BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Workplace internet restrictions

"What does internet restrictions communicate to workers?"It says 'we pay you to work and do as your told, not to screw around on the internet when you should be doing your job.' "How can organizations with internet restrictions continue to develop strong relationships with its employees?"By paying them..." I believe that organizations need to show trust in their employees and therefore, if any restrictions are put on websites, then it should be relayed to employees."Corporations arent obligated to trust their employees at all, all they are required to do is pay them for their work. If they feel that they are paying their workers too much for their level of productivity, they are more than within their right to do what they feel is necessary to increase productivity, namely restrict internet access. "my co-worker and I felt betrayed and frustrated since we were not doing anything wrong and listening to music has a huge impact on my work outputs than having no music at all"Chances are thats not true, since listening to music while you do something has been shown to decrease productivity and how well you perform. http://www.ehow.com...http://www.whatsbestnext.com...http://www.webmd.com...Corporations have good reason to limit access to websites and the internet in general if they feel that some sites can cause their workers to become distracted or unproductive. Here is a list of just a few websites that could logically be restricted because they can prove to be distracting and disruptive to other workers. 1) Pornhub or any porn site2) Facebook3) Tumblr4) Twitter5) Addictinggames.com6) Any website meant to play games on7) Chat Roulette8) Omeagle9) Any website designed to get you to converse with people you have never/will never meet in real life10) pinterest11) 9gag12) Reddit13) Memebase13) Any website where you can easily become preoccupied for over 3 hours due to cats or memes or anything else for that matter14) Any website that explains why you should shoot up your workplace15) Any website that is a home for a hate group like the KKK, Neo Nazis, or the Westboro Baptist Church16) Debate.org17) Createdebate18) Any other debate site where you can get caught up arguing with a complete stranger over irrelevant stuff 19) Any site that is likely to give a network or a computer a virusThere are tons of sites on the internet that a workplace has good reason to limit access to to either protect their assets and workers or to just keep their employees from screwing around during office hours while getting paid.
Workplace internet restrictions

Working at the eCommerce Department, I have experienced less restrictions with using the internet in the office. Apparently, my department was not as restricted as other departments but it was still rather bothersome when I was doing my research. What does internet restrictions communicate to workers? How can organizations with internet restrictions continue to develop strong relationships with its employees? Let's face it... everyone checks their e-mail at work. I believe that organizations need to show trust in their employees and therefore, if any restrictions are put on websites, then it should be relayed to employees. Like I use to stream music while i work. It was not counter-productive and did not bother anyone. One day, I came in and saw that the site would not load. After several days, it still would not load and my co-worker was having the same issue. Then I eventually realized that it was blocked but we did not know why. my co-worker and I felt betrayed and frustrated since we were not doing anything wrong and listening to music has a huge impact on my work outputs than having no music at all. It Keeps me going.. And I believe freedom of information from the web is a must! in every field like Marketing, Creative, & Executive.
Guns should be allowed

First off I appreciate your double minded view on this. People kill People, But more people can kill people because of guns. Police men/women can be dirty and racist. But they can also be kind and careful and only use their gun in a life or death situation. I saw a video on Instagram of a guy running through an abandoned neighborhood with a knife in his hand 30 seconds in the officer put 6". SIX rounds into to his back. If o one had guns then we would worry about having to be shot or defend ourselves. Its so easy to kill with a gun people pull the trigger and don't give a thought until after. Killing with a knife, Bat, Stick, Etc. Is a passion crime which means you have to look the person in the eyes as you take their life away from them.
Guns should be allowed

I believe that guns should be allowed. I don't think guns are as bad as people make them seem. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. It takes a person to pull a trigger. But if everybody had guns we wouldn't have to live in the fear that someone will shoot you and you will have no way to defend yourself. I believe in self defence. Also if guns are so hard to get how come the police get to carry guns around. What happens if they become corrupt. They could go on mass killing sprees and kill everyone. But if we all had guns that wouldn't be an issue.
The internet is responsible for the increase in mental health issues in youth.

Mental health issues in youth are actually mainly caused by daily anxieties that they face. A survey conducted by Nihara Krause published the results of a survey that 500 12-16 year olds took. It included numerous of their anxieties, Such as exam worries (41%) and work overload (31%). Nihara also stated, That she was not surprised by this rapid growth of youth developing mental illness', As an immense amount of students suffer from such anxieties, Fearfullness about grades and high expectations.
The internet is responsible for the increase in mental health issues in youth.

Today I will be discussing how the internet is responsible for the increase in mental health issues in youth. The internet itself is a dangerous place, People can go through cyber bullying and suicide attempts. Furthermore, There's advantages and disadvantages, It's good for communication, But bad things also come around and some people get affected really bad from the outcomes like bullying. The internet"s problems go beyond the school yards in an attempt to harm every part of a child"s life.
The internet is responsible for the increase in mental health issues in youth.

Social Media is NOT to blame for depression in young people. It has been found that there is actually NO PERSUASIVE EVIDENCE, In regards to being able to blame the internet for the rise in mental health problems as Niall McCrae who is a Lecturer in Mental Health at King's College stated. A survey conducted by HopeLab found that, In situations were young people faced depression, As a result they actually ended up turning to the internet, In order too seek help and not their family nor friends.
Androids are better than ios (iPhones)

People loved how Apple created a device with only four buttons on it (2 Volume, 1 Power, and Home). However times have changed and other phone manufacturers are creating phones that are touch running Android (windows doesn't count in this debate). So far android leads the market by 51.2% world wide and iOS accounts for 43.5% of the worlds market share. (Source: . http://techland.time.com... )On to the second part of my argument that in the U. S people are too closed minded (I'm in Canada if you're wondering) is because the other manufacturers during Apples golden age (2007 - 2009 a bit into 2010) were creating phones that were still using slide and had very little touch screen capability. Then Google started to really increase androids capabilities by around 2010. Since then the 'other manufacturers' still have a reputation for being slow and behind in tech when in fact it is the opposite; android phones can do everything an iPhone can and more. Also, N. Americans (I'm including Canada here) still think of other manufacturers as that Asian phone maker who makes Asian products for Asians. (Source for the last to paragraphs . http://readwrite.com... )
religion (specifically LDS)

Nice attempt at a Nirvana fallacy. There are cases where science is wrong but that is essentially the point of the scientific method. Everything we learn from science is always revised and peer-reviewed to conclude if the knowledge gained by the scientific method is accurate and precise. Being wrong on occasion does not discredit science as a whole nor does it mean that following the scientific method is inaccurate when it's proved that the method is extremely accurate in gaining new information and observing our world and everything it entails. Also there is plenty of evidence for evolution... It's been observed and reproduced in a laboratory setting before, there is genetic evidence, there is fossil evidence and so much more. To say that there is no evidence for evolution is ridiculous. Everything that you've called "lies" all have empirical evidence supporting it whereas most religions including The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no empirical evidence that can be observed or replicated . There is nothing except the actual doctrine which shouldn't even be considered evidence due to how it begs the question. Until you can give some concrete evidence that can be observed and confirmed by everyone and not just the members of your religion, your religion will be viewed as false to all the rational people. Accurately guessing an obvious event is not evidence of anything except for your ability to guess. P.S There are more then 4 states of matter but the four they teach are the classical fundamental ones.
religion (specifically LDS)

Did you even read past the first sentence of my argument? I said that science is wrong a lot not in every way shape and form. What are you afraid I'll beat you well guess what if you insist that religion is a cancer I'm your worst nightmare. I'm leaving my argument as it is because it is a very good one with good points for an opening argument. This time read it all the way through. Science is wrong all the time. you can say that your right all you want but the fact of the matter is, science is a theory that people made up to explain how the universe works otherwise known as religion, its just called by a different name. Science proves itself wrong just look at evolution their is absolutely no evidence for it being real and yet its the most (at least I would say) blindly believed crap in all of science! add that on to all the lies you were told in school for example, that we know when dinosaurs lived, that we know how old the universe is, there are only 3 states of matter, that there are only 4 states of matter, that evolution is real and proven, and that all previously said theories cannot be changed or wrong in any way. Now on to the actual topic, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, this is more truth than any thing on this earth it teaches you everything that you need to know, you get details on how things work, people are willing to die for it, it guessed to the gay community would get very vocal in coming years, but this is all a formality in comparison to this next thing The Book of Mormon the thing that shows you true light the only thing that shows you everything with every explanation. your turn.
Hunting ( for food, not for trophies )

I am afraid there is an inconsistency in your argument. You declared in the title that this was "Hunting (For Food, Not Trophies,) yet in your argument you claimed that "hunting is a pure sport". And when you hunt for sport, that tends to be for trophies. Please fix this inconsistency. Meanwhile, I shall base my argument off yours, not the title. Now, hunting just for "pure sport" is wrong. It is a waste of an animal. You are killing without any purpose. How is that void of wrong-doings? In our ancestral days, we hunted for food because we needed to, but just killing for sport, that is cruel and an unnecessary taking of life. This isn't right. Therefore, hunting isn't right.
Cannibalism Should Be Allowed

I thank the Con for a fantastic debate and will now end with my conclusion. I believe we should allow cannibalism because it is an easy to access food source, it gives us a great amount of Pros that in my opinion do out weigh the negatives. It can help us feed the whole world including the starving people in Africa it is also a unique experience that I'm more than sure people who are Pro for it will be pleased with. It's not that big an issue considering it's not illegal in countries like the U.S and Australia and many more! It's just harder to gain access to the meat for consumption so that's why I say we should do something similar to Organ Donors except Cannibal cards so that when that individual dies they can be used by Meat Vendors. I will say Con makes some pretty good points but at the end of the day we're just animals and given that other animals eat their own species why don't we? With that said I thank Con for this argument and hope they enjoyed it. [I am aware that this is rather sort but I won't be able to do a proper conclusion as I have school and work followed by sleeping and more work and I won't have time to reply to this debate unless I do it now so I do apologize]
Cannibalism Should Be Allowed

Here are my counters to Pro's arguments: 1. Developing Immunity. Pro is correct that cannibalism selects for certain disease-resistance genes. The logic here is that consuming a poisonous food will ensure future generations can avoid the effects of the poison. However, ceasing cannibalism would also protect future generations from the disease. In other words, Pro's point is not so much incorrect as irrelevant. Any disease resistance conferred by cannibalism could also effected by not consuming dead bodies, thereby avoiding the disease entirely. A behavioral change is also faster and easier than a genetic one, and can bestow its benefits within one generation instead of several. 2. Stable and Easy Access to Food. This is a non-issue for developed countries, as evidenced by our obesity problems. It would only become an issue in the case of famine. The resultant breakdown of law and order would likely lead to cannibalism anyway [2], rendering the question of its legality a non-issue. Either way, this argument doesn't support the case. 3. High Protein Content. Pro linked a video which claimed a 50 kg person could yield 4 kg of protein. This amounts to 80 grams of protein per 1,000 grams of human flesh, or 8.8 grams of protein per 110 grams of flesh. This is less than half the protein content of fish (20 - 25 g protein/110 g flesh), and about 1/3 - 1/4 the amount found in chicken (28 g), lamb (30 g), and beef (36 g top round and 25 g t-bone), as presented in the chart here: https://en.wikipedia.org... [3]. This is why we eat fish, chicken, lamb, and beef instead of other primates. TL;DR, Pro's claim is incorrect. 4. Population Control. Pro's suggestions of human farms or eating death-row prisoners would certainly be effective at killing off large numbers of people. The Nazis managed to kill 11 million people by similar methods, and they weren't even harvesting the meat (prime cuts of Jew, imagine that). However, if killing off large numbers of people is the objective, cannibalism would actually make this process slower, as we'd have to invest resources into processing all that meat, and we'd still have the trouble of disposing of the inedible parts. We could adapt our existing slaughterhouses for humans, but this would require a demand for human meat that simply doesn't exist (outside of some very dark websites). Mass graves are a more efficient way to dispose of bodies. I'm not suggesting we actually emulate the Nazis and kill lots of people. However, the Holocaust remains the gold standard for genocide. That concludes the counter-arguments. We now move on to the conclusions and closing statements. References: [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org...
Cannibalism Should Be Allowed

I thank for the Con for his argument and now I will purpose my counter-arguments "1. Dead bodies carry and transfer disease." While that is true so do a lot of animals the difference is we check the animals for diseases and such which is the very same thing we'd do with human meat. There isn't much risk if we have professionals helping out and checking the bodies. I also stated that eating bodies can also lead to some brain disease immunity which as Pro pointed out the Papua New Guinea tribes and Kuru well according to this source those tribes have now developed a gene that makes them immune to the disease. Source: http://www.livescience.com... "2. Demand for cannibal food could increase supply." There are a few answers to this: 1. Human Farms: Human farms are basically animal farms except for humans we'd feed them etc. and when they are fat enough let alone grown enough we send them to slaughterhouses where we package them into food and send them to the meat vendors. [Very Inhumane however] 2. We eat prisoners, prisoners on death row and life sentences would be great and easy candidates for a hungry population if demands rise and more people start to become psychopaths it's once again simple if they are doing it illegally we just hack them up and send them to meat vendors as punishment for their crimes. 3. We don't necessarily have to eat bodies people could donate body parts or body parts lost in accidents can be cleaned and shipped once again to the meat vendors. 4. [ The Slaughter Games] This would be only proposed say if things went way out of hands way to fast ideally similar to the hunger games with tributes and such except way, way more people placed in deadly arenas with the hopes of the dead tributes being used for meat consumption and of course the winner just gets to day painlessly for winning. [For extreme meat demand] 3. Cannibalism violates present cultural values. Oddly enough Con is wrong and right about this part let me explain. In Japan a man had his penis surgically removed so he could cook it up and sell it to people to eat and oddly enough people were happy to pay for the meal and eat his penis as odd as it sounds. Another example is a guy from England who put an ad out on craigslist stating he wanted to eat someone and someone replied. They met have sex he then cut the guys penis and testicles off they both consumed his genitals and then he killed and ate the rest of him. So people are happy to be eaten/eat human meat and while yes there would be backlash there is usually backlash with anything that is against a certain viewpoint anyway. Sources: [I hope the Con is enjoying this strange debate as much as I am] I will await the Con's counter-argument next round.
Cannibalism Should Be Allowed

I confess that I entered this debate without much thought, so I'm not as prepared for this topic as I should be. However, since I'm not one to forfeit, here are my reasons why cannibalism should not be allowed: 1. Dead bodies carry and transfer disease. Pro actually hinted at an example of this in his argument. Some indigenous tribes of Papua New Guinea are afflicted by a neuro-degenerative disease called "Kuru", which is caused by a prion infection (prions are a kind of nasty protein). The prions accumulate in the brain, causing eventual death; it is then custom to eat the bodies of the deceased, which inadvertently transfers the prion to the consumers, causing them to get the disease as well. While there is some evidence of people building immunity to the prion, the disease itself is incurable [1]. 2. Demand for cannibal food could increase supply. Pro also touched on this one in regards to population control. I won't address the merits of such a strategy here, as that rightfully belongs in the counter-arguments, but consider the overall implication: more people are going to die so that we can feed the cannibals. It's the same reason we don't buy and sell organs: psychopaths will get the idea of hacking people up to sell their parts. This may be a statistically small risk, but when dealing with human life, it's a risk we can't ignore. 3. Cannibalism violates present cultural values. Most cultures have a strong taboo against the "desecration" of dead bodies, including cannibalism. Allowing cannibalism could cause a severe backlash with disastrous consequences. Look at abortion: we legalized that and people started firebombing the clinics. Do we really want that kind of chaos surrounding human meat vendors? Hopefully, these arguments will suffice. I await Pro's counter-arguments in Round 3. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org...(disease)
Cannibalism Should Be Allowed

Cannibalism is the consumption of human flesh/organs and it is legal in some countries like the U.S and Australia however depending on how you go about eating the flesh may violate laws. Usually there is only one way to eat human flesh and that is by eating your own flesh if you lose a finger in a accident you can take your finger home and eat it if you really wanted to. However I am arguing that Cannibalism should be allowed meaning I would like specialized shops that require you to be 18+ to enter so you may browse human meat and buy it to later cook and eat. People who are willing to be consumed after their death in order to know who would allow their body to become a meal we would need to add Cannibal to a card of theirs like we do with Organ donors. The Pros : Develop Immunity to certain Brain diseases. A Stable and easy to access food source. Human Flesh is high in protein. Could help with population control. I'm not saying promote Cannibalism but allow Human Meat to be a buy-able source of food for people who are well Cannibals. Animals eat animals all the time and we are animals after all as I stated before we have been eating human meat for centuries even in some modern societies people get tempted to try human flesh just to see what it is like. Some say Cannibalism is immoral but if the person who has passed away is fine with being eaten alive then what's the harm in selling their remains as food? It's their body and thus if they wanna be eaten after death then who are we to deny them that request. Cannibalism is just a great alternative to normal meat humans die almost every single second and with the amount of people dying we could solve some serious world hunger problems. [Sorry if this argument seems a bit strangely laid out but I am extremely tired as I am typing this ahah.]
A SkyLift or a Tram Must Be Built for Batu Caves

The cable cars in Gunung Mat Cincang, Langkawi is a huge hit -- the number of people waiting to get to those cable cars could be as long as a few hundred during the school holidays. The fee is quite high, but it is considered one of the best attraction of the island. It should be the same in Batu Caves, probably better. The Thaipusam festival celebrated here around February each year sees over 1 million devotees/visitors each year. 2 days festival, and over 1 million people -- I say there's a massive market there. Not only that, since it is one of the most visited attractions in Kuala Lumpur, the site receives thousands of daily visitors each day. I don't think we have problem with the demand. Malaysian government are known to endorse mega projects like the Petronas Towers (tallest building in the world in 1997), Formula 1 Circuit etc. This will be a very small project compared to those I mentioned. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
A SkyLift or a Tram Must Be Built for Batu Caves

Until sufficient surveys have been taken there's no way to tell if the public would be in favour of such an ambitious build although from past attempts it's clear that the public generally aren't in favour of tarnishing such a, beautiful, ancient piece of land. Furthermore, there's no way to tell whether or not people would opt to use the cable car due to what would presumably be high costs to travel to the top, therefore it could prove to be a waste of money. We're having this debate on the grounds that the Malaysian government would allow this and that they would fund it. All in all it seems rather a large risk too take for such a questionable build.