BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The show Spongebob Squarepants sets a bad example for children.

Spongebob is a childrens show and should be treated as such. When I was younger I loved that show along with many others such as Faily Odd Parents, Jimmy Neutron, Code Name Kids Next Door etc. The great thing about these shows is it keeps kids out of trouble, they won't be running in the streets because they are inside watching T. V. There are no educational purposes in this show because it is not an educational show. .. That's like me saying that 25 year olds shouldn't be allowed to watch their favorite show like South Park, Family Guy, or whatever you may watch because they serve no educational purposes. Kids should also not be put to a very high standard for education because they are in their first years of life. They should learn from real world mistakes not school.
The show Spongebob Squarepants sets a bad example for children.

This show does not serve any educational purpose for the children of this generation, it only subjects them to a wide variety of sexual innuendos that will lead to more children having a perverse personality as they age. The show is also suspected to be created to portray the seven deadly sins and the actions of the characters do not serve as good role models for the younger children in which the show was made for. Also, are Squarepants truly plausible?
Should we be allowed to clone

I think that we should NOT have the right to clone! Even though it may seem pretty cool that cloning is already out there, it may seem pretty to those who don't want to clone. For instance, what if anything goes wrong in the method? Could people in the society incidentally get killed? Or could it be deliberate? The thing is, that cloning is already out there! You may not apprehend it because people or critters look the same as cherished ones or beloved creatures! Something may go wrong in the making and in a second the feeling of the person or creature could change (Clones don't have emotions! They are like robots!) and maybe someday clones will overtake our atmosphere! It may seem pretty absurd what I am transcribing, but I can assure you to be in my faction! To say that cloning is immoral and that we should discover an innovative way to help people exist longer with natural resources and 'human' elements! For one, there are health perils going into this manner! There are also emotional risks and there could be undiscovered consequences. There could be a mutation of a human's body and a canine's head! It could happen! Another reason that cloning is dangerous is because there will be too many people on earth! Clones can not depart unless killed. The administration would not have enough funds to maintain all of these people! Another large reason to not consider cloning is because clones do not care about religion! Consider it or not, we all have a religion even if you think that you don't! If you were a clone, you could probably not have children! They can not make a clone have the same parts as a natural human being! Clones are manufactured! The whole process messes with our ecosystem! These are the reasons that cloning should not follow! Accept it or not! Cloning certainly does exist, and its pretty frightening!
Should we be allowed to clone

No, we shouldn't be able to clone because it devalues human lives. If you clone yourself then you are just a copy there is nothing special about you. The success rate of cloning is very low and it is very expensive. If I was to have a pet that died then why would I spend $100,000 to get an exact clone of the dog when I can buy like 4 dogs for that price? We might even develop a new disease from forming new genes. People who are cloned maybe viewed differently or viewed as a lesser citizen then a regular human being. When we clone it is playing God because when we die we shouldn't be brought back into something else! This can cause in breeding because we will have the same genotypes which means we are reproducing among themselves which later can lead to extinction. Cloning will be abused and it will all go wrong. It makes individuality disappear because we all will be the same. This is one of many things we can do that we shouldn't do!
Rap Battle

Ayoooooo, so the rules are as follows: - All rapping will be audio or video submissions, none of that fake AF written sh!t most of these talentless kids only want to fvck with - 4 rounds, 3 raps, first round is acceptance, and as the creator I'll go first. - Raps are to be original works, no just throwing out verses that are straight up copies of songs. - Lyrics must be posted with the audio or video - Profanity is accepted - Roasting savagely also acceptable ___________________ Good luck Solon, cause you're gonna need it, LETS GET IT
I can beat anyone at a debate.

Anyone: Any person or people. https://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Pro is a person, if not, they are not eligible to use this website as it's about me states "The premise of the website was to enable a PERSON of any creed, nationality, gender, or sexuality to have a platform to voice their opinions and to share ideas on any topic they choose." http://www.debate.org... Either Pro is a person or they are not eligible to debate on this website. Pro can't beat himself/herself as a debate because that would mean that they were beaten and thus failed to beat one of the group 'anyone'(s) and thus failed to uphold the resolution. In conclusion, Pro is a person hence an example of anyone and thus cannot beat anyone at a debate as they would have to fail to beat himself/herself in order to beat himself/herself without which they could also not uphold the resolution as they are one of all 'anyone'(s) that exist.
The US colonialism and interventions in Liberia were just

Ok, let's go down the flow: (Sorry about the Policy Debate style, but that's the debate style that I learned) 1) The Americo-Liberian power structure was an inherent problem. The new elite suppressed the rights of the natives for the first half of Liberian history, and their repression was an indicator of a failed attempt by the ACS to create a more utopian world for former slaves. Sure, exercising power is always nice, but that's hardly acceptable when it comes at the expense of the vast majority of the natives (who lived inland but were still presided over by the AL). 2) Black nationalism and African pride were subjugated in this era. The AL who came to Liberia came with a notion of inherent superiority [1]. Their goal was not to establish a utopia or return to their roots. In their time, they were colonialists who sought to impose their Western culture on their fellow African kin. The United States allowed this event to pass in an era where colonialism was the paragon of foreign policy. The U.S., by allowing this to go past, gave tacit approval to the repression that took place in Liberia. 3) You mention that Liberia was never colonized. The U.S. forced off European powers because it had exclusive economic control of the region and did not want other nations meddling in its experiment. The U.S. had no noble thought in mind when it defended Liberia against imperialist aggression, for it had the same motives as those aggressors. The U.S. extended not the Monroe Doctrine but the Roosevelt Corollary when it defended Liberia. 4) The traditional institutions of Liberia were sacrificed and ignored in place of Western ones [1]. The Americo-Liberians failed to learn the local culture, for they were foreigners in their new home (something that the ACS never understood). This flagrant neglect to learn the local custom led to the antagonization of the locals, one that the United States was partly responsible for because it supported this initiative in the same spirit as the ACS. 5) The ACS was run by the Southern white elite [1], which saw the freed slaves as a threat to the current system. The ACS was a front for them to get rid of their biggest fear under the pretext of "civilizing Africa". I thank my opponent for a very good debate. I leave the rest to the voters. [1] = http://www.compareafrique.com...
The US colonialism and interventions in Liberia were just

"As we did not take economic or political control"-Pro That statement does not ring true. The United States wielded enormous economic control over Liberia, which depended on U.S. trade, along with British and French loans. The country existed as a protectorate of the United States for much of its history, dependent on the U.S. for economic growth of any sort. As for the Hawaiian anecdote, it should be noted that the island was heavily colonized by American citizens before it was annexed by the United States, making it an example of colonialism as well as imperialism. I will extend the arguments made in Round 1, specifically regarding the Americo-Liberians and their oppression of the local tribes whom they viewed as inferior. These have not been addressed by my opponent in his Round 2 speech.
The US colonialism and interventions in Liberia were just

No justification can ever exist for imperialist gestures, especially the adventure in Liberia.This is a common mistake made by many. Imperialism and Colonialism are not classified the same. Colonialism ussually involves sending citizens from ones country to anothers in an attempt to establish a colonial hiearchy. Imperialism goes by this definition..... im·pe·ri·al·ism imG2;pi(ə)rēəG6;lizəm/ noun 1. a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force. "the struggle against imperialism" For example, imperialism can sometimes be just, when the influence and power being spread is also just. For example, the Hawaii Republic asked the US to annex them them, as the queen had been overthrown, and Western influence would of actually benefitted them. As for imperialism, none of that took place in Liberia, as we did not take economic or political control.
The US colonialism and interventions in Liberia were just

No justification can ever exist for imperialist gestures, especially the adventure in Liberia. The American Colonization Society originally came up with the idea of sending Africans back to Africa. [1] It seemed like a good idea to them -- the origins of these former slaves were largely unknown, and the variety and complexity of African culture was still an enigma. The assumption that all Africans were the same led to the colonization effort in Liberia. However, we have to look at the results of the experiment to see why it was such a failure. The Americo-Liberians, as the former slaves were called, immediately established a power structure in which they stood to gain. Liberia, which was a fledgling country when it finally declared itself a Republic, soon found itself borrowing heavily from Western Powers such as Great Britain and France, and its economic growth was hampered by debt. Unlike Ethiopia, which managed to remain independent, Liberia quickly fell under the imperial sphere of the United States and became a protectorate. The new Americo-Liberians soon established a power structure in which they subjugated the natives. Citizenship for the local tribes was banned until 1904 [1], when they finally got their suffrage. In the 1980s, a coup d'etat led to violent uprisings, government repression and the execution of various members of certain tribes [1]. These are only a few of the reasons behind the U.S. experiment in Liberia being flawed. [1] = http://en.wikipedia.org...
The US colonialism and interventions in Liberia were just

Alright, I will be arguing that the US colonialism and interventions in Liberia were all just. I know that colonialism is a bad word to use, but I don't know how else to define it. I feel this one may be hard to argue, so don't be afaid to play devils advocate. By acceepting, you agree to these definitions. co·lo·ni·al·ism kəG2;l!3;nēəG6;lizəm,kəG2;l!3;nyəG6;lizəm/ noun 1. the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically. in·ter·ven·tion G6;intərG2;venCHən/ noun 1. the action or process of intervening.
Money is more important than love

Okay the simple and short answer to your point of view is you are not looking at this the right way. I feel that you may have had an issue in a relationship that you thought was true love. But what we are trying to do is look at this not from a person to person POV but from a general POV(point of view). What I am trying to tell you is that if there is TRUE LOVE between two people then money and all material things mean nothing. Yes, in a perfect world you may have both money and true love but we don't live in a perfect world. It is so rare to find such a scenario. Please understand me here material things and money mean nothing in the large scheme of things. In the end nobody will care about how much money you have only the love you have given to the ones who love you will matter. There is nothing more to it. Love is just more important than money because if you deny this you are looking at short term happiness.
Money is more important than love

Ok, maybe you are right in some case. but how you can explain the reasons of divorces? You believe for true love, but why usually male cheating their wife even if he truly love his wife? Is it justly to love this men???? Is it True Love from your opinion. If we combine all male in the world, only 2% of them are faithful husbands. We have to agree with this things, because it's true. I never believe for true love, because now it became rarity. From my point of view first important things is respect each other, but not love him for his appearance. If two people will understand each other, and be like a good friend and adviser, I know that they will build a strong family. everything started from understanding each other not from Love as you said. usually if people say I love her, and they both quickly love each other, first problem will star from distrust and misunderstanding each other, then what of course money.AS you said that money is not important, that even if you will be a billionaire, you will be a lonely person. give me a rich and lonely person. you may say that rich people never had a best friends, around him only his enemy, or fake people. give a guaranty that if you are not rich you will have a best friends? how do you know that they are a best friends? its is hard know who is who, you will know if something will happen with you. who will come and help you with your problem. nowadays no one wants to have a problem, and before to help they will think than maybe will help you but its also maybe you/not. usually not....which is sad to know about it.for example, you are not rich you have a wife you love each other, but you don't have enough money, all your salary is only for your nutrition, taxes, accounts etc. your wife will live with you maybe 5 or maybe 10 years not more, because she will say hey honey I want to live not like that, I never dreamed to live like that. I love you but you need to understand that my love is not eternal. for example in this situation they love but they don't understand each other.
Money is more important than love

Okay so let us review your point of view. Let us say you own all the factories in China and you are a billionaire with multiple expensive cars, shoes, basically everything money can buy, but no love no happiness. Money brings you temporary happiness because what you are thinking is that happiness is actually greed. Greed brings us happiness until we cannot get what we desire. Love on the other hand is something that stays with us forever. Once you are truly in love, you are truly in love. It will bring you an eternity of happiness. And if two people love each other truly money and all should not mean anything at all. If a relationship is based on materials and expectations for gifts it won't last but if it is love and all that is desired is love it will bring an eternity of happiness even you end up on the streets with them. Simple, no money in the world could make money more important than love.
Money is more important than love

Okay so let us take a look at this topic. Firstly, I want to point out that love is much more important than money. Everyone has one goal in life that is unanimous to all and that goal is the pursuit of happiness. Everyone has this goal to find utter and true happiness. Everyone including you chase happiness! Now people have many ways to find happiness. Some find it through hobbies they have and others through helping others. But then there are many people who think, and the key word is "think", that they find happiness in money. Now yes money can bring you happiness, but only temporary happiness. I bet if you had all the money in the world but no love you would be completely destroyed. Actually I would recommend reading "Lotsa de Casha" I believe Madonna wrote this children's book. It actually supports my argument completely. So listen Love is most important because every person, including you, want love. People want acceptance and most of all they want someone they love and especially they want that someone to requite that love. I mean think about it! People live on the streets with just a dog but they are happy! Yes, maybe they are sad the way their life is turning out but if you asked them is your heart happy they would say YES! And that is only because they have someone that they love. If you don't have love you have nothing. Its the fact of life. Love is what makes bad days better it is what brings you happiness for eternity. It is FINE if you don't have a Ferrari or Mercedes. But, if you have no love you are incomplete and most importantly you are not happy. Just think about it. You tell anyone that knows what love feels like and I guarantee you that if you gave them an option to live without love with a lot of money or the option to have a little bit of money or just enough to survive, but they have love with them everyone will say yes to the second option. Love is life and life revolves around love.
Death Penalty

Considering the very stern time limits, I will resort to re-using some of my old talking points. Please forgive my lack of creativity. The death penalty cannot be trusted to be inerrant; because it will always be administered by imperfect humans. Humans make mistakes. Among these mistakes cannot be the accidental killing of innocents - brought about by our allowing ourselves to become destabilized by rage. It must be a hard and fast rule that our society and culture do not accept the killing of innocents - even if we are quite certain that we aren't doing so. We are human, and we make mistakes. These mistakes are bound to occur, inevitable, and so we must not apply fallible human understanding to this irreparable and irreversible act. My concern is whether or not maintaining the death penalty is safe to operate – for law abiding citizens who must live nearby such a system. I have shown examples of how it is not. Further, I am not convinced that it can ever be corrected and reformed to offer society the assurance that innocent persons will not suffer death or the loss of loved friends and family as a result of operating the death penalty. I maintain that the failure rate of the death penalty safeguards, if applied to a private company or even an entire industry, would be unacceptable to the public. I argue that rage is the main motivator, the main “selling point” for the death penalty industry – but that this is inadequate to justify allowing it to continue to operate. “I was mad at a serial killer, so I killed your little brother, who did not do anything wrong, but I still want to keep killing serial killers, so I will continue accidentally killing little brothers in order to get revenge on serial killers” is simply not a valid argument. On the other hand, the same argument that suggests that it is unsafe for society to allow serial killers to be paroled due to the possibility that these offenders may kill an innocent person - is exactly my argument against the death penalty: it kills people who do not deserve to die. My argument, therefore:1. The death penalty is unsafe for the law-abiding public, due to inevitable mistakes made by the penal system2. The death penalty is irreversible, mistakes cannot be corrected 3. The fact that our society will ineveitably kill innocent persons as we make use of the death penalty is unacceptable
Death Penalty

This arguement is for the Death Penalty. Every criminal that commits a crime such as murdering a policemen or multiple muerder should be executed. Alot of people claim that the death penalty is not a good thing to have, but it's a positive effect on making sure that the world's worst criminals don't strike again. The death penalty should be improved a little more, because today court systems always stall the case at hand trying to figure out if the person is guilty or non-guilty.
Most study-abroad programs should be renamed "party abroad": they are a waste of time and money

My opponent has brought up some new arguments for why studying abroad is a waste of money, so let me answer them.1.) Students don't pay their own way when they study abroad; their parents pay. Since their parents pay for the purpose of their child's education, it is a waste of their money if the child parties, etc., instead of getting an education.This argument is flawed for a couple of reasons. First, because it's not true that parents always pay their child's way. My sister worked her arse off for three years during high school to save enough money to go to Belgium. My dad didn't contribute one dime. He actually tried to discourage her from going. My sister borrowed a little money from our older brother, but she paid him back eventually.Second, it is not true that parents of exchange students pay to send their child abroad strictly for their education. In fact, that is usually the least of their reasons. After all, in cases like my sisters, she had ALREADY finished high school before going abroad to take the 12th grade all over again in Belgium. Also, a person could get a better education in their own country since they know the language better, and it would be cheaper. So the purpose of sending kids abroad for a year is not for their education. It is for the experience. If all they did was concentrate on school, that would actually defeat the purpose of sending them over there. Interacting with the people, partying, making friends, enjoying the culture, learning the language, etc., is the primary purpose for sending kids abroad for a year.2.) If you party instead of study, you're wasting time and money.Here, my opponent is just asserting his point of view. He's not really offering an argument. I already responded to this point in my first statement.3) Some people study abroad, not for a year, but for a full degree.Here, my opponent is right. Although the majority of people who study abroad do so for only one year or one semester, many actually do so to peruse a degree. But the problem with arguing from these exceptions is that he's got to make the case that people who go abroad for degrees instead of one year or one semester exchanges do just as much partying and friend-making and neglect their studies just as much as 1 year exchange students. But that is not the case, at least in my experience. I've met many people who went abroad for degrees, and they all took their studies far more seriously than people who went abroad for 1 year exchanges. In fact, people who go abroad for degrees typically take their educations more seriously than people who remain at home and go to local colleges and universities. So in the case of people who go abroad to pursue degrees, they do not typically waste time and money.