BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
human resource an asset or an expense

I think you are referring to the Human Resources Department. Inasmuch as they have a budget they are an expense. If they contribute more than they cost, then the difference makes them an asset. Taking human resource as the potential contribution of an individual employee, it is the same calculation. Their pay or cost is an expense: their contributions are and asset. Overall it is the difference between the two that renders them an asset or an expense. If a salesman is paid $50.00 per hour ( when all costs such as benefits are figured) but he generates a million dollars per hour in sales, then he is an asset. Or in sports, a quarterback may make a lot of money, but his performance determines if he is an asset or an expense. Therefore cost is an expense. Performance generates revenue. The difference is an asset if positive, and an overall expense if negative.
Being a muslim is a lifestyle of fear

I'm not Muslim but I think its a bit of both, defo fear based from an non-muslim/propoganda perspective, but for them I reckon its a religion of self discipline and respect for culture n tradition. To openly mock another religion w/out research suggest ignorance and a lack of knowledge. 1-0 to me already my friend! It can equally be argued that all religions are fear based bc all of them claim to be "the religion", and if you are not apart of their religion- you are hell bound, just ask troll followerofchrist1955 about that! Just like the crusades, and the Mughal Dynasty threatening to kill Indians if they didn't convert to Islam. 1-1 for proving yr point but... 2-1 to me for being a smartass! lol
Zoophilia/Bestiality should be legal and is not inherently immoral

Unfortunately my reply must be short, as my workload has been large. I’ll use an example with your standard human sex. Say someone isn’t satisfied with what they perceive to be the number of rapist who haven’t been convicted. They think that the law is letting them off because in cases of ‘he said vs she said’ it convicts no one since that is not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Their proposed solution is to put a blanket ban on sex without signing consent waivers and having a camera record the event. This most certainly would solve the ‘he said she said’ cases and would probably reduce at least some kinds of rape. While it is true that that would cut down on rape, utilitarianism states quite clearly that in such an instance we must weigh the good done against the harm done. In this case, the harm done includes an incredible amount of interference in people's private lives (pretty much everyone's), making sex flat-out impossible for some people, and gigantic enforcement costs. Banning zoophilia, meanwhile, means that a very small number of people will not be able to have sex with something they are attracted to (and frequently it isn't the only thing). The trade-off seems to favor making it illegal. I’d also like to make another point, animal’s inability to report on past events is not limited to sex, but includes everything. They cannot tell you if they’ve been beaten, if they’ve been forced to stay somewhere very uncomfortable, if they’ve not been given enough food. If it is proper to ban sex because animals can’t tell you if they’ve been raped, why is it not also proper to ban having animals left alone with humans since they cannot report these abuses? Simple. Physical signs. Being beaten, malnourished, or forced to be someplace uncomfortable is usually obvious, and leaves distinct signs. Not so with rape, especially rape that involves drugs. That’s right people are innocent until proven guilty... and I say if they’re innocent of raping animals until proven guilty; that’s damn well what the law should say. Not “oh I don’t want to give you the benefit of the doubt because it would be too hard to prove you guilty”. That applies to people breaking laws. Not people doing things that are morally incorrect. Note: drugs can be detected via medical tests. Not always, and especially not if time has passed. So do you see that as a necessary evil or do you think that animals mostly aren’t harmed by sex within their own species? I would see it as a necessary evil. (3) Finally I couldn’t understand ‘drawn imagery’ in context. Porn. Pornography that is not photography or video.
Zoophilia/Bestiality should be legal and is not inherently immoral

I'd like start out by noting that I cannot in good faith argue that zoophilia is inherently immoral in a vacuum. Rather, I must argue cascade effects--the secondary effects of a decision. Namely, testimony. On RapeEven if Pro has shown that an animal can consent to sex with a human, one cannot by itself be the end-all of morality. We must consider the consequences our actions have down the line. We have a method to identify human rape victims--identification. It's far from perfect, tragically, but it does exist, and people do have their rape victims testify against them. Animals cannot testify. The only way to be make reasonably sure that no animal is raped and someone legally gets away with it is to have a blanket ban. Animal body language and behavior is difficult to understand, so trying to get them to testify by exposing them to the person in question is not guaranteed to produce a predictable response--not to mention the ethical questions of forcing a rape victim to confront their rapist. On LawI would give a reductio ad absurdum as well. There is a specific instance, based on a doctrine of harm, where murder would be ethical. Should we then legalize murder? Note that Pro did not say that the premise of B.2 was to be applied to all things, so it's not a given that consent matters in such an instance. Clearly, we must keep in mind the results legalizing something has on the people as a whole. It's for these same reasons that we define a legal age. Obviously, some people below that age limit have the emotional maturity of someone above it, but that is where we as a society have decided that there are too many people not emotionally mature below the line, and if we raised it above that we'd be harming many people. The same applies to zoophilia. Legalizing zoophilia is extremely risky, and will lead to it being pretty much impossible to prosecute people who rape animals, or drug animals to have sex with them, because people are proven innocent until guilty. So until we in the ability to talk to animals (if that's possible), the solution that has the least harm associated with it would be to use drawn imagery.
Rumkowski did everything in his power to help the suffering Jews in Lodz Ghetto

I am having difficulty understanding your post, but I think I get the gist. You said… "umkowski gave full power in organizing the ghetto as long as it did not interfer with his main objectivies, which were to complete the confiscation of all jewish property" I would completely disagree. Rumkowski's goal was not to confiscate all Jewish property. He himself was Jewish and was in charge of the well-fare of the Jews. He did a horrible Job however and many many people died under his "rule. " He was a control-freak as illustrated by his "give me your children speech" . http://www.datasync.com... The productivity of the ghetto might have been keeping them as a singular ghetto alive, but it was funding the Nazi production of other ghettos and concentration camps throughout occupied Europe. By doing the service to the Nazis of producing their guns, clothing, and the like, they were freeing up funds for the Nazis to use to further persecute Jews everywhere. Rumkowski's nickname itself demonstrates his thirst for power. He was known as "King Chaim" by the Jews of Lodz Ghetto, and truly he was a king. He decided who was deported, who got food, and who starved. He was only concerned for the Judenrat and high ranking officials. All other Jews were seen as a reservoir or buffer from the Nazis which could be exchanged for a short time of peace before they demanded more deportees. He controlled the Jewish Police force and caused many of the "unfortunate food fluxes" which caused riots in the streets. As you can see, Rumkowski was a man concerned only with his only well-being. I'm almost afraid to post this as It could be used by my opponent in another similar debate.
Rumkowski did everything in his power to help the suffering Jews in Lodz Ghetto

I am against the above resolution. I will offer some definitions and let my opponent begin the argument. Lodz Ghetto- The Jew "Ghetto" Which existed from 1939 until 1944 during WWII Jew- a person whose religion is Judaism. (dictionary.com) Rumkowski- Mordechai Chaim Rumkowski, the Alteste (Elder of the Jews) of the inhabitants of the Lodz Ghetto. Good luck to whomever decides to debate this topic with me.
Americans should be able to bear arms if they pass background checks and are mentally stable.

In 2016 alone there has been 27,499 gun incidents. Of those incidents, only 2,000 were categorized by law as home invasion and defense use discharges. In the realm of background checks and mental stability, what are the requirements for acceptable requirements? Will there be psychological testing? Who will fund these background checks on a such a widespread level? The government and tax paying dollars will go into millions of dollars to establish materials and personnel able to qualify gun users who rarely use them. The world is unsafe but to carry the most extreme form of weapon out of fear is a bit troubling. Do we not live in a country with a police system? Here a few main points from psychological studies of those who carry guns: "Men who carry guns suffer from a "crisis of confidence." Gun owners tend to be angry and impulsive". "Holding a gun can make you paranoid". These studies show that gun ownership is more about ego than safety. In conclusion, guns are a necessary evil but should be allowed only to law enforcement, military, and other related professionals. Lay persons should not be allowed to own guns and the United States should not encourage nor fund a system that does. References: http://www.gunviolencearchive.org... http://csgv.org...
Americans should be able to bear arms if they pass background checks and are mentally stable.

Americans should be permitted to bear arms if they have passed reliable background checks and are mentally stable. This is because taking away our guns makes us more vulnerable and that makes us more susceptible to being harmed. Also, do you really think that by banning guns criminals are just going to abide by the law? Criminals are criminals for a reason, if they want to get a gun, they'll figure out a way to get a gun. Another point is what about the people who use guns in a safe way and for the right reasons? Should we have to sacrifice our rights for criminals who are just going to break the law while leaving the good US citizens vulnerable and unprotected? Sources: 1)http://www.activistpost.com... 2) http://humanevents.com...
Teemo is Satan

As Con, I will be arguing that Teemo is NOT Satan. Since my opponent did not post any definitions, arguments or proofs, I will post mine.Definitions:Satan - the Devil; Lucifer.Teemo - League of Legends champion; The Swift Scout. Primary: Marksman, Secondary: Assassin.My arguments: This is Teemo. So f*cking cute.............................................. This is Satan, So f*cking scary.They do not look alike. I will need more explanation form Pro regarding how Teemo's skill set and laugh have anything in common with Satan.Sources:http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com...
Christianity is no moral benchmark, it is rather the most immoral philosophy in history

" what they really do is sit around in life, waiting for death... so that in death they may live." False, Christians are called to change the world in the present and do God's will on earth. in early chrisitanity that women had the status of livestock Adam names her, 'Eve' and she gets zero real estate, no real job being a dumb woman and instead is Adam's gopher. That's clear as it gets but it goes on to blame women for the fall of man - note again her suffering is not worth mentioning but it is said that childbirth pains are her own fault for what she did and all women will suffer them as well." Wrong, the woman was taken from the man, therefore making her equal to the man. No one is blaming the woman for the fall of man. "..in this tradition and it was that a son would pay the debt of a father, a daughter of a mother and on-quite an immoral sense of justice and a complete lack of comprehension of individualism to a degree of madness" That's in this tradition... God's definition of good and plan to end evil isn't the same as yours, so the "problem of evil" argument is futile. It seems as if your going on a rant than actually debating me and providing textual evidence to support your claims.
Christianity is no moral benchmark, it is rather the most immoral philosophy in history

I object to Pro's claim that Christianity is the most immoral philosophy in history. Pro claims "Ever had one say "I'll pray for you!" with the venom flying, no points for sincerity and negative points for violating Matt 6:6. Back to the Golden Rule-let's break that down shall we? First of all, it offers no REASON to do it, no motivation, which stands in contrast to the conceptual ideas of punishment and reward, one of the few areas it was original as it is the first religion to make punishment eternal!" Not sure what Pro is claiming, but there is a motivation to pray for another person as James 5:16, Hebrews 13:18-19, 1 Timothy 2:1-2, Luke 6:28, and more verses command us to do. You point out that Judas caused Jesus to die, but it is by Jesus' own life and death we are saved according to John 10:18. There is 1 unforgivable sin which i presume you mean in Matt. 12:31, however based on context and other passages, blasphemy against the Spirit isn't an instant sin done, but a continual rejection of God's grace. The Bible never says that his creation is perfect. Slaves in the ancient world were treated far more civilized than in later years.
Women should be evicted out of this country

I do admit that I had not read your entire argument due to the lack of flow and the inconstancy of the evidence. Throughout your story there are no dates in which this has happened no documentation or names. Though I am not appealing to ignorance which is one of the biggest fallacies known to critical thinking I cannot help but feel like this argument is biased. Although, I do recognize the fact that in these modern days women (mostly feminists) can be slightly rude and non sensible this only happens in a few remote cases. Therefore, in this case you are not only appealing the the lack of instances in which this has happened but you have completely discredited your argument. Therefore I shall not resign and you shall not yet win. -Benjamin
Women should be evicted out of this country

so do I win in this argument? because first, you are only criticizing me for being a sexist male who posted this argument with my first sentence saying that everything I say this moment is not really my thoughts on feminists and women in general. Second, This argument should be clearly labeled as comedy, and although the title isn't a well specified one, I still made some clear points here and there in my "disgusting" argument. If you were expecting something better than this, I'm sorry, we are still on round 2 of 3
Women should be evicted out of this country

In my life as an intellectual I have never heard a more blatantly sexist remark in my life. Though as not to shatter your ideology as that would be wrong of me to do I would like to ask why would you say this. Even if as a joke one should never bring sexuality or race into a joke as it is no laughing matter. Furthermore, do not confuse me with a women"s rights activist as I have debated against and for them too, I am merely following a moral compass in which I have refined over the years of my life. Though as to use what you have just said with another group instead of women would be purely offensive. For example what if instead of women you had said "Black people need to be evicted out of this country" would that not be offensive? In saying this I ask you, was this joke really worth the putting down of women who are already discriminated against in this country? The answer I leave to you. -Benjamin
Women should be evicted out of this country

*This is a joke, angry women don't belong standing next to my house*Surprisingly, women should be evicted (removed) from our country (USA). Why? because they are showing clear signs of gender dominance. Of course, feminism has died out, but it should be time for men like me to raise our voices to stand against this fury of shits they are hurling at us. Many years ago, there has been women rights movements in the US. Rights to voting, rights to equal payment, etc. I think those were truly honorable moments. A tower that represents the amazing progression of women in this country. Still, just because the tower is tall, doesn't mean that it should get taller. Right now (or a few months ago), the current act of women's rights almost brought the tower down. They say that they do more work than us, but as a reddit post said "work doesn't count as real work if you can do it in your pajamas", which is the sad truth of families. The men do all the work, putting out the trash, cleaning the gutters, mowing the lawn, pulling out the weeds, ITS HORRID. Yeah sure, moms do kitchen stuff (no offense, I don't know what happens in the kitchen), but they could do it within a few steps from their beds. That's unfair, completely unfair.Why does women's work have to be challenged too? it's pretty clear to you when you hear about a feminists on tv babbling about work loads, and payment. Work loads are always unequal, no matter the gender. It's true that a large majority of male bosses don't favor women more than men. They actually favor women workers more than men. most of the time, more important people get the biggest work load. payment is about the same.Finally, it is ok to assume genders, regard others by gender, and physically defend yourself when the choice is forced. There are 76 official genders, that's true. BUT... they are all nearly the same as the two original genders. It's just the way someone thinks. For example, there is a gender called Astergender. meaning a gender where you feel bright and celectial. WHAT. so, I go outside at night with a friend. I say "WOW, look at all those stars!"My friend goes "I don't know man, It's cold-""DID YOU JUST ASSUME MY GENDER AS A MAN? EXCUSE ME? I AM Astergender RIGHT NOW"That's not all, there are wayyyy more unrealistic genders that are really short branches from the original two genders. Women are clearly trying to make false lies and make themselves more than equal to men. They are making themselves HIGHER than man. They are trying to make power to this country by trying to make everything they speak a law, everything they believe for, a righteous movement. We need to gather our troops and drive them out of this counrty before they do.*First Argument*
Marching Band is A Sport

I await my opponent's affirmation, definitions, and supporting information for the affirmation. Affirmation - an affirmation is a statement you are trying to debate for. Usually done in the "I affirm that _Topic___of___debate" format. In this case your affirmation would be I affirm that Marching Band is a sport. Definitions and Explanation: Here is where you should define the words: sport, and set up a strict standard for the what a sport is and what a sport isn't. Make it clear where to draw the line between a sport and a non-sport. These lines should be clearly distinguishable. For example if I was to bring up another activity, I should be able to easily fit them into a category of either sport or nonsport based upon your guideline. Supporting Information - This is where you would include reasons why Marching Band is a sport and why it lives up to your definition of a sport. The supporting information should utilize your definitions and explanations. You should clearly show why it is a sport. As the person who created the resolution, you have the burden of proof and thus must prove, (using your definitions and explanations) along with examples factual/logical information why Marching Band is a sport. You should also give your opinion on other activities that are considered sports such as: Cheer-leading, Chess, Fishing, Hunting, surfing, skating, bungee jumping, racing, gambling, etc. Should they be considered sports too? Thanks and good luck on the debate!
The Hunting of Gray and Harbor Seals

The seal hunting will go down the same road as oyster fishing. In Maryland, way back when, there was a surplus of oysters. Then, the industries came in, started fishing them, and now there are very few oysters at the bottom of the Chesapeake Bay. If shooting seals is legalized, people will go out and kill them plentifully. I can assure you that if people are allowed to just go and shoot them, they will shoot too many. An example of a good hunting policy is deer hunting. There are specific numbers of deer hunted each year, so not too many are killed off. This is an example of heavy regulation, but you have given no indication that you want hunting to be regulated. The idea I get is that you just want somebody to be able to go kill seals, a new seal hunting industry to be started, etc. History shows this doesn't work. Why do we have to keep making the same mistakes over and over again? Also, you have not expressed any interest in conservation or protected areas for the seals. Don't you think it would disrupt the 'ambience' of a beach if people have guns to shoot seals with them? Humans should not interfere with the world and its species. Our economy could be helped a lot more by certain lawmakers being less idiotic on capitol hill, but I won't go there. Lastly, fish is not of that big of dietary importance to humans, many people don't eat fish and they survive. Sources: http://www.dnr.state.md.us... http://chesapeakebay.noaa.gov... Thanks for reading the debate.
The Hunting of Gray and Harbor Seals

No problem here. ;) I agree with you fishermen are not the only predators in the wild, but it is common knowledge that U.S fishermen have laws against how much fishing they can do, and what we are doing is acceptable; we are limiting how many fish seals can eat by shooting off a few seals. This argument does not stand first off all because the resolution is for the United States and does not take place in Europe, and second because your evidence is faulty, it is expired and there is no proof that it agrees with what you are saying, it could agree with my points. The fishing industry is not sustainable at this this time, but taking this step can help it get on its way. I agree seals are cute, but they are pests and nuisances. Mice are cute but they are also pests. We won’t be shooting all the seals. So there will still be seals for tourists to see. Also more fish, and seal trades will help our economy, and everyone wants our economy to boost, right? Even if fish is not the most necessary part of human diet, it is still important for humans. Population control is necessary now! This is the future. Voting issues: 1) Boost in economy. Vote pro, so that there will be a boost in economy. 2) Lack of evidence. My opponent lacks all forms of evidence, all her evidence does not exist. Con, may be using evidence that is made up, or that agrees with my plan. All the evidence she uploaded was from just a few hours before my response, it doesn't just expire like that. One may, but not all three peices. For all these reasons I urge you for your affirmative ballot.Evd 1. http://ec.europa.eu......;Evd 2. http://savesandiegoseals.com......;Evd 3. http://wwf.panda.org......;