BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
life is game

It is relevant because there are things i cannot choose in life as i would if life were a game. I was born with Brown eyes, as must as i try, i cant get blue eyes unless in contacts. In a bigger prospective, i see life already predetermined for us. we may think we have choices in our lives,but we don't. "Our choices" have already been chosen by a higher power as they have a plan for each of us, no matter how much we try to choose for ourselves.
life is game

who said you cant get a 100 anything is possible your height is changeable with age and so are your feet. but not any of this is relevant to what am saying, look at bigger picture. first ask your selfe what is life and what is game . every day we walk and think thinking is game we play with our thoughts and find the perfect idea. look at game in bigger prospective its compation its choices its wonting to always win or be on top its about proving something to yourself and the world then what life
life is game

Life is not a game as some of the choices we make does not lead to what we want in our lives. for instance, as much as i want to pass a Calculus test with a 100, i know it can't happen because i have difficulties understanding it. From my own beliefs, i see everything in our lives has been decided and we can't change it. For instance, if i have an 11-inch sized foot, there is no way that i can change that,nor can i alter my 6'1 height. Our lives has been predetermined already, no choosing option
life is game

what am trying to say its not the smole ditales your talking about, but the biiger picture. if you dont wont to be a doctor or scared of blood you dont have to be one but if you did you with need a good gpa. game is compitation your school college grades is compitation too and if so its a game. a game is about making choces trying to get to next level like from college to mad school etc.., in the end you ither get the job or dont just like a game win or lose.
life is game

lose a football game or super ball theirs no restart, theirs no posse or i have 3 more chances. the choice you made live is a game and no the one you play on ps4 but the one you play with friends and family. ones you in that game led you either to win or lose. same in life the choice we make like go to collage or not effect if i will become a doctor or not. what do we do when we play football, you plane you make choices, you practice, you think etc, what do you do in life when you wont something
Had Babe Ruth played in the modern era of baseball, he would not have been the same player.

Babe Ruth once held the home run record, holds the Yankee record for both career and single season average, set and held the single season home run record for decades, and revolutionized the game of baseball and turned it into the popular attraction it is today. However, I believe that, as I stated as my topic, had Babe Ruth played in the modern era of baseball, he would not have been the same player.
Same Sex Marriage

Bman7720, Thanks again for your response. I know how it is with technology failing and busy schedules. The issue in the case of the Muslim baker and the "Jesus is Lord" cake is that our Constitution guarantees freedom of religious expression. That entails that no one can be compelled to perform a religious expression or act against their conscience or faith tradition. So, if Christian customer enters and asks for a cake for Aunt Jemima's 75th birthday, the cake must be made. But if the customer is demanding that the baker make a cake which compels religious expression that is against the Baker's conscience, then it is absolutely illegal and UnConstitutional for the state to enter and attempt to fine or impose penalties requiring a certain type of religious expression against conscience. This freedom of religion process works the same for compelling an act of participation in a same-sex marriage contrary to one's conscience. This is such a big issue that Mitt Romney had to make provision for Justices of the Peace in the state of Massachussetts. On the economic angle, when the state tries to compel this religious expression, it disrupts the economy. Bakers and caterers who cannot in good conscience participate in the same-sex wedding ceremonies recommend alternative businesses to these clients, thus giving business opportunities to others. However, having the state enter legally to compel the performance does hurt the economy because it causes hard-working business owners to go out of business or bear extreme legal cost, as in the case of Arlene's Flowers [1] or Colorado Baker under fire [2] for his faith. On the topic of "Interracial Marriage," if you are not serving due to someone's "race" or "ethnicity," that is different than if your religious (or non-religious, such as Neo-Aryan) denomination did not hold to "inter-racial" marriage. In that race, you could be required to serve the various races but not celebrate a public wedding which would be against the Constitution. Regarding homosexual pairings in other animal species, I had asked my opponent (since he brought up the topic for discussion) to clarify his argument. What I had counter-argued was that homosexual pairings might serve some different purpose in a non-human animal species than it would serve in the human population. Currently, I don't see you addressing that objection *and* I thought your original presentation of it was unusually brief. What I had argued about monogamy was that heterosexual marriage may be an inducement to stability in society as well as monogamy. That doesn't mean that all couples will be monogamous throughout their lifetimes. It just means that it will help to stability the society. In the next round, could you develop your thinking along those lines about how homosexual pairing would serve the same function in animal communities as it does in human societies a bit more in detail? Thanks! I'm really looking forward to our final round together. Thanks for the time you are devoting to this topic! [1] http://www.christianpost.com... [2] http://abcnews.go.com...
Same Sex Marriage

I cannot over exaggerate my appreciation for my opponent's respect and conduct in this debate. Con refers back to the issue of economic restrictions. I would like to point out that the Muslim baker, mentioned in my my opponent's example, would not be able to refuse o service the Christian customers for their religious values. As stated in my citation to the legalzoom article, service cannot be denied because of religious identification. If you provide a service, such as a bakery, catering, and floral arrangements, you are economically obligated to service a paying customer regardless of your opinion of them. Refusal to serve a SSM ceremony blocks the flow of currency in the economy, effectively causing more of an economical burden than being forced to serve against your beliefs. For instance, there are still those who disapprove of interracial marriage. They are still obligated to service an interracial weeding against their personal beliefs. The identification of sexual orientation as a birth trait on the national level would give it the same protection as religion and race, including in acts of marriage. My opponent brings up my reference to other animals displaying homosexual pairings, and continues to call humans monogamous. In fact, humans are not monogamous. Unless a person shows affection only to a single person throughout their life, they are not sexually monogamous. Social monogamy implies that the romantic bond remains, but sex can be wavered. Both of these are rare in humans. In fact, humans are not monogamous but polygamous. We have multiple mates throughout our lifespan. I apologize for the short argument, but I have run into an issue with my charger so I figured I should at least get something posted.
Same Sex Marriage

My first point is that the legal institute of marriage is secular. Religion has no involvement in it. In legal marriage (L. M. ), two individuals are unified in a dignifying agreement. While it is normal for a Christian wedding to be upheld, it's far form required. L. M. has no association with God, Allah, Satan, or any other deity. It is, in fact, a political and secular institute. While L. M. is not secular, it is optional to conduct religious ceremonies. However, this is not lawfully regulated. In fact, a priest can reject to conduct a marriage they do not agree with [1]. While it is a claim that priests will face arrests for this, it's just a use of propaganda. Secondly, the very ban is discrimination based upon one's sex. Male X and Female X both want to marry Male Y, however Male X cannot simply because he is a male. Same-sex marriage discriminates upon someone who wishes to marry, but cannot due to their biology. How is this any different from forbidding someone to claim a child on taxes because of their gender? I would like to ask my opponent how they define marriage. I do realize that the common idea of marriage is a bond between a man and a woman, but this institute is invented by man and can be redesigned by society. If my opponent suggests that such change is "un-American" or "immoral", then why should we judge past changes in social normalities any differently? Simply because a tradition has been upheld for several generations does not mean it cannot be changed. Work Cited: [1]: . http://www.slate.com...
Same Sex Marriage

This is a debate on the legal institute of marriage, and the application to same-sex couples. First round is acceptance. Rules: (1.) DO NOT involve religion. Doing so will result in immediate forfeit of the debate. (2.) Keep it friendly. Coexistence is the key to these debates, keep it civilized. (3.) Do not include personal morals. Keep this debate purely intellectual and political. Comment below to apply, I will choose an opponent. This debate should be impossible to accept, doing so without being chosen will result in immediate forfeit.
Donald Trump should resign from the presidential race

Donald Trump is basically the worst possible option (in my opinion) in the U.S. 2016 presidential race. Since this is my opening argument, I'll just make a brief list of the reasons why he is the worst. Okay, maybe second worse, I loathe Mike Huckabee. 1.) He's conservative, I'm VERY liberal. 2.) He mocked a disabled employee, we can all universally agree that is NOT presidential behavior. 3.) He supports a database of all the Muslims in the U.S., and that is downright dystopian. 4.) He wants to build a twelve-foot wall and make Mexico pay for it. I mean, would YOU agree to that if you were the Mexican president?
Vaccination against pathogens is beneficial to the community

Terribly sorry for the forfeit. My opponents refutations hinge on the statement that vaccine resistance does not exist, and cannot produce "superbugs". This refutation is unwarranted. "Vaccination can be a useful tool for control of avian influenza outbreaks in poultry, but its use is reconsidered in most of the countries worldwide because of its negative effects on the disease control. One of the most important negative effects is the potential for emergence of vaccine-resistant viruses. Actually, in the vaccination program in China and Mexico, several vaccine-resistant strains were confirmed. Vaccine-resistant strains usually cause a loss of the protection effectiveness of vaccination. Therefore, a vaccination program that engenders the emergence of the resistant strain might promote the spread of the resistant strain and undermine the control of the infectious disease, even if the vaccination protects against the transmission of a vaccine-sensitive strain. " It is obvious that my point regarding superbugs stands. To clarify my second point, I was merely stating that vaccination can create superbugs, and therefore, any cessation of vaccination programs leaves the country worse off than before. This was unrefuted. It is evident that vaccination programs can harm the health of a community through the creation of vaccine-resistant strains. My opponent has not successfully refuted my case, and has presented no arguments of his own.
Vaccination against pathogens is beneficial to the community

In conclusion Id like to mention that (vaccination is MORE beneficial, THAN NOT beneficial). This means there may as well be benefits to not vaccinate (ie. avoiding scarring of the skin, and rare links to autism and health complications), however those benefits are outweighed by the benefits of vaccination (increased and sustained health of the overall population). Also keep in the back of your mind that the concept of 'super bugs' is related to the evolution of anti-biotic resistance in nearly all cases and minor relations to vaccines. [lets say theoretically a vaccine resistance existed] [remember this would be a very minor number of cases] ie. there is no vaccine against the AIDS drug. What this means is -1)you either dont vaccinate and get AIDS -2)you vaccinate and your immune system is good for a day, then the virus changes and you get AIDS.
Vaccination against pathogens is beneficial to the community

Thats alright, I didnt specify society so it can have a broad definition. before I begin, my opponent and some of the commenters seem to have mixed up the concept of 'vaccines' and 'antibiotics'. antibiotics - (ie. ampicillin, tetracyclin, penicillin) used for treatment they kill the target by 'inhibiting' vital functions/mechanisms of organisms; you CAN have antibiotic-resistance organisms (ie ampicillin resistant strep, or antibiotic resistant Tb) vaccines - (ie. chicken pox vaccine, Polio vaccine, Flu vaccine) used for prevention, NOT treatment they DONT kill the target organism (vaccines allow the immune system to better recognize the particular pathogen) (have you ever hear of [chicken pox vaccine resistant chicken pox]??? or perhaps [polio vaccine resistant polio]???) the reason the flu vaccines are changed every year is another topic. It is because the virus is rapidly changing due to its own nature (I'll expand on this if you want), thats why we predict what the strain for the next year will be and we change and creat new vaccines. the thing is even if there was no flu vaccine made, the strain will still be changing seasonaly due to the life cycle and nature of the flu/influenza virus. my opponent argues that he is against the statement "vaccination benefits society" because if we give a society vaccines for a while they will be ok, but then if we stop giving it to them there will be much harm done to that society. (they will get infected and etc..) well, thats not really a good argument. thats like being against the argument "water/food benefits society" because if we give a society water/food for a while they will be ok, but when you stop giving them water/food, they will die of hunger. I never stated in my original argument that we will stop giving them vaccines. so since the issue you bring up can be solved by vaccination, Id say it makes your point invalid. your other issues about vaccination creating 'super bugs' due to evolution is again a misconception where you have mixed up vaccines and antibiotics (look at top of this post). So if you vaccinate 10 people in a class of 100, there wouldnt be superbug made since the vaccinated people dont get the bug in the first place and in the hypothetical case that they some how get a variant bug, the bug will be outnumbered and out competed by the non-super bugs (its called [competitive selection that forces out the minority variant] or something similar, i cant remember of the top of my head. feel free to google search it, or if you couldnt find it I'll cite it for the next round)
Vaccination against pathogens is beneficial to the community

I argue that vaccination against pathogens and implementation of vaccination programs that vaccinate the members of a community are beneficial to that community. (vaccination is MORE beneficial, THAN NOT beneficial)" As my opponent has not specified the society, he argues that this principle applies to all societies, that all societies benefit from the existence of vaccination programs. This is simply not the case. 1. In some areas of Africa, the local Muslim clerics discourage vaccination, believing that it alters hormone levels, and causes sterility. Consequently, the majority of persons within that particular society are not vaccinated. Of course, there are exceptions to this. A few members of society will accept vaccination. As a result of those few vaccinated individuals, the pathogen in question evolves rapidly. Soon, the unvaccinated members are afflicted with an advanced pathogen. As the newer form cannot be treated, given its recent evolution, many members will die. Hence, in this case, vaccination programs have a negative impact. 2. Most poor nations receive vaccines from other nations. As we know, pathogens change constantly, and therefore constantly require new vaccinations. If vaccines are no longer made available to a nation, they are left to deal with a highly evolved form of the pathogen, which they cannot deal with. This results in mass death tolls.
best jokes

"You know, somebody actually complimented me on my driving today. They left a little note on the windscreen; it said 'Parking Fine.' So that was nice." "20 years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs. Please don't let Kevin Bacon die!" "Taylor Swift waved at a boy yesterday and he didn't wave back... So she will have a new album coming out tomorrow.'
Should prostitution be legalized in the United States

This debate will deal if prostitution should be legalized across the United States. Taking aside, whether it should be left up to the individual states or whether it be a federal law etc. I argue that prostitution, a person soliciting him or herself to another for services that are sexually is no more immoral than one soliciting any other services, be it yard work, plumbing, or a painter. It is a consumer's money for a producer's time and service. I also argue that whether one believes it is immoral or not, should that person's opinion control the entire country, as an example if one believes that interracial marriage is immoral they are entitled to their opinion however they don't have the right to trample other's marriage rights. Prostitution is Malum prohibitum as opposed to Malum en se. It is evil because certain law-makers have decided it is evil (similar to consuming alcohol in the 1920s) as opposed to Malum en se, it is evil in itself, (it has almost always been evil, e.g. murder) I would also argue that legalizing prostitution would allow for more checks, balances and controls in the business than are regulated. There will be much, much less people that are trafficked in from other countries to be forced into prostitution, and if they are they will be caught/saved sooner. My evidence supporting this is look at the amount of people at Wal-Mart or anyone working for a company that is somewhat reputable. How many of those people look like they are being forced to work there? Also to have any job in the United States you already need to provide multiple forms of identification including citizenship. By having more laws and inspectors check in on this, like they do at other legal business practices, it would make the entire business safer. Another point to make about this is how heavily the porn industry is controlled, on any pornography (dvd online versions simply edit this out for viewers sake) there is a disclaimer stating that every person in the video is willing and is 18 and no one was forced etc. etc. And this industries are extraordinarily scrutinized to minimize any possible issues. Overall points. Legalizing prostitution would make it safer for all involved. It isn't morally wrong, if you believe it is you don't have the right to impose this belief on others.
Students are not referred to as Sir, Mister, or Ms., Miss, or Ma'am.

Students should not be referred to by these terms. The terms are socially respected so as to be regarded to those with more life experience than us.It is a term of respect that says "hey you've lived longer than I so you probably know better than I and I respect that dawg; I think that's pretty hip." That's why we should not refer to students using these terms and that is why we should refer to adults with these terms.
Its not a stereo type if its true

Stereotypes are assumptions brought about by false ideas of a specific gender, race, or person. When the stereotype is proven to be true, it is no longer a stereotype it is actually a fact. Example: Rednecks like to hunt. This is a proven fact. In over half of people who would be considered rednecks from the south, is a desire for hunting. You could even take polls or experiments to test how many would like to hunt, but the second the number comes back to show that the majority of rednecks enjoy hunting, it is no longer a false assumption but a reality.
Its not a stereo type if its true

A stereotype, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is: something conforming to a fixed or general pattern; especially : a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment.It is also defined by dictionary.com as: a set of inaccurate, simplistic generalizations about a group that allows others to categorize and treat them accordingly.By its very definition, a stereotype cannot be true; inherent in its definition is its inaccuracy.Beyond this, my opponent cites the argument, "rednecks like hunting." From a logical standpoint, "rednecks like hunting" would be taken to mean, "all rednecks are people who like hunting." For this to be true, there cannot be an outlier to this; thus, if even one redneck dislikes hunting, this statement is false. If the statement were, "some rednecks like hunting," then the statement would be logically true as "some" in logic translates as "there exists at least one of a that is b." However, if "some" is utilized it is no longer a stereotype, as a stereotype is taken to mean a sweeping generalization of an entire group, not a specific group therein.1)http://www.merriam-webster.com...2) http://dictionary.reference.com...;
Humans are superior to all non-human animals.

Dude gotta read the defs. Superior-superior-ASTRON. farther from the sun than the earth is: said of five planets designating that conjunction which occurs when the sun is directly between the earth and an inferior planet so, if we human kids are closer to the sun than them commie animals, we're superior Also, are animals in space? NOOOOOOOOOOOO we are, so we're straight up closer to the sun and jazz
Humans are superior to all non-human animals.

look jimothy, you gotta look at my definitions I will say it again. Superior-ASTRON. farther from the sun than the earth is: said of five planets designating that conjunction which occurs when the sun is directly between the earth and an inferior planet ok so we humans live in the USA. Animals live in like the arctic and siberia and stuff. Since human places are generally hotter than animal places, humans must be closer to the sun, because the sun is hot. So, humans are clearly closer to the sun than animals. Affirm
Humans are superior to all non-human animals.

Yo lets get cookin with some defs human-a human being, especially a person as distinguished from an animal or (in science fiction) an alien. are-2nd person singular present and 1st, 2nd, 3rd person plural present of be. superior-ASTRON. farther from the sun than the earth is: said of five planets designating that conjunction which occurs when the sun is directly between the earth and an inferior planet non-human-to not be human Lookin forward to a juicy battle, champ!