live before you start talking! No.1. Doctors have proven that smoking takes an average of 11 minutes off your life every cigarette you smoke. No.2. Smoking not only harms the smokers, but the people around them as well. When the people around the smokers inhale the smoke, they harm their lungs. Inhaling the smoke exhaled by a smoker is known as passive smoking. No.3. Smokers can also contract lung cancer from smoking. No.4. The smoke can travel from place to place. Sometimes, people are unaware of the smoke coming towards them, since they can't smell it. They will inhale it anyway. Breathing even just a little bit of tabacco is harmful. No.5. Your teeth get yellow. No.6. Your breath will get bad. No.7. It's not truly pleasant for anyone, whether they are smokers or passive smokers. Yes, people might find that the flavour/taste of the cigarettes is pleasant, but it affects the smokers' health in the bad way. You should know that it’s not just affecting your appetite in the good way that counts, but the way it affects your health. For something to be truly pleasant, it has to affect your health and appetite in the good way. Sources: http://news.bbc.co.uk... http://www.health.gov.au... http://www.quitnow.gov.au... http://pediatrics.about.com... http://www.drchetan.com... http://answers.yahoo.com...;
A purpose to morality would imply the correctness of an ends-based moral system

The purpose of morality being human benefit, this is a goal achieved through both means and ends. It is a goal perpetuated by the existence of humanity, for as long as there are people, they will seek benefit. Morality does not end once the goal of human benefit is reached. As the means used to achieve the ends will affect the parties on the moral decision, the means will have effect on the ends, and the amount of benefit. The means have intrinsic value, and therefore will come under moral judgement. The situations where morality is taken into account vary too much for an absolute moral system. Morality has to be relative. An ends based system is only really prevalent when acting against an original breach of morality, and usually only when there is NO OTHER SOLUTION then breaching morality. In this case, using immoral means becomes moral. For example, there is a man absolutely certain to kill, I will have to kill him to achieve the ends of benefiting people, his possible victims. A case like this is the only case in where two "wrongs" in fact do make a "right". Pursuing moral means will result in more benefit. A man is going to kill, I use peaceful negotiation to cease his homicidal plans, and bring about peace. I have used moral means, and achieved moral ends. No one has died, and this is obviously more beneficial than having to kill the man. This is the significantly more common process. When dealing with a problem like a homicidal maniac, moral means are always in priority, and the purpose of benefit is always in mind. Moral means result in more moral ends, therefore greater benefit, the original purpose of morality.
A purpose to morality would imply the correctness of an ends-based moral system

The reasons a purpose to morality implies an ends-based system is relatively simple. If there is a goal for morality, then morality exists to achieve this goal. This means that what is moral is determined by whether or not it improves progress towards this goal. As such, what is moral is being determined by the results of an action, which is what an ends-based system advocates. To clarify for my opponent. An ends-based system is not necessarily a pragmatic one, though the most common one, utilitarianism, is. While I accept the assertion that the purpose of morality is to benefit humanity, I disagree that this lends itself to the creation of immutable rules. This is because there are occasions, when following the most common of these rules, when following the rule actually violates the intent of the rule itself. For example, the intent of a rule against killing (humans) exists to prevent the death of humans, generally seen as a bad thing. However, when following this prohibition, if refusing to kill actually leads to more death, than that contradicts the original purpose of the rule against killing. As such, it makes far more sense to judge actions by their ends, when a purpose to morality exists, then it does to create unbreakable moral rules.
A purpose to morality would imply the correctness of an ends-based moral system

My opponent makes a positive statement, so the burden of proof lies with him. I will do what I can for now. Morality has always had a purpose, and that is collective and/or individual benefit. Humans, being social animals and in living groups, developed desirable conduct for benefit. Morality is meant to foster order within or between groups and create a mutual perception of desirable conduct between persons, or in religious context act as instructed by a god, deity, prophet, or religious body to garner favour from that god or deity. Murder is seen as evil because it takes away a person, and a person is valuable in emotional, economic, and social ways. The murder somewhat hurts themselves, as they absolve themselves of a potential ally, friend or benefactor, and will be perceived as violent and undesirable by fellow humans. Murder is prohibited in most religions, and to followers following that moral decree will be beneficial to them in the fact that they are following divine commands and following them will benefit them spiritually and possibly in the afterlife if that is in their religious dogma. I cannot really see the relation between this and pragmatism. If people accept a purpose to morality, I see no reason for them to perhaps kill to provide food for their families, or destroy nations to achieve world peace. I await elaboration on your statement.
A purpose to morality would imply the correctness of an ends-based moral system

My opponent assumes that the ends are separate from the means. As I explained in the last round, "A moral means is by definition one which produces moral ends. ". When the benefit from a given action, the harms or benefits, as well as the opportunity cost of the means are taken into account. As such, the ends of a given action include the means used. Given that this is true, the means cannot be said to be of equal importance as the ends. Furthermore, even if my opponent has successfully argued that the in morality, the means ought be of equal importance to the ends, this by no means refutes the claim of the Pro. This debate is not about whether an ends-based system is the best or most moral, but simply one that a purpose of morality would lead us to accept. As has not been refuted, the mere fact that if there is a goal of morality, a moral action is one which advances that goal. This is inherently an evaluation of morality which focuses on what an action causes, not what the action itself is, and as such, is a moral system which evaluates the ends without assuming an inherent morality to the means.
A purpose to morality would imply the correctness of an ends-based moral system

No, you misunderstand the nature of a ends-based moral system. The subject of debate and the idea that you support is "A purpose to morality would imply the correctness of an ends-based moral system". http://www.thefreedictionary.com... BASIS 1. A foundation upon which something rests. 2. The chief constituent; the fundamental ingredient 3. The fundamental principle. The ENDS being the foundation or chief constituent, it obviously has to be the most important. In order for a moral system to be ends-based, the ENDS hold the greatest value, and are more important than the MEANS. I am saying that the purpose of morality in mind, ENDS does not not hold greater value then MEANS, as a ends-based moral system would suggest. No, a moral means is not by definition one which produces moral ends. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... morï¿½al (mï¿½rl, mr-) adj. 1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary. 2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson. 3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life. 4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation. A moral means is, by definition, a means that follows morality, right and wrong, proper conduct, arises from conscience, etc. There would be no refutation only if your definition of an ends-based moral system was the correct one. I have refuted the statement that the benefit of mankind, leads naturally to an ends-based moral system.
A purpose to morality would imply the correctness of an ends-based moral system

My opponent misunderstands the nature of an ends-based moral system. In an ends-based moral system, any action which results in a net benefit is a moral action. Ends do include the consequences of the means. As such, my opponent has never actually refuted my argument, but simply stated that the use of moral means to accomplish moral ends produces greater benefit. This is already encompassed by the definition of an ends-based moral system. A moral means is by definition one which produces moral ends. There has been no refutation of my logic that the existence of a purpose of morality, in this debate the benefit of mankind, leads naturally to an ends-based moral system.
PC Gaming Is Superior to Console Gaming

Resolved: PC Gaming Is Superior to Console GamingDefinitions: PC - a computersuperior - over all better thanconsole - gaming systems that are not a computer ex. Xbox, Playstation, Wii, Gameboy etc. If there is any dispute about the definitions raise them before taking the debate challenge.First Round: AcceptanceSecond + Third Round: Arguments and RebuttalsFourth Round: Conclusions (No new arguments allowed). Other rules:No semanticsNo plagiarismBe courteous, no personal attacks etc.No trollingThanks and good luck!
Skype/Phone debate over politics (Fiscal Issues)

I just think this would be a fun little thing to try. I want to debate someone with differing views than mine about political issues. I am a Conservative Constitutionalist and I would love to debate either on Skype or the Phone. This debate will be entered as a tie as my opponent and I will forfeit the rounds. I just wanted this debate to take place on some media device other than typing back and forth. Please accept :D
Genetically Modified Foods

People in countries are starving, this is true. The big thing there is that they don"t even want to feed their people GMO foods. Research for GMO products is backed by somebody with money. Scientific data can be skewed to project whatever the companies want to project. So even if there was evidence to prove that GMOs were not safe, some big company like ConAgra or another one to bribe the data. The information presented to the American people is skewed and unsafe. We have been human guinea pigs for years. This is completely unethical, and this is something to not test on people.
Genetically Modified Foods

All foods can cause an allergic reaction, including natural foods. People are allergic to nuts because of something naturally in the food, not because of something added to it. If they find out they are allergic to it they stay away from that food and continue living their life. Plants that are genetically modified can actually help nutrition. Vitamins and minerals can be added to foods to increase the health benefits. This is especially for people in third world countries who can't get enough variety in their diets. For example, in Japan people are malnourished since rice is the main part of their diet. Adding nutrients will prevent malnutrition and is extremely important to do.
Genetically Modified Foods

GMO foods may not be proven to be bad, but there is evidence to back up that argument. According to the OCA, a nonprofit organization, certain GMO foods are causing allergic reactions for people because of the DNA spliced into the plants. This could potentially cause deaths to people who did not even realize what they are eating. Somebody could be careful to purchase food that will not trigger their allergies, and die of anaphylactic shock because their food has different DNA than the organic food. Some GMO foods could potentially cause cancer, too. Carcinogens have been found in certain food flavorings. Organic food has been consumed for as long as humans have lived, and that has never been found, not even close.