BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is it ok for your mom to look through ALL of your stuff including phone history, MySpace,Room......

"i understand that but don't you think theres a limit?" Is that it?... Well in answer, yes there is a limit, I think it would be going too far if your mother inspected your underwear in a bid to find out if your having underage sex for instance.. *ewww* But a paedophile has no limit when it comes to getting a child to molest, they will try anything. Often (not always) a parent knows best, Sometimes they have to do things that seem unfair but almost always they have your best interest's at heart.
Is it ok for your mom to look through ALL of your stuff including phone history, MySpace,Room......

As a mother myself I am totally in favour of searching through your child's belongings,phone history, internet browsing history, MySpace and so on in order to make sure that your child is safe. There are so many parents today who don't give a damn what there children are getting up too. The internet is fast becoming a favourite place for peadophiles to seek out children, Places like MySpace are perfect for these people. There are so many weirdo's out there lurking around looking for children. If my child is talking too strangers on the internet I want to know about it. If my child had a mobile I'd want to make sure they werent talking to some perv they met on myspace and such sites! I understand a child should have some privacy but that comes with age and trust, I will do anything I can too protect my child from the dangerous world we live in :) Your mother is probably trying to do the same. This shows she actually loves and cares about you.
Is it ok for your mom to look through ALL of your stuff including phone history, MySpace,Room......

"i know that but the other day she went on my myspace (as usual) but actually talked to one of my friends from school on my file that's not ok" There are many weirdo's on myspace who pretend to be someone they are not, for example many perv's targeting young girls often pretend to be young boys even though they are actually adult men, maybe your mam was just checking your friend is who he says he is, again it's just about protecting you. Or maybe your mam was just trying to be "cool" and "down with the kids" lol Or maybe she's lonely and is just trying to get closer to you by showing an interest in things that your into. Like I've said before I'm sure your mam is just looking out for you, yes she might be a pain in the behind and seem unfair at times but she loves you all the same and I'm sure you love her. If this is something that's really bothering you why not try and talk to her about it?, Explain that you understand that she is just making sure your not doing things you shouldn't but explain you would like a bit more privacy. Reassure her your ok and maybe she will back of a bit. Hope things work out :) Why do I feel like an agony aunt right now... Lol Dear DarkBitch.....
Quotes

Nice ones. Okay, for your next argument, only post 1 because you already posted 3. Here are my three. "Who are you and how did you get in here?! I'm a locksmith, and... I'm a locksmith..." ~ Anonymous " I'm lost. I've gone to look for myself. If I should return before I get back, please ask me to wait." ~ Anonymous "Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?" ~ Anonymous Okay, remember to only post one.
Quotes

Alright for this round i got 3 quotes for you. "Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force." ~ Darth Vader "Hello, 911? It's Quagmire. Yeah, it's caught in the window this time" ~ Quagmire "Al Gore's not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization. The goal is global carbon tax.…You need to have fear. You needed to have the fear of starvation. You needed to have the fear of the whole place going to hell in a handbasket. Which--do we have that fear now with global warming?…Then you have to discredit the scientists that say 'That's not right.' And you must silence all dissenting voices. That's what Hitler did. That's what Al Gore, the U.N., and everybody on the global warming bandwagon [are doing]." ~Glenn Beck [Glenn Beck Program April 30, 2007]
Quotes

Ya I dont expect these debates to take long time. Here is my next quote. 'Medium,' 'Large' and 'King Size'? What the f*** is that? How the f*** can 'Medium' be the smallest? Do you even know what the word 'Medium' means? This is why you're all so fat, you bunch of road sign-shooting Yankee pillocks." ~ Ben "Yahtzee" Crowshaw Your quote
The USFG should initiate a public contract bid for a pilot lunar terraforming project.

Some quick definitions. Terraforming: Deliberately modifying a celestial body to make habitable by humans. Lunar: Relating to the moon. Pilot: A small scale project, perhaps only a few square meters in area. Contract bid: A process in which the best qualified company with the lowest bid will be granted the contract. So my position in this debate is that the United State Federal Government should offer a contract bid to all U. S. companies / entities. The bid will be for the winner to create a pilot terraforming project on the moon. Since this will be a pilot project, the area would be contained and only that area would be terraformed. In other words, the atmosphere, temperature, ecology, and topography would become amenable to human habitation within that confined space. Or at least, that would be the focus. Anyone care to oppose?
The USFG should initiate a public contract bid for a pilot lunar terraforming project.

Sweet! I would like to first thank my opponent for accepting this debate. And now I will delineate just a few advantages. First I'll say that enabling space technology fuels technological innovation. After all, the technology required for successful spaceflight has often been used to create novel medical and industrial equipment on earth. Since terraforming the lunar surface is a new pursuit, the technology required will likely be as novel. My second argument is that this allow human's to move beyond the earth in their colonization attempts. Although we have been successful in inhabiting the international space station, for long term sustainability we require resources. These resources can be synthesized as long as we have access to base materials such as asteroids, moons, or other planets. Terraforming the moon gives us a way to sustain human life off of earths surface, which is pretty awesome when you think about it. And finally, I'll argue that this pursuit could probably help industry. After all we're offering the contract bid to industry which indicates that they would be the benefactor. So not only does this help us in space, but also here at home. With that said, I await with baited breath for my opponents reply.
Christianity and Evolution are Incompatible

"PRO will be arguing in support of the position that Christianity and the theory of evolution are incompatible." this is a major subject that has been debated for as long as the appearance of the theory of science itself. Tho the creationist have been around far longer then evolution, our new generation is most likely to get confuse between the two. Or one might do a little research on the Bible, while not understanding it completely. The theory of evolution can not be compatible with creationist, for some of these reasons. I will use simple to understand logical example so that i do not go deep into rather too complex example, as this usually seem to confuse most people and lead the focus of the argument cloudy and become more of intelligent of speech. It really does matter what you believe in. if you think it does not matter well try asking yourself some of these question and see if you can answer them. If Evolution is true, if your life came about by accident, everything you know, all the animals, the very condition of the earth that enable you to survive. It's all meaningless, life has no purpose. 1 Corinthians 15:32 32 If like other men, I have fought with wild beasts at EphE7;e"sus, of what good is it to me? If the dead are not to be raised up, "let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we are to die." why is it, when you ask an atheist, do you believe in living forever?, they say that is nonsense, a wishful thinking, but they do not hope in such a thing. But when you ask them, do you want to die? they respond no, i do not want to die. why? if you find it stupid to believe in living forever, why do you not favor death? @Ecclesiastes 3:11 11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has even put eternity in their heart; yet mankind will never find out the work that the true God has made from start to finish. On the other hand, if creation is true, you can find satisfying answer to the purpose of life and what the future holds. Jeremiah 29:11 11 ""For I well know the thoughts that I am thinking toward you," declares Jehovah, "thoughts of peace, and not of calamity, to give you a future and a hope." this is however just my first argument. i will go even deeper on my next respond, being a little lazy right now.
Christianity and Evolution are Incompatible

There are many who claim that the belief in the biological theory of evolution is incompatible with the belief that Christianity is true. In other words, one cannot be a Christian and believe evolution accurately describes how the vast array of biological diversity came about on this planet. I will argue against the notion that evolution and Christianity are incompatible. My position, therefore, is that the theory of evolution is 100% compatible with Christianity. I do agree that evolution is incompatible with a specific interpretation of Genesis usually referred to as Young Earth Creationism, and if that is the route we go, I will further argue why Young Earth Creationism is both not mandated by scripture as well as most likely false. Just to clarify, PRO will be arguing in support of the position that Christianity and the theory of evolution are incompatible. DEFINITIONS: The theory of evolution - a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals Evolution - the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits. Christianity - the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices.
Gay people should be allowed to marry each other

I thank David for instigating this debate. On a personal level I lean towards allowing same sex marriage, so I guess I am playing a bit of devils advocate here.Clarification"gay marriage" or "gays should be allowed to marry" is a bit of an ambiguous term, after all if one gay man and one gay women marry that could be said to be a "gay marriage". I take it what Pro means is that same sex marriage should be legally allowed. As such Pro must justify why same sex marriage should be legal, I as the Con will seek to negate.Factually Incorrect & False equivalencePro implies that gays are not allowed to marry. Even if marriage is defined as between one man and one woman only, a homosexual man can marry a homosexual women. So Pros first claim about how gays aren't allowed to marry is false.Now maybe what Pro has in mind is that the denial of same sex marriage is equivalent to the denial of other legal rights of people in the past, like when women were denied the right to vote. Firstly Pro has not shown how they are equivalent he merely asserts it. Secondly, It is also suspect how the right to vote which was denied to women translates to the denial of same sex marriage. Yes it understandable why homosexuals want to change marriage in such a way to allow for at least two people of the same sex to be married, but to deny that marriage should be changed in such a way that would allow same sex marriage has not be shown to be equivalent to say the denial of the vote to women. Once again it's worth reminding here gays are not denied the right to marry under the one man one woman rule, but rather same sex marriage is, and that's a crucial difference.If it harms no one they should be allowed to marry ?This may be a good sounding argument on Pros part, but ultimately unsustainable unless Pro is willing to bite the bullet. After all a man & his uncle should be allowed to marry too, after all if it harms no one ? so the argument goes. How about a man his sister and his uncle, after all it harms no one ?I will leave it to Pro whether he wants to bite the bullet here and admit that a man and his uncle should be allowed to marry if it harms no one or whether they drop this line of argument.I look forward to Pros reply.
The Islamic State does not properly follow Islam.

Debate impossible to accept. Comment or Pm me if you are interested in debating. Rules: -BOP is on Pro. - Failure by either side to abide by the format or terms will result in a lose of conduct during the voting period. -If Con finds the terms to be inaccurate or unreasonable then he/or she may alter the terms but only with a sound argument as to why. -No Semantics, or Trolling. -Be civil. Terms: Islamic State: (Alternativly spelt ISIS, ISIL or DAE'SH): A Salafi jihadist militant group and self-proclaimed Islamic state (caliphate) that as of March 2015 had control over territory occupied by 10 million people[ Follow: Act in accordance to instruction. Since ISIS is a Sunni group, we will be debating from the Sunni interpretation of Islam.
abortion

Just double checking you know you are con. Anyone should be allowed to have an abortion if the do so wish as it is their body, their choice. Being told you have to have a child is just plain wrong. Rape? Teenage pregnancy? Don't want children? Then don't have them. Will the child really be loved if they are an 'accident'? If you aren't ready for a child and see all your friends having fun could you possibly grow to resent the baby stopping them from living?
Rab Battle 1B: Murray Rothbard vs. Ayn Rand

Pro raps as Murray Rothbard, father of modern anarcho-capitalism, popularizer of Austro-libertarian economics, and formerly one of the most staunch critics of American foreign interventionism. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Con raps as Ayn Rand, founder of the philosophy of Objectivism, fierce proponent of laissez-faire capitalism, and one of the most popular novelists of the Twentieth century. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Clearly we have here the two main libertarian heavyweights of the twentieth century. They were both strong popularizers of libertarian ideals but only one can win. Battle begins in Round 2.
Rab Battle 1B: Murray Rothbard vs. Ayn Rand

Anarchism isn't half baked, it's the perfect society At least we accept political pluralism and variety Communists, mutualist, they can all come and stay Anyone who disagrees with you is instantly turned away How can rights be protected, good job at sidestepping the bottom line The real question is why I should pay for your protection, remember what' mine is mine No one has a right to my money but me, don't you see the contradiction The ultra-fascist State as inevitable under your system is my prediction Your philosophies just as hollow as the soul of the Devil himself And as weird and fvcked up as a mad cow fvcking an elf Do you think it would work, the combination you've conconted Of collectivist ethics and the individual's will disconnected I laid out many a defense of the validity and superiority of my philosophy While you wallow in your collectiveness, deceptiveness, and sophistry In the words of the immortal Tucker, defense is a good like any other I'm gonna go and continue the fight for liberty, you have fun sucking the d1ck of Big Brother.
Rab Battle 1B: Murray Rothbard vs. Ayn Rand

Come now, Roth, let's not lie, It's time to see what's different 'bout you and I. You see, the problem is with you and me, Is that I am a statist, and you love anarchy: Y'know? That half-baked philosophy. You'll go on and on 'bout all our rights, But how do you know they'll be protected When privatization leaves then not respected. Come now Murray, it's plain to see, That government is the only guarentee To protect the rights of you and me. I mean, hiring a judge, what are you thinking? To ignore the unfairness means you must be drinking. How can you ignore the blatant bias Of the law in the hands of privatized eyes? We can agree that free market is good But truth be told, you want more than we should. So how can I rap this whole thing up? If you like your own rights, Under the Objectivist law, And don't want them to fail, Then do not allow the law to go on sale.
Rab Battle 1B: Murray Rothbard vs. Ayn Rand

With Ayn Rand and I, the similarities are numerousBut I still have to laugh 'cause Objectivism's humerousShe argues and argues against collectivist ethicsBut believes the opposite when it comes to conflictsMs. Rand, please, I don't mean to disrespectBut I'm seriously beginning to question your intellectYou claim that no one should live for anotherBut I have to pay taxes for every dink and his brotherCapitalism, on the individual is the highest reflectionBut I can't voluntarily exchange for protection?Why is defense so different from foodYour understanding of free market forces is skewedYou're a collectivist, just wrapped up in disguiseBut that collectivism will be your demiseMy points and my objections you can't properly addressSo just give up before I come back with Hess.
USSR v.s. U.S.A Cuban Missile Crises

Pro: 1. Putting nuclear weapons in Cuba would have no significant effect if US launched first. Both Russia and US would launch 2nd strikes, and because US had more nuclear weapons than Russia US would obviously win. By putting half of Russia's nuclear arsenal in Cuba, a US air-strike would eliminate a large majority tipping the scale in US favor. By putting more nuclear weapons in Turkey at the time of the crisis, USSR would had launched its nuclear weapons in fear, causing Russia to be the aggressor. 2. At the time USSR controlled these previously independent countries under the Warsaw Pact, they were not fully sovereign nations until the USSR fell. Poland and East Germany eventually won independence after the Cuban Missile Crisis. Technically, UK did invade the US in the War of 1812 but pulled back because they would gain little from the war. These superpowers invaded previously conquered countries at least once. Does it make it an obligation to enforce a mutual treaty? At least under Russia's Warsaw Pact, yes. Con: 2. Even if Cuban fear another US invasion by putting nuclear weapons in Cuba, Russia only opened Cuba even further to potential US air-strikes and giving the US a petty reason to destroy the island and half of USSR's nuclear arsenal. Russia isn't really aiding the Cuban cause. 3. Again in either case, putting nuclear weapons in Cuba would have no significant effect as second strike would be launched and both countries destroyed. In conclusion, I obviously lost. :P It was a fun one though and I enjoyed it. :D I still believe US took the right course of action and intervened causing Russia to lose credibility. In either cases, adding nuclear weapons in Cuba would have no counter effect once nuclear weapons are launched as both countries had ineffective counters against nuclear weapons. Again, it was an interesting debate! Good job!
USSR v.s. U.S.A Cuban Missile Crises

Begin! Pro: 1) Look at the map (https://jspivey.wikispaces.com...). Ahead of Turkey is Russia. Obviously Russia has antinuclear missiles/weapons, hence it is capable of eliminating incoming nuclear missiles if allowed enough time to take action. Russia is capable of launching a second strike with ICBM missiles. Russia is also equipped with sub-launched nuclear missiles (R-13 to be exact), run those subs around the US coast and Russia has a deterrence; there is no need to be involved with Cuba. Rather than making a fuss over it almost causing WW3, Russia can turn the deaf ear like the US did with the Hungarian revolution in 1956. 2) Because Cuba was a US territory under rebellion, US had every right to quench this rebellion because a mutual treaty was violated. Similar to Berlin and Hungarian revolution in 1956, Russia had every right to crush rebellions within its territory under any means. England had every right to crush any colonial rebellion because British colonies were under the idea of mercantilism (countries wealth measured in gold (linked ->) self sufficiency (both in colonies and mother country) for more foreign exports = more gold), influence, and British protection. There must be a countermeasure for violating a mutual agreement. Con: 1) Monroe Doctrine states US will protect the Americas from foreign colonization. It is the US' obligation to invade Cuba to prevent Russia from colonizing it. The doctrine has been in effect and will still be enforced since 1823. The US had its commitment and is required to fulfill it. 2) US heavily invested oil in Cuba. After the revolution Cuba nationalized US built oil derricks without compensation. US had every right to invade and reclaim its heavy investment since Cuba refused to compensate. Say for example during your computer's warranty period the company undergoes new management, unfortunately your hard drive crashes (without back ups) along with important business and personal data and the new management refused to acknowledge your warranty or compensate it, would you sue or fight back? 3) Russia had alternative means such as sub-lauched R-13 missiles patrolling US coast. Geographically, (https://jspivey.wikispaces.com...) it would had been easier and fewer resistance to deploy from China or northern Russia, go around Alaska, and bombard the US west coast rather than supplying Cuba, which is surrounded by US allies (in blue). If Russia supplied Cuba from Europe, there would have been heavy resistance; if Russia supplied from China down to Vietnam, US had strong presence for the Vietnam War. Basically there would had been more US resistance if Russia supplied Cuba. Submarines would had been a better alternative for Russia. For these reasons the USSR had no right to send arms to Cuba and US was justified in intervening.
USSR v.s. U.S.A Cuban Missile Crises

Thank you for accepting Con, this should be a good debate. Here are the reasons why the USSR had every right to put weapons in Cuba 1. The United States had nuclear missiles stationed in Turkey The United States had placed nuclear missiles capable of striking the Soviet Union in Turkey. It would have only taken a couple hours for a U.S. missile from Turkey to attack major Russian cities. The U.S. installing nuclear missiles so close the the USSR gave the USSR a legitimate reason to place nuclear missiles in Cuba capable of striking the U.S. in a quick amount of time was a reasonable reaction. 2. The U.S. had already attempted to attack Cuba In the famed Bay of Pigs invasion, over 1000 cuban exiles were trained and armed by the CIA to launch an attack on Cuba. This gave Cuba a legitimate reason to fear future U.S. attacks and it was their right as a nation to accept conventional and nuclear arms from the USSR to defend themselves seeing that nations that feared a Soviet invasion were given nuclear and conventional arms by the United States. For these reasons the USSR was justified in sending arms to Cuba and the U.S. had no reason to intervene. http://www.armscontrol.org... http://library.thinkquest.org...
USSR v.s. U.S.A Cuban Missile Crises

This is a debate where my opponent and I will take the sides of the Worlds superpowers at the the time of the Cuban Missile Crises This debate is where my opponent and I will attempt to prove our side was justified from a neutral perspective. Pro I will be arguing that the Soviet Union took the right course of action in giving Cuba nuclear and conventional arms during the Cuban Missile Crises Con will argue that the United States took the right course of action in the Cuban Missile Crises by preventing to The first round is simply for acceptence and I will begin the debate by posting my arguments in Round 2. Thank you to whoever accepts this debate.