BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
An "Old-fashioned" Community.

This is not a call to a commune, this is not a religious movement, and this is not a joke. Is it crazy to want to live better, live freely, live as I choose? Settlers had it right, taking advantage of "The Homestead Act", westward expansion, self-sufficient living, farming and animals, small close-knit towns and communities, hunting and gathering, etcetera. So why don't we live like that anymore? 3,794,101 sq miles of land, in the US - just how much of that is actually taken up by all the cities and industrialization? I'd venture to say less than half. So what about the other half, why doesn't the government condone the "outdoorsy" types to buy a tract of land and live off it? What is so wrong with a family farm these days - or rather, Why do they repeatedly support the big companies over the "little guys"? Why is getting a "foot in the door" intentionally made so difficult? Will we let this stop us? Have you ever felt like there just wasn't a job out there you could see yourself working in happily for the rest of your life? I have. Why have we traded a "simpler time" for this modern materialism - because I sincerely feel we‘ve been duped. Was it even us who made the corrupt bargain, or was it the generations before us - in the pursuit of progress - whose repercussions we are now saddled with? Why does everyone put up with the expectation of working a 9-5 with a car, a green lawn, and the stifling of our very human nature to /be/ in nature -- finding escape and outlet in Role-playing, day-dreaming, video-gaming, movies, talk, idealism, or rash actions (ever heard of Christopher McCandless?) -- well, hasn‘t anyone ever Done something SMART about it?! But the meaning of this is not a "call to arms" or recruitment to some commune or idealistic "utopia". This is about a lifestyle, a mindset that you already have and a public announcement that - yes, there are people out there who think the same way you do and who want to DO something about it! Who among us would be willing to give up their comfort for the unknown? Is it too much to ask of like-minded individuals to discuss this matter in some measure of seriousness? Reply with opinions, constructive or otherwise, as to why this cant (or wont) be done!
An "Old-fashioned" Community.

After reading your response, I am uncertain of your resolution. Fortunately we have 5 rounds. I ask that my opponent clarify his resolutions in the 3rd round. I was assuming that my opponent's resolution was: "Settlers had it right, taking advantage of "The Homestead Act", westward expansion, self-sufficient living, farming and animals, small close-knit towns and communities, hunting and gathering, etcetera. So why don't we live like that anymore?"
Society has created mental illness.

"Society can create this illness that affects your mind" I disagree because Society can CAUSE mental illness, But CAN"T CREATE mental illness, Like anxiety, Depression or panic attacks. Mental illness is a condition that affects your mood, Thinking and behaviour. People also use drugs, Sometimes to help with the mental illness, But they might overuse it, Making the illness get worse. That does not make society creating mental illness. There is also social media, People might think that social media created mental illness, But even before social media, People still got sick.
Society has created mental illness.

"society can't create these illnesses that affect your mind". I strongly disagree with this statement made by my opponent. Society can create this illness that affects your mind such as depression and suicidal thoughts. The Australian statistics prove that Twelve percent of 13-17-year-olds reported having thought about suicide, While 4. 2% had actually made a suicide attempt because of Peer pressure and the media which is caused by society.
Society has created mental illness.

Mental illness was not created by society because there are some society that has been Mental illness had always existed, Some people are born with mental illness. Some examples of illnesses that are not developed by society but can be born with, Autism, Add, Etc" This connects to the society, Maybe because of social pressure or cyberbullying, But the society can't create these illnesses that affect your mind, Body and emotions. Mental illness is not something that will happen one day and the next it is done.
Why I believe that people have a right to be a conscientious objector to war

Final rebuttalIn your last paragraph, you say that "You also have not given a rebuttal stating why sending conscientious objectors to war wouldn't lower the army morale". In the last sentence of my first argument, you can clearly see that you have conceded the point to me. "... it could effect bonding between them and other soldiers..." is the statement I have said. Since you have not given a rebuttal to that, you have already conceded the point that pacifists going to the front builds up army morale. Anyways, have you given any supporting evidence to your statements? My statements are based on the first paragraph of my source, the definitions for technical pacifism and true pacifism. Your final rebuttal changes your source for definitions of pacifism. The definition you see there is for true pacifism, not for technical pacifism. Technical pacifists go to war when their lives are in danger[1]. "...he or she is in contrast to the far-more-common Technical pacifist, who is fine with punching, stabbing, shooting or maiming people as long as they survive the experience."[1] is a direct quote from the article you mentioned. A true pacifist would do as I claim, they would go into the military service but only in non-combatant duty [2]. Being a pacifist means not doing military service, as military service would be actually fighting, being a medic is allowed under the pacifist definition. Your first definition is "a person who believes in pacifism or is opposed to war or violence of any kind". Being a medic is healing people, so sending pacifists into war is easily made up for by putting them in non-combatant roles.Sources:[1]http://tvtropes.org...;[2]http://www.sss.gov...;
Why I believe that people have a right to be a conscientious objector to war

Evidence?Once again my opponent has not been able to provide any edivence for his statements, other than giving a rebuttal claiming that one of my sources should not be trusted. Furthurmore, since my opponent has not listed any other evidence to support his claims in his previous arguements, his rebuttals are not solid. Vote Pro.Final RebuttalMy opponent states that Technical Pacifists will go to war once they see that it is nessesary. Definition of Pacifist: a person who believes in pacifism or is opposed to war or to violence of any kind. 2. a person whose personal belief in pacifism causes him or her to refuse being drafted into military service. Compare conscientious objector.So by definition, a true pacifist would not do as you claim. You also have not given a rebuttal stating why sending conscientious objectors to war wouldn't lower the army morale, thus you have conceded to the fact that sending pacifists and true conscientious objectors does indeed hamper the military morale. Sources: http://dictionary.reference.com...
Why I believe that people have a right to be a conscientious objector to war

Why forcing conscientious objectors to war is goodForcing conscientious objectors to war would actually help the war effort because they have never actually experienced war, so once they do, they will see that it is necessary. Technical pacifists are really the main kind of pacifists there are, there is rarely any actual pacifists out there. Anyways, most of your source in unreliable because it refers to certain people able to cast "white magic". The website even deals with "tv tropes". The name of the website does not seem very well-suited to the real world. In all characteristics, this website is based on fictional ideals, as white magic does not exist and the website is named "tv tropes".Sources:http://tvtropes.org...
Why I believe that people have a right to be a conscientious objector to war

AssumptionsFirst of all, your arguements are hypothetical without any evidence to back it up. Each of your statements are based off of assumptions without facts which does not debunk my previous statements; they merely try to assume a situation to find a way around it. Your entire arguement is based off the word if. Army MoraleIf we were to force valid conscientious objectors to war, it would hamper the militay more than strengthen it. For every way possible there is for a man to con his way through draft, there are equally as many who actually have religious beliefs and philosophical reasons which come in conflict when they are told to bare arms. There are many people with religions which illicit them from commiting acts of violence and bloodshed. There are also just as many people who are pacifists; people who refuse to participate in any violence which include the military. If we were to draft these men to the military, their conflicing beliefs and conscience would collide which would weaken the military due to their unwillingness to fight. Sources: http://tvtropes.org...
Why I believe that people have a right to be a conscientious objector to war

Widespread corruptionWritten documentation written by whom? This written documentation could be written by the dubious leaders of "draftdodgerism" for example. You could also falsify a friendship with somebody else from "draftdodgerism" and have them testify. Local boards do not have high-paying salaries as the upkeep would be too high, allowing for low bribes and such. Lets take a hypothetical example of "draftdodgerism". Everybody who joins has to pay a membership fee. The membership fee goes into a central pot, which is used to falsify documents and pay bribes. Other members would pose as friends and testify. The membership fee would often be considerably higher than the cost for the illegal activities, allowing the leader to make a hefty profit. Your entire argument is based on a de jure (theoretical world following the law perfectly) world, while de facto, corruption is very possible. In response to your second and last sentence, all these fake religions would have to do would be centered towards a specific niche, with the rules differing in negligible ways from the target audience.
Why I believe that people have a right to be a conscientious objector to war

More Difficult to Con than You Believe You stated that "The government made a fake religion to put their families in so they could dodge the draft," and "A great many con men would take the opportunity to make fake religion." In order to become a conscientious objector, a man's lifestyle prior to making his claim to become a conscientious objector must reflect his current claim. In order to become a conscientious objector, one must either have a "written documentation, or include personal appeances by people he knows who can attest to his claims." After that, a local board must either accept his claim or deny them. If a man's lifestye were not to match his current claims, he will not be granted the conscientious objector status. Sources:http://www.sss.gov...
Why I believe that people have a right to be a conscientious objector to war

Draft dodging problemIf you were able to "dodge" the draft legally, due to religion or other reasons, it would be abused very much. A great many con men would take the opportunity to make fake religions such as "Draftdodgerism" and the like. Many people would join these "religions" and dodge the draft. In effect, this "right" would be completely abused and there would be no draft.Privacy issuesOn the other end of the spectrum, the government could made a registry of all "real" religions and people who were in them and that would make a ripe area for abuse by the government. Take one example, the government made a fake religion to put their families in so they could dodge the draft. Another example would be if a racist government was effected and they used the registry so they could deny rights to all members of a certain religion. It would be a humongous violation of privacy.At the frontAt the front lines, if members of a certain religion weren't there, soldiers could build up racism against the religions that weren't there. Soldiers could be envious of the non-participating religions and when they get back, they would pass the racism on to other people, causing a domino effect of racism which could be harmful to that group. If on the other hand, a persecuted group went to war instead of staying, it could effect bonding between them and other soldiers causing less racism.
product placement in tv

I thank Con for his response.Con argues, "I still believe that when using this they are influencing peoples decisions."Rebuttal: Influencing the decisions of others is not at all illegal or immoral. That's what advertisements are supposed to do. Moreover, this is inevitable as even talk-shows and daily behaviors affect the decision-making of others.Con remarks, "unlike with ads between shows, we can not mute the ads."Rebuttal: Even if we mute the ads, we would still see the image of say a Coca cola drink repeated to us every single time. Doesn't that influence us? Product placement in TV is simply putting the products in there. It has nothing to do with sound and it still influences consumers. Hence, muting the sound isn't really an effective approach to avoid being influenced. One needs to make sure he is rational enough to avoid being subtly influenced by others. That's the only solution.Con concedes, "I agree that by using product placement producers can express themselves."Rebuttal: If you agree with that, then you shouldn't argue for your position.In summary, there is no way of limiting yourself from being influenced by marketers if your approach is to stick your head in the sand. I suggest that the best approach would be rational thinking as it makes you immune to all those desperate attempts out there to get you to buy things. If that's what the marketers want, then so be it. I can watch my favorite TV shows without being convinced to buy anything.
product placement in tv

I thank my friend for initiating this debate.Con argues, "There are enough ads between shows, so we shouldn't have ads in shows."I have no idea if Con is referring to subtle advertisements within a particular show, or the interruptions that occur when a show is running. I'm going to respond to both. I can think of many reasons why we should have subtle advertisements within the shows:(1) Realism: The show itself would look awry if people drove cars without brands, used guns that were not found in the market and drank soda-cans that were just plain without any words. To make the show more believable, it seems mandatory to use real-life products. In addition to that, hiding the brand name won't be enough as we can identify certain products from their looks without seeing their brands. Take for example certain handguns and expensive cars.(2) Freedom of expression: The position that Con promotes limits the freedom of the movie-producers to express themselves through real-life situations that involve real-life products. He has no right to enforce that the producers can't include real-life products in their movies.(3) Freedom of advertising: The position that Con promotes violates the right of advertising products as one chooses. This freedom of advertising is limited if the advertisers use any false information or tricks on the audience. Nonetheless, placing products in a television show does not violate such rules.Now if Con was referring to the latter; the advertisements that interrupt the show itself, then the only argument I can give is that he could change the channel or download the TV series. Nobody is forcing him to watch the show on that particular channel.Truth of the matter, there is no significant argument that allows us to control and dictate how marketers advertise their products if our only objection is that such a procedure is annoying some of us.
Dating should be reserved for when people get into high school; friends are best in middle school.

Default victory in less than 500 characters. I'll like to bring up arguments: 3) Dating benefits the economy. Dating in general brings income because you need to buy flowers, etc. The economy generates some income thru sales taxes, thus if kids "date" in middle school then it will benefit the economy earlier, than in high school. 4) Dating has health benefits. A stroll in the park during a date is healthy. Middle school children should do some walking to get lessen obesity risk. Thank you.
Dating should be reserved for when people get into high school; friends are best in middle school.

Good luck! 1) A good relationship starts out slowly. If a couple plans to marry after high school then they should start dating in middle school. It's their choice. 2) Dating in middle school matures and opens their mind faster than normal because they find themselves in a relationship and realize if they marry they would need to take care of a child, find a job, etc. This opens up their minds thus they would realize marrying isn't as easy as it seems. Therefore we have more cautious students.
the sky looks blue

The sky doesn't always look blue. Infact, it can be grey, or red, dark. The sky isn't always blue, thus saying the sky is blue is an innacurate assumption. So we know the statement is false for, 1: color blind people. 2: people with different perceptions, and 3: the sky has many colors. I believe I have proven the above statement false, so please vote con. Also keep in mind the forfeit, very untimely. Thankyou for reading this short debate :)
the sky looks blue

Please note 500 character limit. Our eyes perception create our minds perception. Given that blue is a color that can only be seen, our mind's eye will never know the sky is blue unless told so. Some one who is color blind would not know the distinction between a blue sky, and a void of nothingness lying above them. But give my opponents logic, we have grown to learn the sky is blue. What if someone grew up to learn that the color blue to us was actually green? The sky then is green.
the sky looks blue

I will be negating the topic "The sky looks blue". C1: Color blindness. I for one am among the few of the population who is inept to see certain colors. So me given my predicament, can relate to those who can see very little colors. Given the fact that there are people (who either by accident, or by birth), who lack the ability to see color, it is not factual to say the sky looks blue for everyone. Thankyou.
God does not exist.

AveThis debate is about whether god exists. I will be arguing that god probably does not exist. Con will be arguing that god probably exists. The winner of the debate will be the person who proves their case beyond a preponderance of the evidence.The first round is for acceptance of the debate format and rules. The next rounds are for back and forth debating.General expectations of conduct should be followed.God is defined as the personal (rational and conscious, omnipotent cause of the universe, matter, space-time, and everything else that exists.Vale
"A 18-0 record makes the NEW England Patriots the best Football team in the last 25 years"

I'm curious about this supposed salary cap argument that I didn't address, which you say supposedly makes you automatically win. That's the first time the word salary has appeared in the debate, so I don't know where that supposed argument up and ran to. Your argument is that they have the best win record in the past 25 years, and this makes them the best team. I'll repost the argument I made in round two, to which your only reply was that "I get the points made by the neg." Let's suppose that last year, every team SUCKED. All of them. But let's say one team was at least better than every team they faced that year - enough so that they got a perfect win streak. A comparison of skill to teams of other years could not be made based on this data alone. I'll make that a bit clearer now: Let's say the year before that, all the teams were AWESOME. However, they were more evenly matched than in the other year, so no team had a dominating win-ratio. However, it is fully possible that every team of that year was superior to the perfect-win-ratio team I spoke of earlier. You simply dodged the entire debate, reasserting your points and not addressing my counterpoints. If anyone 'wins automatically,' it's me. However, there's no automatic win or lose in a debate. It simply matters who the voters think did a better job. Accordingly, I still believe I will win. I've clearly shown why a perfect win record is not sufficient to declare someone the best team. It could only be used to compare them to the other teams they faced, but not to teams from completely different years. Also, remember that I'm not asserting that the patriots aren't the best team in the past 25 years, I'm simply stating that a perfect win record is not the criteria by which they would be declared such. If you don't mind, Pro, I'd like you to leave a comment filling me in on the so-called salary cap argument you supposedly brought up.
"A 18-0 record makes the NEW England Patriots the best Football team in the last 25 years"

They don't have the best in the league this season, they have the best ever. The super Bowl has not happened and as I already said it is a statistics debate. My arguement about if you put them up against evey team in the last 25 years, they beat them 38-17. They are the best on paper, which is what I am arguing. Lastly the opponent dropped my salary cap arguement and thus because silence is golden, he agrees with it, thus the Pro wins.
"A 18-0 record makes the NEW England Patriots the best Football team in the last 25 years"

They very well might have the number one offense in the league. They're likely the best team this year, though that could really only be said after the super bowl. Even so, it's a far cry to say they're the best team of teh past twenty-five years. Even if they are the best team of the last 25 years, the win record is not what gives them this title. My point is this: Regardless of whether or not the NEP are actually the best team in the last twenty five years, a win record is not enough to make the case that they are. My opponent's position is that "A 18-0 record makes the NEW England Patriots the best Football team in the last 25 years," when this is simply not true.
"A 18-0 record makes the NEW England Patriots the best Football team in the last 25 years"

First Off the patriots have the number one offense int he league. Two they have a good defense, top ten, three they are in the area called free agency, meaning they can get the best players and that makes them number 1 the best in the last 25 years. I get the points made by the neg, but, all I am saying is hey on paper statistically they beat all the teams in the last 25 years.