BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People should care more about sleep

It may be true that there are many negative effects of sleeping, there has been an article which talks about a study which says that little sleep may actually benefit a person in a couple of ways, this article from Sleep Review, the journalist for sleep specialists, on September 3, 2005, said that," Studies well document the negative effects of sleep deprivation (decreased vigilance, impaired decision-making, reduced concentration, irritability, sleepiness, increased fatigue, and difficulty thinking clearly). Interestingly, sleep deprivation can have positive effects such as tireless stamina, enhanced creativity, heightened awareness, and a cheerful mood." and "Scientists have found that everyone is not affected to the same degree by sleep deprivation. Some people after an episode have a natural resistance to its negative effects. For example, in 2002, van Dongen and associates1 presented a study that submitted subjects to two sleep-deprivation periods with each lasting 36 hours. (The sleep-deprivation periods were separated by a 2- to 4-week interval.) They found that the subjects who easily fatigued after sleep deprivation had a similar degree of fatigue after both test periods and the subjects who were resistant to fatigue after sleep deprivation were equally resistant for both of the test periods. An earlier study in 1980 by Morgan and associates1 had similar results. The researchers subjected volunteers to four periods of sleep deprivation with each period lasting 44 hours. (The sleep deprivation periods were separated by a 1-week interval.) They found that volunteers had the same degree of fatigue-resistance or fatigue-vulnerability for each of the four test periods." This shows that sometimes sleeping less will be beneficial. http://www.sleepreviewmag.com...
People should care more about sleep

Many studies do show that people on average need 7 to 9 hours of sleep, so getting less hours than what is recommended is bad for one's health. Sleep has been proven to play an important role in your physical health, as the National Sleep Foundation claims that sleep decreases inflammation and that, "Too much of it has been linked to heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and arthritis." This demonstrates that by sleeping the right amount, your heart and blood vessels are being repaired which can decrease the chances of heart disease and stroke. When you don't get enough sleep, your level of ghrelin goes up and and your level of leptin goes down, which makes you feel hungrier and puts you at risk of obesity. Also, not enough sleep results in a higher blood sugar level, which may increase your risk for diabetes. When we're sick, the first thing we are told is to get some rest and according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services this is actually the right thing to do. Our immune system relies on sleep to function properly, so by resting when we're sick we are actually helping our body fight off foreign or harmful substances. Therefore, caring more about sleep and making sure to receive the right amount is beneficial to one's physical health.
People should care more about sleep

many studies suggest that the right amount of sleep is from 7 to 9 hours and like you mentioned that on average Americans sleep at around 6.8 hours but according to an article by Dave Asprey, an entrepreneur, businessman, and author from Albuquerque, NM. founded Bulletproof 360, Inc. in 2013 and founded Bulletproof Nutrition Inc. in 2014, people may only need 6.5 hours of sleep,"The study, run by Dr. Daniel F. Kripke an MD and Professor of Psychiatry specializing in sleep research and aging, didn't find any statistical health-related reason to sleep longer than 6.5 hours per night. Data that he used from the Cancer Prevention Study II (CPSII) from the American Cancer Society even shows that sleeping about 5 hours per night is slightly safer than sleeping 8. In this case, we"ll go ahead and define "safer" as "not dying." The data is impressive. It covers 1.1 million participants, and it is the first large-scale population study that correlates sleep with longevity while taking into account things like age, diet, exercise, health problems and smoking. The data is from 1982-1988 because it took years to input the data and perform analysis on it. I"m not sure where the sleep-8-hours-per-night myth came from, but it"s totally wrong. You can file it away under old information, along with the eat-fewer-calories-to-lose-weight myth." Not only did this study suggest that Americans sleep more than enough on average according to your source mentioned but he also stated that sleeping less than the recommended is better than sleeping 8 hours which is considered by the popular belief the perfect amount of sleep. This shows that sometimes it is better to sleep less or at least safer meaning that caring about sleep is not that important. https://blog.bulletproof.com...
People should care more about sleep

Some people do get 7 to 9 hours of sleep, but according to an article published on December 2013 by Gallup, "Americans currently average 6.8 hours of sleep at night, down more than an hour from 1942." So, this shows that people, on average, or not getting the necessary amount of sleep required to properly function. Although sleep is not explicitly considered a requirement for becoming successful, it is obviously a grand contributor as it helps people function well throughout the day. According to the American Sleep Association, "50-70 million US adults have a sleep disorder... 37.9% reported unintentionally falling asleep during the day at least once in the preceding month." People who are sleep deficient are less productive at school and at work and are more prone to mistakes. Drowsy sleeping is a real threat to society as it is equivalent to drunk driving. Sleep deficiency can also affect pilots, care workers, students, mechanics, and assembly line workers. In a way, this proves that not caring to get the right amount of sleep required, a night, can affect someone's success in either work or school. There is also something called microsleep that occurs when someone is normally awake but experience a brief moment of sleep. This may happen to students during a lecture or to someone in a meeting. They believe they just don't understand a subject or topic of discussion, but in reality they may have just slept through it. This also shows how sleep can contribute to one's success, so people should start caring more about the amount of sleep they get at night if they want to be successful in anything they do. https://www.sleepassociation.org...
People should care more about sleep

Yes, sleeping is a necessity for humans but we should not care more about it especially when you sleep 7 to 9 hours already. People have too many things going on in their life and caring more about sleep will just make it more rough for most of these people. According to Kye an author of an article called "10 Things Successful People Do Every Day", none of the 10 things mentioned were caring about sleep or even having anything with sleep, he mentions eating healthy and exercising but never does he mention sleeping which shows that to be successful you do not need to care to much about sleep. In another article related to the one mentioned before just that this one mentions 28 things that successful people do it again does not mention anything about having a sleep routine or caring about sleep, this article was written by Jonathan Chan in the website Foundr. Read more: http://www.keepinspiring.me...
People should care more about sleep

People should care more about sleep as it can help with healthy brain functions and emotional well-being. According to an article by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, "...sleep helps enhance your learning and problem-solving skills. Sleep also helps you pay attention, make decisions, and be creative," the article also states that, "Children and teens who are sleep deficient may have problems getting along with others. They may feel angry and impulsive, have mood swings, feel sad or depressed, or lack motivation." So, more sleep is beneficial for a person's body to function for everyday life. In an article by Harvard Educational Medical Group, Dr. Robert Stickgold states that, "Sleep has a role in the consolidation of memory, which is crucial for learning new information." So, by sleeping the right amount, anyone can benefit when learning something new such as; how to drive a car, how to play piano, or how to solve a math problem. This shows that sleeping does in fact result in healthy brain functions. Also, the HHS mentions that sleep deficiency has been linked to depression, which also proves that sleep is needed for a healthy emotional well-being. Therefore, people should care more about sleep since the right amount will greatly benefit them. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov...
Tsunade is a bad Hokage

1) She sent an ill-prepared team to capture Sasuke. The Hokage sent an ill prepared team (Shikamaru, Choji, Naruto, Neji, and Kiba) who contained only a new Chunin (Shikamaru) and genin against a powerful team (the sound four). The team was VERY lucky to have all its members survive, and Sasuke managed to escape. This was a very important mission that Tsunade should not have taken lightly since Sasuke was known to be potentially very powerful, vengeful and was heading towards Orochimaru, one of the Leaf village's main adversaries that killed the third Hokage. If the mission was successful, the Leaf Village would have a very powerful ninja on their side. Instead, Sasuke wants to destroy the hiddel leaf village. 2) She sent Naruto on too many missions that would allow the Akatsuki to capture the nine tails fox. It was particularly important that Naruto be kept safe since Akatsuki wanted to capture all the tailed beasts in order to unleash their secret plan. In the kazekage retrieval arc, Akatsuki became dangerous close to capturing Naruto's nine tail beast. 3) She has too much of temper Her temper makes her an ineffective leader. She does not think rationally but instead gets angry. She even at one point almost killed Jiraiya, destroying both of his arms, 6 of his ribs and rupturing many of his organs. his is not something one wants from any leader. 4) She is a compulsive gambler with debt First off, it reflects badly that the Hokage has debt she has no interest in paying back. This is both immoral and illegal. Second off, the Hokage is in charge of the lives of others and huge sums of money. Perhaps a compulsive gambler, is not a good position for a Hokage. 5) By drugging Jiraiya, and not acting until later due to her fear of blood, she lost out on the chance to kill Orochimaru. There was no better time to kill Orochimaru then when both Jiraiya and Tsunade were present and Orochimaru was in a weakened state. Yet, did Tsunade take advantage of this huge gain. No! Instead, she decided to drug Jiraiya putting her in a weakened state and cowarded in fear over the tiniest amount of blood. Naruto almost died because of this mistake and Orochimaru and Kabuto were able to make it out alive. 6) Through her bad actions and displeasing Danzo, Danzo and roots did not help during Pain's invasion. Danzo, most likely through the first five reasons, hated Tsunade so much, that he told Roots not to help attack Pain during the invasion, in the hopes that Tsunade would die. Not only that, but Tsunade constantly refused to make any compromises with Danzo, something that should not be done with someone of that great power. If Tsunade was a better Hokage and compromised with Danzo, then he would have helped in the battle and Pain would have been defeated quicker.
Three Philosophical Topics - 1E

"go into your room and yell out of your window ploppy loppy booglemassod See if you get aressted" ----> How does that provide evidence for free will? I definitely see no way. In summary, since you haven't really given any proof for free will then I don't have anything else to say. As stated before, given the Source model (which is superior to the Leeway model because of Frankfurt counterexamples), free will is incoherent.
Three Philosophical Topics - 1E

As it is, it would seem that my opponent has a very misconstrued definition of free will that many who do as well. You seem to define free will as merely the freedom to physically act, whereas I would argue free will should be seen as one being the ultimate origin of an act. As others would probably know, I am supporting the Source model. There is a distinction between the Leeway model and the Source model, and I will supply one simple argument for the latter - Frankfurt counterexamples. Henry Frankfurt has shown interesting examples in which even though an agent is not able to choose among any alternatives (which many people associate with moral responsibility), we would intuitively still morally evaluate the agent. It would seem, then, that moral responsibility and free will are not necessarily linked with the ability to choose among alternatives - thus excluding the Leeway model. I will leave it at that, and see how my opponent's argument evolves in response.
Three Philosophical Topics - 1E

what do you mean there is no free will. don't you know people can do what ever you want if you don't get caught. I mean your allowed to have sex whenever you want right. And you can also eat whatever you want whenever you want. you can also kill yourself if you wanted to. I am not sure if you know this but you can also talk when you want to it might not be the right place or time but you can still do it
Three Philosophical Topics - 1E

Before I begin, I want to note that if you're going to take the free will debate...ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THE ISSUE IS ABOUT. I've had two previous debates in a row that had opponent's with a sub-par understanding of free will. If you aren't sure, then leave it in the comments. But please, don't waste my time like others have. I will present three philosophical debate topics and allow my opponent to have the opportunity to choose one of them to debate. The procedure is simple: in this round I list the 3 topics and my position on them, then in my opponent's first round he chooses the topic he wants to debate. From rounds 2-4 we have ourselves a classic three round debate! So here are the topics: ===================================================== PRO - Qualia is not an irreducible, non-physical entity. PRO - Free will does not exist. PRO - Moral error theory is sound/There are currently no adequate meta-ethical theories that secure moral realism.* ===================================================== A little clarification on each topic: *Qualia is the phenomenal character of conscious experience that you as a first person observer is able to access introspectively. There are several different definitions of qualia, some being more restrictive than others, so if there are any suggestions for change then leave it in the comments section. *Free will is the ability that rational agents have when they exercise control over their actions. The definition and interpretation of free will obviously needs to be expanded upon, but that's part of the debate. *Moral error theory is the meta-ethical school of thought that claims nothing is there are no moral facts. I am willing to defend either the global falsity version or the presupposition failure version. Furthermore, you will notice that I included another topic that is closely related to this topic; it's unique because I'm giving the opponent to choose either moral error theory or the claim that there is yet a satisfactory account for moral realism (essentially you get 4 topics). Also, to avoid redundancy if you choose the latter topic then I will refute it not by arguing for error theory (which is definitely viable) but rather by creating a positive attack on your proposed ethical theory (utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, Objectivism, virtue ethics, contractarianism, etc.). I'm PRO on all topics to coincide with the position I actually am for this debate - this is to make everything as clear and free of misunderstandings as possible. I hope we have a great debate.
Hiroshima & Nagasaki vs Pearl Harbor. What was worse

As con, I contend that the attack on Pearl Harbor was worse than the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. On the surface, the sheer number of casualties and proportion of civilians killed would make it seem like attacks by the US on the Japanese were "worse," but let's take a moment to consider the implications. 1. The attacks on Pearl Harbor were initiated when the US and Japan were not at war. Japan may have attacked a military base rather than a major US city, but it did so without first declaring war, and in a surprise attack. When the US commenced bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, war was well underway, and had been going on for almost four years. Simply looking at rules of military engagement, PH was worse than H&N. 2. The US gave warning of its attacks to civilians in an effort to clear out Hiroshima before the first bomb was dropped, dropping leaflets and informing citizens of what was coming. Japan gave no advance warning to allow those in Pearl Harbor to evacuate. . http://www.pbs.org... Also, after the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the US told Japan that there would be another bomb if they did not surrender. Japan made the choice to subject its people to another atomic bomb, rather than ending a conflict that they started, and neglecting the warnings from the US to evacuate cities that had been targeted. 3. If Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor, perhaps war between the two countries could have been avoided. When the US dropped the bombs, it was to end a conflict and minimize casualties. While Japan's attack was meant to deal damage, the US dropped the bombs to force Japan into a surrender before more damage could be done. Had the US opted to engage military forces in a ground invasion of Japan instead, as was the alternative military option considered by the Truman administration, fighting would have lasted years, and it's estimated that millions of allied forces - and tens of millions of Japanese - would have been killed. . http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org... If Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor, thousands of lives could have been saved. If the US had not dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, millions more would have died.
Blacks are the most violent race.

I will be arguing that blacks are indeed the most violent race. Blacks commit 52.4 percent of homicide. I must ask con if Blacks are not the most violent race than why are they committing 52.4 percent of the homicides? Of the offenders. In 2011 alone blacks committed at least 5,486 homicides. Compared to whites committing 4,729 homicides and 256 of the other races combined we can safely say yes Blacks are the most violent race. African Americans make up almost 1 million of the total 2.3 million in prison. Now they wouldn't be in prison if they haven't committed a crime. 47.7% of state and federal inmates committed a violent crime. Now lets do the math. Let's round 1 million Blacks in prison and see how much of them committed violent crimes. So that means 43% of Blacks in prison committed a violent crime. Now we are excluding drug offenses. If we added in the most serious drug crime offenders. 16% if we rounded it up we have at least 50% of Blacks in prison committing violent crimes. That means most of the Blacks in prison committed violent crimes thus being the most violent. Blacks are 7 times more likely than people of every other race to commit murder and 8 times more likely to commit robbery. I must say the is very violent,proving that Blacks are more violent compared to every race. Interracial crime is a problem. About 85% of blacks commit interracial crimes to whites compared to whites 15% of them doing interracial crimes on blacks. Blacks are 15 times more likely to join a gang compared to whites and asians. As we know Gangs are violent people. The sad thing is that blacks are 7 times more likely to be in Jail. In conclusion I provided evidence to conclude that Blacks are the most violent race. Con will have to negate that Blacks are not the most violent race. Sources and Cites: . https://ucr.fbi.gov... . https://ucr.fbi.gov... . http://felonvoting.procon.org... . http://www.drugwarfacts.org... . https://www.amren.com...
Speak gibberish.

Me walc down da street wen me homie be like fo show dood. I be like foo da fuq u be doin ta me? And he be say in lik escuse me foo? I show u da worl and u be lik fagers/ Aw naw foo, ima be woopin yo a$$. an he be lik kik me in da nuts, but me like NOPE bish and i go all lik kuungfu karate on dis foo. He go down. Dem cops be all ova mah soon. So fo get dis. I do sum cra-z a$$ s***. Probz ova da wall and arg da dang I be say in. why da worl so cra-z in da nuts man. i wanna liv ma life lik a bose. no lik dis nig. no lik dis. so i be parc owa lik ova da dem wals. o yea to dem foos be lik s***tng me. i say y u do dat to me? y? theres no boobes to be lik dis. i mma k o dem. but nope. dey got dem guns. man, you gotta be kid ing me. r u fo weels? dis jus ima lik F u B****. so i go lik dat one guy be lik o yea cra-z in da nuts. i woop outs my ninja styl. yes to dat me guy an me win fo da winD! yes i accomish, dis story tim is lik o yea. i won da worl with as kik time. yeay i did it. imma weener. i da bom yo. das rite. i da coo foo. i da dope nig. i can go and chop chop dam yall. yall be lik ah naw, imma be poopped. yessum foos i go to da win. den me gey random i be lik wha? no mo fun. no mo fun dis guy gets. sucs to da worl dey no kid, y? y dis so gey, lazr jus bak at me. supa lamo dat is. dis place sucs. i don lik dis mes up worl. it mak s no sens. i wishh tim to be geow in. no mo hug fo u. no hug fo U. cuz imma top da worl eh, im top da worl eh, i wanna be da ver bes, noboedy eva was. so i cood not doit. o well. nex tim, ill be rdy... ill be tim ta gey u bak, ill seeec my venjance. ull be sry dat u worl tacle me in da bak.
Speak gibberish.

Speak gibberish and make no sense to the reader. Spelling and grammar don't need to count, in fact, the worse the spelling and grammar, is what actually wins the vote for spelling and grammar. You voters who are reading this, vote for spelling and grammar to the one with the worse spelling and grammar. Also, don't just literally press random buttons on your keyboard and turn up something like this: ejpcoieuvirdhgdicukrmdhgcsehlswefwnx. Try to type in what a person can actually say and pronounce.