BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
diving isn't dangerous

How likely are you to die scuba diving? According to the "Diver's Alert Network (DAN) 2010 Diving Fatalities Workshop Report", a diving fatality occurs in 1 out of every 211,864 dives. Whether this seems risky to you or not is a matter of personal opinion, but let's put this number in perspective by looking at the fatality rates of some other activities. 1 out of every 116,666 skydives ended in a fatality in 2000 1 out of every 126,626 marathon runners died of sudden cardiac arrest while running and barotrauma is completely avoidable. In fact, if a diver respects the safe diving practices taught during scuba diver training, none of these factors should be a problem. http://scuba.about.com...
diving isn't dangerous

Barotrauma is caused by the damage done by increased underwater pressure on the air pocket in the middle ear. Divers usually "equalize" during a dive by pinching their nose shut and blowing, by chewing or by swallowing to push more air into the middle air. However, a descent that is too rapid can overcome a diver's ability to equalize and result in severe pain and even injury to the middle ear. scuba dving is dangrous http://traveltips.usatoday.com...
Sex is unhealthy and immoral

Sex is unhealthy because it spreads disease. If the right precautions are taken, this can be avoided. however, this is irrelevant. The resolution isn't "If practiced a certain way..." Sex is unhealthy because on its own, it is an extremely easy and common way to spread disease. Just like sharing hypodermic needles is unhealthy, so is sex. In either case, there are precautions one can take to reduce or limit the health risks, but the acts themselves are still immoral. My opponent has simply asserted that sex is healthy, without backing it up. Sure, it may have its positive effects, physically and emotionally. However, the negative effects I brought up (spreading things like herpes or AIDS) far outweigh the positive effects. These negative effects are present when the act is done naturally, without any kind of artificial protection. Getting shot isn't deadly when the victim is wearing a bulletproof vest, but it's still deadly when no such qualifier is used. No qualifier was used in my opponent's opening statement or the resolution, so we can assume the debate was not meant to mean sex in general. Keep in mind that my opponent DIDN'T EVEN ADDRESS the fact that sex spreads disease. Next, my opponent makes a complete straw man out of me, and he even throws in some ad hominem as an extra bonus. I already stated why sex is immoral, and it's nothing my opponent addressed. Sex is immoral, when no qualifier is used, because many people think it is. Morality is determined by what people believe. It is not something innate, it is simply a reflection of opinion. I didn't state anything about my religion (I'm an atheist), nor did I say anything about 2000 year-old texts. I admit that most everyone will agree that sex is morally acceptable when specific qualifiers are used. "Sex is ok if the people participating are married." There are many who would say that. However, just like last time, the resolution and the opening statement of my opponent does not state a qualifier. I have also shown that procreation does not have to be unhealthy or immoral, since certain specific qualifiers can make sex not fit these adjectives. Next time, read your opponent's argument, rather than simply posting a generic response that doesn't address the points I made. My opponent is relying on the fact that people will simply see the debate topic and vote his way without even reading the arguments, and this will probably happen. I implore anyone voting against me to tell me why. My opponent addressed none of my points, so they are valid as far as the debate is concerned.
Sex is unhealthy and immoral

My opponent argues that sex is immoral and actually unhealthy. HA! If sex is unhealthy, Beemer, then why do people not only not get sick from it if practiced correctly, nor do they die from it, but in fact science shows the opposite: sex, in fact, is healthy for people both emotionally and physically. Unhealthy? Let's hear you explain this one. Secondly, oh sexually depraved (see: virgin) opponent Beemer, you state that sex is immoral. How so? Because your god says so in a book written by sheepherders and whipping boys -- less than -- 2 thousand years ago (the timing being key to its inaccuracy)? Uh huh. Another religious zealot nut job trying to project his warped morals and misplaced insecurities onto other, healthy people. Sex is about as immoral as breathing. if sex were immoral, then it logically follows, Beemer, that to procreate, and to ensure the continuation of humanity, ergo, survival, is also immoral. My opponent, through logic, implies that survival itself is immoral. I look forward to my confused opponent backing up this ridiculous claim. God bless sex! Huzzah!
Sex is unhealthy and immoral

Alright, my opponent has failed to make an argument in the first two rounds. Because of this, I will make a simple argument here, so I cannot be called out for not having an argument (even though my opponent already agreed with me). Sex is unhealthy because it causes diseases to spread. I am not saying that sex is ALWAYS unhealthy, I am simply saying that overall, it causes more health problems than it fixes. This makes it unhealthy. It is immoral because some people say it is so. Morality is in the eye of the beholder. While there may be some popular moral paradigms, their popularity does not make them more valid. Remember that just as Sex did not have to be unhealthy ALL THE TIME to be considered unhealthy, neither do these people have to consider all sex to be immoral. I would wager that the majority of sexual relationships are either outside of a relationship or in a short-term relationship. I also hold that many people (possibly not most) view such instances of sex as immoral. Thus, at least a good portion of sex is viewed as immoral by a good portion of people. Since people's opinions are what decides morality. Also, let us consider the opening round my opponent put forth. The type of sex he was referring to was very specific; he referred only to 'emotionless' sex. Thus, it is not unreasonable to assume that this is indeed the intended meaning in the resolution. This is also the type of sex the most people believe to be immoral. With that, I'll let my opponent make his concluding statements.
Sex is unhealthy and immoral

Amen to that, brotha. My stance in this debate is that sex is unhealthy and immoral. Con has already agreed with me, so I find nothing worth rebutting in his opening statement. I will however say that he was correct when he said that "People who engage in random and emotionless sex are poisoning the world by spreading disease and sins of the flesh." I now wait for my opponent to produce some kind of argument.
The Playstation 3 is superior when compared to the Xbox 360

Thank you for your response. Since this is my round to present my arguments and definitions, as you clearly defined in round one, I will do so and I will address your contentions in Round 3. First, however, I would like to point out my position in this debate. As the debater on the "Con" side, my goal is to show that the Playstation 3 is not superior to the Xbox 360. Thus, I must show that the Xbox is equal to or superior to the Playstation 3. With this in mind, I shall proceed to my definitions. [Definitions] I would accept Pro's definition of "Superior" as one definition of the word. Another is as follows: Superior - greater in quantity or amount http://www.merriam-webster.com... [Arguments] 1) Price: In terms of price, the Xbox 360 has been cheaper than the PS3 since either console has been released - the Xbox having kept a difference of at least slightly under fifty dollars from the PS3. While the price of the PS3 has significantly dropped from where it was, it has also been stripped of many components. 2) Processing Power: When it comes down to how well the two systems can run games and perform other similar functions, the Xbox 360 and PS3 are very close. However, having been out for longer, thus allowing producers to format their games to fit the console better, the Xbox 360 is able to run most games smoother than the PS3 (1). 3) Game Selection: With many games being cross-platform in design, and console specific games being left up to personal preference (many of them being very similar), neither console would come out on top of the other (1). As a secondary note on this topic, the Xbox 360 has a greater total number of games with a greater number of them having a review score of 70 or higher (2). The specific numbers are: With a Metacritic review score of 70 or higher: Xbox 360: 294 games PS3: 181 games 4) Sales: "Microsoft's Xbox 360 console continues to dominate US console sales, according to new data from the NPD Group. Microsoft announced today that in July 2012, it sold 203,000 Xbox 360 units in the US. In Microsoft's blog post, it states this marks the 19th straight month that the Xbox 360 was the number one best selling game console in the US, and the 17th straight month that the Xbox 360 held more than a 40 percent share of the game console market in the US. Microsoft said that the total amount spent on Xbox 360 hardware and software in July was $218 million. However, the unit sales number for July were down for the Xbox 360 compared to July 2011, when the company said it sold 277,000 units" (3). Of course, this makes the Xbox 360 superior in sales and also likely means that more people chose to buy an Xbox 360 over a PS3. [Conclusion] In conclusion, the Xbox 360 is, in many ways, equal to or superior to the PS3 including some stated by Pro in their opening argument. As I stated earlier, I will be addressing Pro's list of contentions in Round 3. Thank you, again, and good luck in your rebuttal. [Sources] (1) http://www.pcmag.com... (2) http://www.siliconera.com... (3) http://www.neowin.net...
Homework should be banned in USA

Well I thought I was going to get a real opponent but it is just some guy trying to advertise Call of Duty or posted it on the wrong debate (which is not likely at all). I am still going to continue with my argument. Homework prevents the waste of time and gives students something beneficial to do with their time. Students waste a lot of time on social media, on the Internet, playing video games, etc. It is okay to use those things in with limitations when you are taking a break from something and trying to lower stress by doing something you love but mindlessly wasting their time and using these things to an over-extent is not something they should be doing. Studies show that students who have homework and do it get better test grades and overall grades in school than ones who do not have any homework. In my closing statement I would like to say that having and doing homework, but not too much of it, is beneficial in learning from a student and teaches them life skills they will use in the real world as well as giving them something useful to do instead of wasting their time. Sources- (1)- http://www.ascd.org...
Homework should be banned in USA

Call of Duty is a first-person shooter video game franchise. The series began on Microsoft Windows, and later expanded to consoles and handhelds. Several spin-off games have been released. The earlier games in the series are set primarily in World War II, including Call of Duty, Call of Duty 2, and Call of Duty 3. Beginning with Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, which is set in modern times, the series has shifted focus away from World War II. Modern Warfare, released November 2007, was followed by World at War and Modern Warfare 2. Black Ops, released November 2010, takes place in the Cold War, while Modern Warfare 3, released November 2011, takes place in a near-future setting. Black Ops II, released November 2012, takes place mainly in the year 2025. Call of Duty: Ghosts was released in November 2013. In May 2014, Advanced Warfare was announced. On April 9, 2015, Treyarch announced Black Ops III. The Call of Duty games are published and owned by Activision. While Infinity Ward is still a developer, Treyarch and Sledgehammer Games also develop several of the titles with the release of the studios' games alternating with each other. Some games have been developed by Gray Matter Interactive, Nokia, Exakt Entertainment, Spark Unlimited, Amaze Entertainment, n-Space, Aspyr, Rebellion Developments, Ideaworks Game Studio, and nStigate Games. The games use a variety of engines, including the id Tech 3, the Treyarch NGL, and the IW engine. As of April 2015, the Call of Duty series has sold over 175 million copies.[1][2] Sales of all Call of Duty games topped US$10 billion.[3] Other products in the franchise include a line of action figures designed by Plan-B Toys, a card game created by Upper Deck Company, Mega bloks sets by Mega Brands, and a comic book mini-series published by WildStorm Productions.
Homework should be banned in USA

Homework should not be banned in the United States because it helps students learn the subject/topic they are working on and it prepares them for the real world. My first reason why homework should not be banned in the USA is that it helps students learn the topic they are working on. Learning at school does help a student, but taking the same work home and practicing it and studying it in the comfort of their home is better than at school. At school, there are many distractions around you that could make you unfocused at what they are teaching but at home, you have no such distractions and can focus on your studies more easily. Homework also helps the teacher find what the student is missing and what they need help on. Example: If a student got all the problems that require Law of Cosines wrong then the teacher knows that the student needs help in learning how to use the Law of Cosines. My second reason for why homework should not be banned in the USA is that it prepares students for the real world. Homework teaches children responsibility. They know they have an assignment due two days from now and they will learn that they have to do it, whether they like it or not. That's what's a responsible person would do, and that is how things are sometimes in the real world. It teaches them time management. They learn that you have to learn to manage your time between homework, social life, and doing what they want to do. It teaches students perseverance and how to deal with adversity, which they will definitely encounter throughout their lives. It can also help raise their self-esteem if they did got an A on a project or research paper that they worked really hard on. Sources: (1)- First-hand school experience (2)-. http://memphisparent.com...
Communism is Good

Since I don't think Pro has any intention of debating this issue, I'll only post a rudimentary case.The main reasoning against economic central planning of any kind is that under it, rational allocation or coordination of resources becomes impossible. The reason this is so is because centrally coordinated economies lack a pricing mechanism which signals the levels of relative supply and demand. This form of critique is known as the calculation problem, originally formulated by Ludwig von Mises. Mises writes:"It seems tempting to try to construct by analogy a separate estimation of the particular production groups in the socialist state also. But it is quite impossible. For each separate calculation of the particular branches of one and the same enterprise depends exclusively on the fact that is precisely in market dealings that market prices to be taken as the bases of calculation are formed for all kinds of goods and labor employed. Where there is no free market, there is no pricing mechanism; without a pricing mechanism, there is no economic calculation."===Sources===[1] "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth", Ludwig von Mises (http://mises.org...)
Communism is Good

I accept. Some definitions are in order.Communism is "the political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society."[1] Communism comes in two basic forms, Marxism and anarchist communism. The primary difference between the two is that Marxism advocates a transitory state of lower communism (state socialism) in order to bring about communism whereas anarchist communism supports a more direct transition. I'm not sure which form Pro is planning to use, but am fine arguing against either.Obviously there isn't any clear cut and objective definition of what constitutes something being good. However, we can use general markers to indicate this, such as communism's position relative to other social systems (e.g. capitalism), the general quality of life under communism, whether or not communism actually reaches the goals seeks to achieve, etc. ===Sources===[1] http://www.britannica.com...
rap battle

So I guess that my opponent just up and quit He must have seen my skills and then simply had a fit Look at his profile and we can see he's on even now But yet he didn't reply, and I want to ask how I guess he just decided he got destroyed enough Or maybe he figured if he gave up he'd look tough That's some backwards logic, but I don't know his mind But I do know that he quit, so I will not be kind I've said it before, I'll say it again, he challenged me I guess he wanted to try and take a look to see If I was good as I said I was, see if I could back it up So I stepped into the debate, acted cool and said "Yo what's up" Apparently it was enough to cause him to pack up and run away But that's fine by me, because dude, you've over stayed I guess I won't say much more, because he gave me a win Guess handing me free victory should be considered a sin Cuz to be honest, it happens literally all the time Since going against me must clearly be a crime I'll end this now by saying "good debate" Though the fact you quit makes me a bit irate
rap battle

Dude, quit playing, you've got absolutely no shot at beating me You know what every one says is that the truth will set you free But my truth here is what's about to dig your grave So you better stop and give a thought, because there's no reset or save You challenged me to a rap battle, but this isn't a fight This is simply a slaughter, when I'm done, you'll see I'm right I'll beat you down harder than if you got a hit by a boulder But me? Im on fire! I'm lit up and hot, I'm burning up so much you can feel me smolder Meanwhile we have you, crying because I owned your butt It wasn't my fault that you asked me to bring it, now you're down in a rut I'd seriously suggest that in the next round you be careful Because anything you say I'll turn it around and be a handful The only reason I haven't done it for this round though Is because none of your disses made a lick of since, yo. In honesty though, I could have ended it with this round But I decided to wait, so that next time I could truly beat you sound So to wrap this up, please just reconsider your actions, dude Because next round, I'll make sure that I really get crude Sorry I took so long to make this one. I don't have access to a computer so I had to use my phone. Also sorry for the formatting. Again, I'm on my phone, and I typed this in Notes, so...
rap battle

Mhmmmmm...... When ur granny heard my rhymes, she got faint (faint bitches) the next day she saw me, she called me a saint (saint niggas) she said my rhymes gave her inspiration, gave her faith (faith niggas) cuz of me, she's not gonna be called 'the late' (late niggas) My mansions taller than the great wall of China, to build that high, you'll need inspiration from a diaper your rhymes can never diss, they could never impress me but cuz I'm kind I'll give you a scholarship back to nursery So take care, don't you fool, don't be bully cuz I won't hesitate to send you back to juvie you asked me to rap, Girl you need my autograph I'm not a gymnast but yet I'm an autocrat if you're broke, it's obvious cuz I broke ya left you in hospital bed, thats right I did stroke ya sorry you ain't lucky on my way to granny cuz I'm rich, I have to escape a group which they call illuminati me I think it's funny cuz I keep on making money currency gets bad, yet I'm the janny But yet for you payday is the problem welcome to ma residence Barack Obama is my president and I'm tryna clean up my closet like an Eminem Before I was bonachez, that boring Guy Now they call me that touring Guy girls do follow, watch my intetview...English is so foreign guy My swaggg in legendary I have the tracks. In chemistry I'm a hero, a true negro' So why don't you RUN AWAY AND NEVER COME BACK
Homosexual Marriage

Do you readers see what is going on? In this previous round, the Skeptic has made no debate arguments of his own. Even in the first round, all he did was attempt to rebuttal my arguments. Debate is supposed to be an engage when BOTH sides present cases. Also... readers don't be swayed by the way he keeps saying everything is a "fallacy" and the way he tries to sound intelligent and overreaching to make himself seem knowledgable I contain the potential to attempt th logical and absolute rationale that persuades its substantiated efforts and embraces to establish the pinpoint clearance of the subject itself refers to. This pretty much sums up his whole "debate." He just skimmed through my points and then just wrote about how I was wrong and what fallacy I was contradicting or whatever. He really gave no proof or the other side of the argument, hence the vote should go to con. I will give a quick summary though: There is a reason why 75% of society is for gay rights but over 50% of society is against gay marriage. Gay marriage hurts the institution of marriage. My opponent keeps telling me to prove by science or by logical reason why the points make sense, but look at the previous rounds. He just didn't want to post an actual argument. Gay marriage is wrong. I GAVE REASONS AND SUPPORTED WHY I BELIEVE GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG, AND MY OPPONENT DID NOT GIVE ARGUMENTS TO HIS SIDE, HE ONLY DISREGARDED WHAT I TYPED OR JUST ASKED A QUESTION THAT I ALREADY ANSWERED. the vote should go to con, because pro really never supported the pro position, he only critiqued mine please audience vote as you wish. i thank you for reading this debate. please do not be swayed by his comments in this round. he will just try to defend himself and disregard all the truth that I refer to. Thanks
Japan is becoming a threat to the peace in East Asia

"Then now he knows they don't like his visit to the shrine, but why hasn't he explained yet? ?? "I am not responsible for Prime Minister Abe so I won't make any claim here. It would be better to read statements made by the Japanese government. "Perhaps you should adknowledge that now the border disputes are over and resolved"Those borders are still disputed by their respective countries internationally to this very day. Therefore the border disputes are not resolved. However, the conflicts and clashes on these borders have died down,for now. "But I dont think Japan should attack China because China has a much more stronger military force. "Japan would not attack China. Japan's military forces are not large enough to launch an attack on mainland China. This is why Japan is not the threat to peace in East Asia. China may attack Japan though. In conclusion, I will say my opponent has failed to address the issue of how Japan has become a threat to the peace in East Asia. Instead, he discussed historical events and Shinzo Abe's trip to the Yasakuni shrine. The only issue coming close to Japan threatening the peace in East Asia was Japan's military buildup. That however does not make Japan a threat to peace in East Asia. Even Pro admitted the Japanese military was inferior to China's. So Japan is not the threat in the current scenario taking place in East Asia.