BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Anglo-Saxon education model should be radically reformed

She could be alright if she put a bit of makeup on, got a half decent hairdo, bought some fashionable clothes and lost a bit of weight, but no, she's a swot (nerd) and she's from Britain. Of course, I am talking about Gail Trimble: the licker from Corpus Christi College, Oxford who answered most of her team's questions on University Challenge. http://news.bbc.co.uk... There's absolutely no reason why an intelligent girl can't also be attractive - I've personally been out with some right stunners that have achieved doctorates and post-doctorate degrees from the best universities, but they originated from Japan, Korea, Iran, Turkey and Taiwan – none of them from countries with the Anglo-Saxon education model such as Britain, the US, Canada or Australia. The reason for this is that schoolgirls in English-speaking, Western schools tend to align themselves to one of three distinct camps: * The Lickers and Swots (brainy but dowdy teachers' pets); * The Fly Girls (glamorous but dim-witted – often cheerleaders if they are in America); * The Fat Slags (chavettes that are neither bright nor good-looking). By time British or American girls reach university age they are completely moulded into one of these three social circles. This means that the girls from the Lickers and Swots camp would consider it unconscionable to combine their academic studies with beauty and fashion tips from the Fly Girls. This is a shame because it means that most British guys have to choose between clever but frumpy girls or fit but thick girls (or big, fat ugly slappers of course). For this reason I affirm that the Anglo-Saxon education system should be completely overhauled to break down the social barriers that currently prevent intelligent girls developing into glamorous young women. Thank you.
Man-Made Global Warming Is A Hoax

You are clearly thinking with your heart and not your head regarding this issue. The facts are the facts. 1. The 10 hottest years on record occurred as follows: 200655.01 199854.94 193454.91 199954.53 192154.49 193154.34 199054.24 200154.23 195354.18 195454.13 http://weather.about.com... 2. Your statement is completely false. There is no possible way to see a trend in global temperatures in just 130 years. Ice ages take 10,000 years to come and go, and they don't just happen. It takes a very long time for the cooling to occur. 3. By your own admission, it is the sun causing any increase in temperature. It is impossible for us to have any affect on the sun...it is 93,000,000 miles away. The topic of this debate is that "man-made" global warming is a hoax. You just admitted as much. 4. My point was these scientists haven't the slightest idea what's going on. 30-years ago they were ringing the alarms that man was causing the next ice age. Since then, the temperatures have increased, so now we're all of a sudden causing the complete opposite. You need to wake up and see the agenda. You are being fed propaganda and eating it up. Try thinking for yourself. 5. Which countries would these be? China, Russia, Iran? They're outputting more pollution than the US, and would be completely exempt from the policies you want the US forced to follow. To think these countries aren't looking to damage the US and our economy is complete naive.
Man-Made Global Warming Is A Hoax

1. Actually 10 of the hottest years have occurred in the last 12 years, 2005 being the hottest year on record. 2. We know that the earth is warming because scientists have seen an increase in temperature since the 1800's when we started recording. We can predict that the earth has been warming for longer than that. No matter how long the earth has been around, there is an evident increase in temperature. 3. It is not only driving hybrid cars that will decrease the effect of the increasing temperature of the sun. Simply checking the air in your tire's regularly and keeping them properly inflated will save 250 lbs of carbon dioxide. Replacing your air filter will save 800 lbs. carbon dioxide. Moving your heater down two degrees in winter and up two degrees in summer will save 2000 lbs of carbon dioxide. You can also do things like recycling, buying organic foods, and carpooling to reduce the effects. 4. Since the out break of the supposed ice age, temperatures have increased. 5. NO. I think other countries, after doing adequate research, have decided to do their part to try to save the world from the damages of global warming. They know that global warming is not a made up joke, but rather a serious problem worth addressing.
Man-Made Global Warming Is A Hoax

Hello qtpi2008, Thank you for accepting my challenge to debate. Please answer the following questions. 1. If man-made global warming is occurring, then how is it that of the 5 of 10 warmest years on record all occurred before 1954? 2. How do you know the earth is warming, when we've only been recording temperatures since the late 1800's? The planet has been here for 4 billion years, don't you think such a statement is kind of arrogant? 3. NASA has concluded in many of their scientific findings that the sun is currently experiencing a increase in intensity. If the sun is increasing solar activity, what exactly would you like to do about it? More to the point, how would driving a hybrid do anything to cool down the sun? 4. I know that you're very young, but let me ask you this anyway. Are you aware that 30-years ago these same scientists were warning of the next man-made ice age? 5. Do you think it's possible that the reason other nations want us to change our lifestyle just in case man-made global warming is real, is because it would significantly weaken us as a nation? I look forward to your responses.
Man-Made Global Warming Is A Hoax

Global warming is turning into the biggest hoax in the last 100 years. It is the child of anti-american thinkers who, given the chance, will use it to harm the US' economy and strength in the world. Liberal politicians are pushing global warming as a means of control. If enough people believe in global warming, then the government will have greater control over what we drive, eat, and even how we live our lives. Let's not forget they'll be able to tax us into oblivion because we're "destroying the environment". From high school and college science I specifically remember that a theory must be proved first before it becomes a scientific law (1). Right now all we have are some anti-american scientists from the United Nations, and anti-capitalists in the US who say there's a consensus. A consensus is not proof, it's a collection of opinions. Furthermore, these so called scientists have created an environment of fear for anyone who disagrees. Climatologists and meteorologists are being threatened with job expulsion just for wanting to debate evidence that is contrary to the consensus. For those of you who think the facts support man-made global warmining, then please explain to me how 5 of the 10 hottest years on record (2) all occurred before 1954? (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://weather.about.com...
basic healthcare is a right

I would like to know where you go that information or if you are just making the wind blow where you want. America does offer more services in their healthcare but that aside a major reason that it is less expensive is that the government takes care of the cost's. Of course this is not out of charity but comes in the form of a 75% income tax but you know everyone loves to get 25 cents out of every dollar they earn. That is how they are able to afford this way of health care. If you like having everything decided for you and have little to no freedom then universal healthcare is the way to go! Once the system is put into the government's hands then what difference is there in that and a monopoly. If the government has control over the entire system and all insurers fall under their dominion what is stopping them from raising the price of the healthcare. However the government would never do that, right? If some of you are thinking that the government's control of everything would be good than why aren't monopolies good? If an entity has absolute control over an area of life or a good than people would throw a fit that the entity was corrupt and there needs to be something done about it. However when the government does it people are all more than happy to fall in line and celebrate because the people running the government are all "good and moral" citizens. There is no difference between a monopoly and a government gone rampant for power. Therefore the notion of universal health care can not and should not be a right in any sense of the form, people deserve what they work for not what they whine for. http://www.theatlantic.com... http://www.npr.org... http://www.slate.com... http://taxfoundation.org...
basic healthcare is a right

medicine is cheaper in universal healthcare countires too. the main reason it's cheaper in those places along with healthcare in general is because the government negotiaties and sometimes regultaes the prices lower. and lower administrative costs getting rid of the insurance middleman. that also rebuts your ideas for why you think it's cheaper... not because of rationed healthcare. though if you are poor, rationaed healthcare is better than none. and in those counties that have waitlines and such, you can buy supplemental insurance and get bettre faster care. but single payer countires like france are rated better than the USA in terms of healthcare. countrary to myth, france for example has less wait times than we do, less paperwork, and better choice of doctors.
basic healthcare is a right

You idea in the first paragraph would work in theory. However, the reason people want universal health care is because they can't afford the medicine needed to cure their illness. With good reason with the cost of medicine rising, faster than inflation, people are finding necessary and life-saving medicine out of reach. Giving them health care will not solve the answer. Why? who picks up the tab on the medicine because someone has to pay for it, right? the insurance companies, but when hundreds of family's need these life-saving and sometimes expensive medicine these insurers can't keep giving out of charity or they will go out of business.* due to this they hand the cost down to the people it insures, that can be compensated if the poverty rate was kept in check however poverty is on the rise (14.7% or 46.7 Million) and the cost of medicine is going up you can't sustain that sort of trend for very long. The average family that makes between $50,000-60,000 and the cost of the average cost to have health care for that average family is 16,000 a year, do you really think that family can provide with the profit of the money when you add taxes and necessary expenditures? But of course how selfish of that family to think of itself when other people are suffering because those that are suffering wasted their lives not making the most of it and getting a degree and a paying job to pay for their own private health care. the reason other countries do not spend as much on their health care is because they do not offer health services only wait lists.* The reason we spend much more than any other country is because we have not yet realized the cost of having universal health care. We still believe that maintaining the same level and quality of health services will be available if we give it to all regardless of being able to pay it. Do you really believe that a country can maintain that level, that quality of health services; while still being able to pay it's doctors a livable salary (and one that can offset the cost of medical school) as well as maintain a premium that all citizens can pay and not have to sacrifice their family's true rights for the petty and immoral right of a universal health care? A universal health care is immoral, it feeds off of people who have worked hard and made a livable job that can pay for their families expenses; it forces families to give up the dream that America once embodied. The RIGHT to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; not the right to life, slavery, and the pursuit of handouts. *http://www.latimes.com... http://www.theatlantic.com... http://www.forbes.com... https://www.theobjectivestandard.com... http://www.forbes.com...
basic healthcare is a right

con says we have to be scare with healthcare because of a big popululation. the problem is other industricalized countries consider healthcare a right, and spend much less than we do per capita. so it doesn't have to be rationed. logic also predicts this... iwth a bigger population means more doctors out of that population, and most illnesses is just in need of knowledge, a doctor.all con's ponits about taxing more are irrelvant because other countires tax less and have healthcare as a right to everyone. per the tax burden i dont thnk people would stop working to get welfare though, because all one is entitled to as a federal matter is food stamps. the idea of a runaway welfare nation is a myth. the only cash some people get is money for unsupported kids which only lasts a few years.. anything else welfare related is scatttered among the states and if you are lucky a federal program.
basic healthcare is a right

I will agree that is is a right of humanity to take what is needed to survive and that has become hard for people to do today due to population. Due to this population increase there are stories and markets that supply our needs to survive however healthcare should not be a basic right and if it were, it would be deadly to the society it was introduced.We see it right now in America where everyone is already or being forced to have healthcare, the average family pays about $16,000 a year.* The average family income falls in between $50,000-60,000.* This high healthcare cost is due to everyone being forced to have healthcare, even those who do not need it, the cost is high because completely healthy people are forced to pay for those who can't afford it. If healthcare were to be a basic right as it is becoming in America the cost of $16,000 per average family would go up drastically and due to the flood of immigrants, who are making a new life and can not be expected to pay anything, and the rise of poverty would add strain to the economy that would break it in the end. Some would retort that the government is there to distribute money to help the poor and underprivileged, raising the income of a family, thereby reducing the strain on the healthcare cost. I put forth this question, "Where does this money come from?" If the government is giving money to the lower classes where does the money to do so come from? It comes from one of two sources, one source is that the government prints from the bank. That brings problems with itself in the form of inflation, the more a government prints money the more the value of the money goes down. An example would be Germany in 1921 After World War 1. Germany under war debts turned to printing money to pay it's debts off but the repercussions were traumatic to the country as at one point 1 US dollar equaled 800 German Marks. * Of course the more favored way is to tax the upper echelon for the money needed to give to lower class. Although there lies the poison apple that many countries are biting today. If one's country puts a heavy tax on the class that is sustaining the economy such as Walmart, Target, Ford, Apple, Xbox, and the "1%" that make all the money and provide all our needs to survive than those businesses and people would be making an income equal to a middle class family but still trying to support their businesses and slowly but surely the business would die off. Plus those working hard in the middle class and being taxed to death for the sake of the poor at one point would say, "Screw this if I am working hard to make less than those who don't work than I would rather not work and get the benefits." This would led to a degenerate culture hellbent on playing the system to get more benefits and money till it breaks. A culture who tries to make everyone have the same standard of living by causing others to fall no matter what it is, whether it is healthcare, income level, or by giving different tax rates for different class levels is doomed to fail miserably. * http://www.ncsl.org... *http://www.mybudget360.com... *https://en.wikipedia.org...
basic healthcare is a right

everyone has a right to take what they need to survive from the earth, the resoures. food, healthcare, the basics. when we create property rights and exclude people from resources, we have to make up for it in our laws. people may or may not be able to afford healthcare under a free market. therefore, unless we're willing to give people land and property and a way to make ends meet, the government is obligated to ensure a basic to everyone.
is wind energy a efficient source of energy opposed to the problems it causes

Although there are a few cons, there are many pros. 1. Wind Energy is a renewable source of energy, unlike coal and oil. This means that we can use Wind Energy forever (or at least for a VERY long time) 2. Wind Energy is very efficient. One wind turbine could power 600 houses! 3. Wind Energy isn't pollutant, unlike coal and oil. 4. Prices for wind turbines are just 1/5 of what they were in 1980, and are expected to keep decreasing. 5. Wind Turbines are producing 16X the current energy demand. And now, some rebuttals. . http://healthlink.org... This one pretty much covers cost, noise, and deaths. The cost for a wind turbine is becoming much cheaper, wind turbine are not very noisy, and only 1 bird will die by wind turbine every 8-15 years.
is wind energy a efficient source of energy opposed to the problems it causes

Wind turbines are used to produce the energy from wind however they are expensive, loud, and kill. One turbine isn't effective there would need to be multiple even more money to built them and just one costs a lot. Towns or cities near the wind turbines have to deal with the constant noise produced from the turbine which could cause problems in their daily life. Wind turbines also kill migratory birds or bats affecting the population of these species that migrat around those areas
Don't break a rule game

The full-stop thing is not relevant to my answer to the statement.NEW RULES12. Both participants may post no further rules from round 4 to 513. Both participants must agree that the first to define a word is the correct definition. "Word" means English word as considered by dictionary.com; define means choosing a definition from dictionary.com, correct means it must be believed upon as 100% true14. Both participant's rules from round 4 to 5 will be considered null and void if they choose to post any rulesYou never said I couldn't post further rules once I broke a rule, or create a rule that would amend a rule-breaking. Because of my new rules, I have not broken a rule, rather, you have broken a rule first. You lose. MWAHAHAHAHAHA
Don't break a rule game

9. Both participants must have a reference to the bible each round.10. Both participants must say "vote con" at the end of the round. (BWAHAHAHA! !! )11. Both participants must correctly quote shakespear somewhere in the round. STATEMENTS1. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. " --1.1 (see: . http://www.bartleby.com...)2. "This life, which had been the tomb of his virtue and of his honour, is but a walking shadow; a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. " --Shakespear once said. source: . http://www.brainyquote.com...3. I am me.
Don't break a rule game

Voting rules:First one to break a game rule loses the game(debate).If neither player breaks a game rule, debate will remain tied(no one will vote)Game rules:1) In each Round, participant(Pro/Con) must make at least 3 new game rules.2) Rules can not refer to only 1 participant. All rules must refer to both participants.3) Rule must not require participant to do something outside of the debate.4) New rule must not contradict previous rules, including ones in the same Round.5) All rules must apply only to future events(events that may happen after rule is made).6) Two "not"(with n't included) must not co-exist within the statement. [except rule 6)](but "not" can be with neither, nothing, etc)7) Rule must not give participant win without his opponent breaking a rule.8) In each Round, participant must make exactly 3 statements that are not rules.My eyes are cool.Those statements don't have to be true.My eyes are scary.
Homosexuality is not Immoral

There is not one commandment that can be shown to be natural. Your examples only look at the first part, Such as love, But exclude the enemy part. P2 is refuted, Unless an actual example can be shown to the contrary. P3. Is refuted by your assumption that people who oppose homosexuality do so because they think it unnatural. The Pew Research Center in 2013 conducted a poll showing that 41% of Americans believed people were born gay, 42% thought it a choice, And 9% did not know. Http://www. Pewresearch. Org/fact-tank/2015/03/06/americans-are-still-divided-on-why-people-are-gay/. This survey was from 2013, Most likely the belief of "being born that way" has increased. I live in Utah, The most conservative state in the USA. I am having trouble finding the link, But I know polls show that over half of Utahns believe homosexuality is inborn, And yet the dominant faith, And the members, Believe homosexuals to be apostate if they are not celebate. Even lds. Org, The church's website now shows that it is inborn, And not sinful so long as they do not act on it. P3. Is invalid as the majority of Americans do not think it is unnatural, And even in the most conservative state in the U. S. Is believed to not be a choice of orientation, But is a sin to act upon. Unquestionably thrown out. From a biblical standpoint, You are commanded to love your wife as Christ loved the church. To fall out of love has broken this commandment even before the divorce. It is not the same as lying to save a life. P2. What is your definition of the purpose of homosexuality? Survival and love? Survival is a very hypothetical argument. Empirical data would be difficult to test. A speculation is not the same thing as purpose. Also, Whether inborn or not, Or even rational does not make it moral. Lustful desires are genetically programmed in men, But would not be a moral justification for adultry. Loving someone other than your spouse is not a moral justification for an affair either. A rational argument can be made for survival that I should create viable offspring by mating with as many people as possible. If the purpose of homosexuality is love, Or survival, It still can be immoral. P2. Does not work unless it is alright for me to have an affair because I love them, It is natural to want them, And because it increases my genetic fitness.