BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Women being combatantsin the U.S. Armed Forces

First, please allow me to refute the 2 new points that my rival opponent brought up. 1) "Although the job for being a combatant is known, there is no way to train women for pyscological harms…if a woman is captured she can be subjected to a series of sexual assaults such as rape and molestation." there is no way to train women for pyscological harms. This is true, but can not be a reason to not allowing females to join the army, because first of all, a man can get physiological harms after becoming an POW too, if a man is raped by other men, he may feel even worse than women in this situation. 2)" The male brain is "wired" to where if a female was shot, the men would abort the mission to go help that one soldier thus putting many lives in danger." My rival opponent is assuming that all male are emotional and will be unrational and put many lives in danger while fighting alongside the women, or suffer from greater pain after the the death of woman than after the death of man, but my opponent didn't bring up any evidence to that. My opponent said: " If worse were to happen to the females, such as death, the men would be filled with rage/sorrow and act upon their own actions. " By saying this, my opponent assumed that the men will be sader when their opposite sex get hurt, but this really depends on the relationship between this two individuals, if the man is just friend with that woman who get hurt, he won't be sadder than when his male friends get hurt. I don't see any connection between gender and sadness in this case. 3) Forced Intimacy. "This would be tantamount to forcing female soldiers to share private quarters with men—a situation that would be unacceptable to the majority of military women even if misconduct never occurred." My side is not saying that women must be soldiers. We are saying that they can be allowed to enter the army according to their own will, so if they believe that forced intimacy is okay, than this shouldn't be a reason to block women from joining the army. I will briefly summarize my points here: 1) Women should have the same rights as men, so they should be allowed to enter the army. 2) Women should be able to join the army according to their own will, although there may be bad consequences. But if those consequences are acceptable for them, it will be okay. 3) Men can also suffer from forced sexual behavior after they become POW, or feel awkward while having "Forced Intimacy" with another man. So it's the consequences of being an POW or "forced intimacy" can be suffered by both sexes, women are not the only gender that can be suffered from it.
Should have History Month's for Every Race? (Or get rid of all of them)

So, you think we should have History Month's for every race? Well, I think we shouldn't have 'em at all for any race. They are pointless and not needed. You should decide when you want to learn about history about any group. And if we continue to only celebrate one race it won't give the other hard working groups credit and will continue to put black people in the spotlight. After all "Black People can't be racist". And by the way, if you think whites did nothing to contribute to the human world, do your research.
Dogs should still not be classified as rodents.

Dogs cannot be classified as rodents because they are not rodents, and already belong to their own family of mammals, Canidae. Biological classification is a serious matter and it cannot be broken just because dogs exhibit rodent-like behavior. What matters is the genetic structure of a dog's inner nucleus and the genetic code of a dog in relation to the genetic code of all other living beings. Biological classification is a rigid structure and it does not rely on petty hearsay. It is undeniable that dogs are not rodents. They are mammals, like rodents, but they are not rodents. Biological classification is a complex web of Genuses and Phylums, and to classify dogs as rodents simply because they exhibit rodent-like behavior would be to disrupt the fragile, intricate web of biology. They are not rodents. They are more closely related to wolves and hyenas than to mice and rats.
Dogs should still not be classified as rodents.

As I look back upon my many, many past debates, none have been so memorable as the time you and I battled it out to settle whether dogs should be classified as rodents. Well, that last debate was an unfortunate tie, which is why I've decided it's time for a rematch. As before, you are arguing that dogs should be classified as rodents. I am arguing that dogs cannot be classified as rodents. Five rounds, three month voting. I'm expecting some very hard argumentation on your part-give it all you've got. Prove to me that dogs should be reclassified as rodents. Let's settle this once and for all. It's time. Go ahead. I await your acceptance.
"McDonald's are Bad" documentaries dont work.

Randomknowlege, I have to object to your "Random Knowledge" on the subject of the Slow Food Movement. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my knowledge of it either; Slow Food was actually started in 1986 by Carlos Petrini, as a resistance movement against fast food. As it spread over the years to countries such as Switzerland, Germany, Japan, France, and the "good old USA", it was picked up notice by Mr. Eric Schlosser, who published it in "Fast Food Nation". Upon reading it, Prince Charles was intrigued by it, and became an advocate of the process. Yes, while some lower-income people cannot afford the now-pricy luxuries of fruit, vegetables, and find it easier to stop off at McDonald's for a quick meal, it is clearly not the right choice. Personally, I blame the movement by Big Food to encorporate high-fat, high-sugar, energy-dense low-fiber foods into our daily lives, with the cost of these ingredients being less expensive compared to the healthier ingredients, such as comparing the cooking of french fries in partially hydrogenated vegetable oil (trans fat, less expensive) to cooking them in regular vegetable oil (healthier, more expensive). I'd like to go back to the concept of the McDonald's being crowded most every day. Look at McDonald's numbers. 72% out of McDonald's patrons, 3/4, are considered "Heavy Users". They head over to the Golden Arches at least once a week. 22% of these patrons are classified as "Super Heavy Users", who eat at McDonald's 3-4 times a week or more. 91% of these users are adults, 50% over the age of 30. McDonald's has started its corporate brainwash over about 30, 35, 40 years now, thus, perpetually completely overruled many of these patrons, which will pass down to their kids, etc. 85% of these "Users" are people who's yearly incomoe is under $25,000. Now, after many of these documentaries have been released to the public, many "Once in a while" and "Casual" McDonald's users have shrunk from 6% of their profits to a miniscule percentile under 1. That proves that sensible people have seen the light at the end of the taco. I'd also like to bring up your fact about McDonald's stock, that it had gone up .81% recently. This is most likely due to the fact that Super Size Me and many other documentaries have scared McDonald's into offering "Healthier" choices, masking them in salads and snack wraps that still contain high amounts of saturated fat and calories. This pitiful attempt at masking their true evin Ronald McDonald clown face may have saved them for one day, but it is proof that documentaries have had impact on McDonald's menu's and perspectives, thus working.
"McDonald's are Bad" documentaries dont work.

You said Take "Fast Food Nation" by Eric Schlosser, which, after being read by Prince Charles of Wales, has inspired the "Slow Food Movement", a project which promotes locally grown, home cooked meals to be served at a family table, rather than choosing the fast food alternate. " This has been going on for quite a long time, starting in Canada a few years back. A man was dissatisfied with the local fast food, and the food that was being shipped overseas to his local supermarket. He began a crusade: for two months, he only ate food produced and made within a one hundred mile radius of his home. He dropped weight and was immediately feeling healthier. Fast food is definitely bad for you, and the continuation of the fast food industry and the uprbrigning of the organic industry is in america's future. However, with so many families in poor conditions and with poor amounts of money, fast food is the only option for so many people. It is also the choice for some people who want FAST FOOD, and some healthiness. This is a true story: I was in a boston train station at about 11:30 or 12 at night. A woman goes up to the counter and orders a double cheeseburger, no meat. I conclude that this is definitely unorthodox but still a healthy way of looking at a considered unhealthy establishment.
"McDonald's are Bad" documentaries dont work.

Randomknowledge, I do agree with you on the fact that although with the release of Morgan Spurlock's Super Size Me, many a' McDonald's are still crowded with hungry, eager customers, waiting to sink their teeth into that sodium-pumped, greasy burger. However, Super Size Me along with many other Fast food documentaries have proved to be productive in major and minor ways. Take Super Size Me; as soon as the film was released, McDonald's quickly withdrew their Super Size campaign, never to be seen again. Take "Fast Food Nation" by Eric Schlosser, which, after being read by Prince Charles of Wales, has inspired the "Slow Food Movement", a project which promotes locally grown, home cooked meals to be served at a family table, rather than choosing the fast food alterate. Slowly but surely, fast food goliaths are taking their hits.
"McDonald's are Bad" documentaries dont work.

I beleive that it takes a strong person to not do something they know is bad for you but tastes so good. It takes a weak person to succumb to modern literature and media as a credible source to base your personal opinion on. This is what all of the McDonalds documentaries are trying to do. They are technically trying to convince people about how bad the products being sold at McDonalds fast food chains really are. My stand is that these documentaries are a waste of millions of budget dollars because they dont work. McDonalds stock is up .81%, they are cranking out ads like there's no tommorow, and when is the last time you went to a McDonalds and saw it empty? Think about. These Micky D docs dont work. I will elaborate with more proof in my next argument.
"McDonald's are Bad" documentaries dont work.

Note: Please read the bottom comment posted by Randomknowledge before reading the following argument. A lengthy debate, Randomknowledge, and you have proved some points to be correct in my own humble opinion: McDonald's doesnt care about what goes into their food, and they dont care how it affects their consumers; just as long as they dont get sued. All they care about is that their consumers keep coming back. But, I, a mere speck in the world's population, want to make a difference. Ever since I read Morgan Spurlock's "Dont Eat This Book" and watched his documentary, "Super Size Me", I have been disgusted, repulsed, and shocked at what goes on inside McDonald's and what they do to their food and consumers. And I, because of what I've seen in a documentary, have solemnly sworn never to eat in a McDonald's again. All because of a documentary.
the tipping system is not good

con argues tipping gives an incentive for good service. he almost seems to argue you'd get bad service without tipping. the problem is that other service industries get along just fine without tipping, food prep, walmart employees, carry outs, etc. the wage itself is enough incentive to put forth an honest effort. if you dont do good, you get fired. con gave just anecdotes where service was bad. im sure it would happen from time to time, but overall, a decent wage to begin with should translate into decent service.
the tipping system is not good

Tipping gives people incentive to work hard. If waiters get paid the same amount no matter how well they perform, they have no reason to work hard. Waiters try to give customers a good expierence in order to get a good tip. Take that away and there's no reason to give customers a good expierence. In European countries were there is no tipping this happens. "I"ll give you a couple of examples. Possibly the best illustration of this problem comes from a restaurant in Istanbul, where the food was good, and the atmosphere was good, and the location was good, and the wait staff was all hanging around by the bar, laughing, and joking, and generally treating the customers as if they were a grave imposition on their fun. At one point, I interrupted the good time to politely ask one of these servers for a glass of ice, and he returned several minutes later with " I swear this is true "an entire, full-size drinking glass that contained one single ice cube." "What happened is, we had to sit there and stick up our hands, and try to make eye contact, and ask politely, and stick up our hands more, and make more eye contact, and ask impolitely, just to get the bill delivered to our table. And then the servers would run away, as quickly as possible, as if they took bill dropping off lessons from a Kenyan sprinter, so we would have to repeat the exact same process once we put our credit card on the table. Sometimes, it took up to 20 minutes just to leave." http://dougdemuro.kinja.com... This is what happens when the incentive to work hard is taken away.
The Kalam Cosmological argument is sound evidence of a creator

I will now make my argument for P3: If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists.What this premise is saying, is that if the universe is caused, then there must be a personal Creator of the universe that exists to have caused it. Nothing else could have caused the existence of the universe. Granted the previous premise, it has been established that the universe has a beginning.Think of what the universe is, all of space-time reality, including all matter and energy. Thus, it would follow that if this universe has a cause of its existence, that cause has to be a non physical, immaterial being beyond this space and time. It would be absurd to say that the cause of the beginning of this universe is this universe itself. The universe cannot cause itself to exist. There are only two kinds of things which can fit this description, either an abstract object like a number, or else an unembodied mind. However, an abstract object can not cause anything. This is part of what it means to be abstract. For example, no number can cause any effects. Thus, the cause of the existence of the universe has to be a transcendent Mind, which is what many have come to understand as God.
The Kalam Cosmological argument is sound evidence of a creator

I am somewhat bemused as to the reasons why my opponent has asked me to refute the premises of the Kalam Cosmological argument, given that he has not attempted to justify them in the first place. Without any attempt to justify all the premises of the argument, Pro cannot possibly show that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound evidence of a creator, and thus cannot fulfill his burden of proof. As Con, in order to win this debate, I only have to prevent Pro from reaching the conclusion that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound evidence of a creator, meaning that I do not necessarily have to refute one or more of the premises; instead, I could merely attempt to prevent Pro's justifications for the various premises. I opt for the latter approach, given that I believe that various justifications for the first premise are fatally flawed.
The Kalam Cosmological argument is sound evidence of a creator

P1: Everything that begins to ext has a cause;P2: The universe began to exist:therefore:C1: The universe has a cause.After C1 is established:P3: If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists.P4: The universe has a cause.C2:An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists.I believe that my premises to conclusions are sound, so I hand it over to you to refute the premises.
Autism is not a superpower

You are one of the chosen few, you have a lot of underlying potential that you need to learn to tap into. Autism is a mental muscle that needs to be trained in order for it to flourish and for you to recognize your true potential. It is up to you to train hard and practice autism every night, surpass your limits and learn how to go super autist. Align yourself with other, more specialized and niche autists so that your powers will combine into a sort of super autistic hive mind. Your mental ability to remember numbers, formulas and many things a normal human being wouldn't, is what makes you powerful. You are a biological super computer. You are not just a man bestowed with a super human ability, you are a human weapon, remember that as people mock you for not being able to read, write or wipe your own A-hole, that you should be humbled by the knowledge that YOU have the power to devise a specialized autistic powered warhead capable of destroying the planet. But never forget, that with great power comes great responsibility- Spidermans uncle
Autism is not a superpower

Before i begin, i just want to say that i don"t think autism is a disease, but i also think its not a superpower, sure their are a lot of smart people with autism, but they are like 2% of the rest of people with autism, further more, autism has been proven to hold you back, just look at chris-chan. he can barely grip reality and morals, i myself have autism and let me just say, i did a lot of stupid things as a kid
Felipe Massa is the best driver of the 2014 Formula 1 season, and will be champion!

Well, as I told you before, a great piloto never put all your hope in a single race. If he had some problems, other pilots had too. This is not a great reason to justify anything. Every team always make some mistakes. By the way, he runs on F1 since 2002 and the specific episode you told happened in 2008. And about the other years? Why he can't be a Champion?
Felipe Massa is the best driver of the 2014 Formula 1 season, and will be champion!

Ferrari once again left Felipe Massa in hand. The person responsible for operating the light in the pit signaled green to Brazilian pilot light as mechanics still refuel the car. It was the 17th round of the Singapore Grand Prix, the first played at night in the history of Formula 1. When you see the green light, mass accelerated, pulled the fuel line, was punished by the stewards for nearly colliding with Adrian Sutil and ended only in 13th place in the race. What about this news published on 29/09/2008?
Felipe Massa is the best driver of the 2014 Formula 1 season, and will be champion!

Great pilots are champions and not almost champions or champions for a few seconds. If we analyze our last F1 champions we can see names like Michael Schumacher, Fernando Alonso or Sebastian Vettel who won their prizes before the last race of the year, specially the German pilots. In 2008 Felipe Massa had lots of mistakes and because of them he can't be a World Champion. It's simple!
Felipe Massa is the best driver of the 2014 Formula 1 season, and will be champion!

The last corner of the last lap of the last race of 2008 took decisive weight in the fate of Felipe Massa. At November 2, so there are exactly six years, the Brazilian became "world champion" for a few seconds that separated the moment he crossed the finish line of the GP of Brazil, winning the race by overtaking Lewis Hamilton Timo Glock on the Binding, which returned the title to English
Felipe Massa is the best driver of the 2014 Formula 1 season, and will be champion!

Williams had in Ayrton Senna its last great pilot in 1994. In last 20 years its performance was a shame and we know Felipe Massa is really far to be a good pilot. He could not win a race since the Brazilian Grand Prix 4 years ago and any pilot who spent so many time without a win can be considered a top pilot.
Felipe Massa is the best driver of the 2014 Formula 1 season, and will be champion!

One of the more traditional racing teams in Formula 1, Williams comes from poor results in recent years, but in the 2014 tests was a highlight side of the Mercedes. Red Bull, champion of the last four World had many problems. Williams has already made great cars, and even had great titles currently designed a good car in 2012, when he had the win in Barcelona. It sure is a competitive and chances of winning evidence team.
Can Humans ever achieve immortality

" Did God ever appoint the Judgment Day before they ate the forbidden fruit? -if not perhaps if you are forgiven, The curse can be undone" Judgment Day was after they ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Actually, Everyone's sin is already forgiven. It was forgiven at Calvary with the payment of perfect blood shed by God's Son Jesus the Christ. The problem is, Though many people know this, Few people believe that His blood takes away their sin. Instead many trust in their religion or in being good or baptism. However, God say's their is none that does good and all our good works are as filthy rags. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for trusting in religion in order to gain favor and eternal life. However, To gain eternal life, We must repent of our sin and trust Jesus (in the same way one would trust in a chair on sitting down) for eternal life. God's power comes as an award to those who obey completely. Your heart, Though, Tells you there is a God, But you decide to suppress it because you do not want to change your lifestyle to the way of life demanded by the Creator.
Can Humans ever achieve immortality

I accept your point. But I have questions according to religion. . ? 1) Did God ever appoint the Judgment Day before they ate the forbidden fruit? -if not perhaps if you are forgiven, The curse can be undone 2) By God's might power, As a favor or as an award to a deserving candidate My conscious tells me the world is fundamentally naturalistic: almost like causality. And by religion: it rests on God: so either way, There seem a chance of possibility. Maybe not practical yet: so you win; but perhaps time will tell I may be right in the future.
Can Humans ever achieve immortality

I am an atheist but if religion is ever absolute true then God can do whatever including pardoning you the death penalty; maybe via Prayer or being His best servant. But back to reality now. . . To my knowledge I can conclude that all deaths have causes, Usually those who claim have cheated death say that if only they could never commit certain mistakes they would not have met face-to-face with death experience. Here I mean survivors of incidences. With diseases the specialists claim prevention is better than cure; then can come forgetting and errors; sometimes as a driver an accident may occur from another drunk driver in a collision course; and sometimes natural disasters occur in human territory. It comes to my attention that most of these causes can still be preventive; meaning that when you try hard you die hard. Via technology e. G. Seismography; mankind can measure the chances of natural disasters' occurrences. I am not yet sure about controlling the aging process of Humans let alone overpopulation; do you believe that any Human can ever survive for immortality howsoever. . . ?
propose the motion that says violent games trigger violent behaviour in children

You must understand that as human beings we have the ability to easily distinguish our own reality from a simulation. We know when we are dreaming, we know when we are hypothesising. Video games serve as a 'second reality' and that is the exact reason that people choose to play them. They are well aware of the fact that decisions they make within the game are ones that are so far from anything they could do in reality. To suggest that it becomes easier for a child to operate a gun in real life after pressing a button on a keypad to achieve a reaction within a computer simulation is not at all logical.