BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cosmetic Surgery

*please note : definition (for this purpose) - elective surgery to alter physical appearance with no compelling mental or medical reason It is none of our business what other women chose to spend their money on, the country is democratic and we all have free choice. we should not judge others. in our economic situation, the country is a free market - the consumer rules - if consumers demand it then suppliers should be allowed to supply it. Furthermore, it is rational to want to look good and as we are constantly judged on our appearance, wanting to look great if fine. If it improves self esteem then its a good thing too. Cosmetic surgery adds over 1/2 a billion pounds to the UK economy GDP alone - and that was in 2006. development of cosmetic surgery has lead to improvements in reconstructive surgery in general medicine, therefore benefiting the NHS and other patients too. In conclusion, Banning cosmetic surgery wouldn't stop it, it is better for it to be safe and legal than dangerous and illegal, putting young, sensitive girls at risk.
That twilight sucks

I do not say twilight is bad Becuase other authors say so.i will begin with character development.Bella in the books is nothing more then a damsel in distress almost the whole purpose of her is to be the item of contest for Jacob and Edward.She is of no use to Edward or Jacob any girl could have been in that posistion.which is a great appeal of the story she is never perfectly described only as a pale,clumsy,brunette and bueatiful girl.she has nothing special about her other then the fact that Edward can't read her mind(which is never fully explained) and the whole point is for her she contributes nothing to anyone but being alive.now I will talk about Edward he is 109 years old and he's dating Bella now that is a little weird if you think about but let's keep going.there is almost nothing at all about his other 108 years before Bella which apparently not important at all he is a stalker he watches her as she sleeps he is a abusive person he always talks about women in derogatory terms.he in a way forces her to date him by threatening her by saying he will kill himself if she breaks up with him a sign of a abusive boyfriend is when he is angry with you he will lock you in a room cut you off from the outside world by taking items like phones'cars ect' and in the books he has Alice kidnap her and he took part of her engine out of her car just to keep her from seeing Jacob.also that's another sign not allowing contact with other men.he has no other interest other then Bella she is literally the only thing in his life so what did he do for 108 years and if he did something before he just forgot them why.and I will go about the authors I'm not saying there perfect and you are right they are in a different genre so I was wrong and I will continue on other points in next round
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal In All States

It seems Pro has dropped most of my case and agrees with a lot of what I say, but disagrees on whether marriage has a societal goal or not. My opponent also seems unaware of the convention that new arguments should not be made in the last round.Does marriage have a purpose?Marriage must fulfill a common goal. Otherwise, the state would have no such interest in marriage or in regulating the marital union. If the state does not a reason to regulate marriage, then there's no reason to allow marriage at all, which makes the entire case for gay marriage fall apart. My opponent's question: "why should there be a societal goal?" has been met.My opponent hasn't provided any reasons why the state should have an interest in regulating marriage, which is the purpose I have provided should be accepted over his argument. Instead Pro states the allowing gay marriage would increase the state budget. This is a flimsy argument because wedding ceremonies can still be performed - the only difference is that the state would recognize them as legitimate. Also, few gays actually marry. They make up only 0.1% of the married population[1], so any economic benefit would be extremely minimal. Whether or not it is a benefit, it is irrelevant to its actual purpose, a purpose my opponent seems oblivious to.Couples without children?I have already answered this argument in the last round, but since Pro has ignored it then it is in my best interest to bring it up again. Marriage is not determined whether one is successful in a goal, it is determined by whether a couple has the ability to achieve that goal. If a baseball team tries to win a game, but they aren't successful in winning, are they no longer a baseball team? Of course not. The same logic goes for the minimal voting age: minors could vote maturely, yet we don't let them. There are adults who don't vote maturely, but we let them anyways. The same goes for marriage.ConclusionIf marriage is about love, like my opponent thinks, then there is no reason for the government to care about it at all. Thus, it logically follows that marriage must have a reason, and because Pro has no reason to provide it is proper that a reader should accept mine over Pro's. The revisionist view is flawed if it is about love because it would allow a ton of people to marry and could be easily abused. If the conjugal view is correct as I have shown, then there is no reason to allow gay marriage. The resolution is negated. Vote Con![1] www.rense.com/general79/fewd.htm
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal In All States

Thank you for your views and opinions. Though the original idea of marriage is procreation, and yes, many heterosexual couples who decide to not have children may later decide upon it, but a good portion don't, and a good portion can't. And for the statement regarding the negative effects on children and their lives, why should there be a societal goal? A homosexual couple with a child will raise them to believe in equality for all people, and to never give up no matter what anybody says. A benefit to society would be to legalize gay marriage in all states. This would provide, as thinkprocess states, a positive impact on the state budget. Also, we would see an increase in tax-revenue, even if it is small. Just after one year of legalization in New York, they made 259 million dollars in economic impact just New York City alone. [1] Source http://thinkprogress.org...
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal In All States

Thanks to Pro for the response. I will now answer fully each of Pro's objections to my case and demonstrate why traditional marriage is the most logical definition of the marital union.What constitutes a marriage?If marriage is about procreation as a common goal, then why don't all heterosexual couples choose to have children? Why should these couples be allowed into marriage but not homosexuals? The reason is that heterosexual unions are still of the procreative type whether or not they can act upon that characteristic. Just encouraging these couples to enter into marriage create a likelier chance that procreation will occur, so that it can bring a benefit to society. The state wants to provide a view of what marriage really is, not just as a means to end. For example, if I went out into the forest to hunt for some animals, but came back empty, I would've still considered myself "hunting" regardless of whether or not I was successful. [1]Aren't same-sex parents efficient enough?Any union can properly raise a child, whether it be a homosexual couple or a man and his TV set. Whether same-sex parents are good enough at raising a child is irrelevant, because marriage is about an ideal family structure, and the only way to properly preserve of that structure is to grant such relationships a special status in which they can continue to meet the societal goal. This isn't to day that homosexuals shouldn't be able to adopt children, since many children are needful of parents, but that there is no reason to extend marriage to unions which are contrary to the marital institution itself. As a society, we want what is best for the next generation, and in order to help them we must institute marriage as it is which will best serve as a benefit to society.Is marriage about population?The purpose of marriage is to help the upcoming generation be raised the best so that they can best function to help our society. As mentioned above, it is how workers and laborers come to be. It isn't, however, about growing population, since there is no problem with population growth in most countries, but it could be argued that it would incentivize couples to procreate in countries that our losing people. Since we are talking about the states as noted in the resolution, this argument doesn't really apply.Source[1] http://discussingmarriage.org...
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal In All States

Though it may be true that same sex couples cannot have children together, there are other ways to have children. For example, adoption is an alternative, as well as surrogate mother and artificial insemination. And is marriage supposed to be mostly surrounded by having children? There are plenty of heterosexual couples that choose not to have children and that is legal. Although there have been some studies showing that support the fact that it negatively impacts children, it doesn't solely matter if you have both the specific mother and father figure in their respective gender roles, it matters if the parents can teach and support the child. The good thing about gay people having children is that they want a child and have sat down and decided they want a child. In a same sex relationship, you can't accidentally have a baby. Therefore a good amount of thought has to go into having a child and if they can support and provide for them. There also isn't a problem with our population. There is no desperate need for more people. We have enough people for enough jobs, so is procreation really a valid argument in this situation? Thank you for your opinions and views
Right Wing Liberarianism is better than Left Wing

In this debate I am going to argue how the policies of Right Wing Ideologies and parties are both morally and economically better and how they are more efficient and fairer. I would like to point out that Fascism and Nazism are not Right Wing. In fact Nazism is the Workers' National Socialist party placing it in the Left Wing and Fascism and Anarchism are two extremes of the centre not Right or Left. My main points will be 1. How Liberty is better than Equality 2. How forms of Social Hierarchy are natural and arise from some people doing better than others and working harder. 3. How Right Wing supports Equal rights and opportunity 4. Why the Government's power should be limited 5. Why Socialism is both bad and inefficient.
Greatest Clips of Film Scenes in History

Ah, the recent Dark Knight trilogy Very nice, my friend I'll be posting more of classic films http://www.youtube.com... This scene of Apocalypse Now has to be one the best of the film's time period A notorious scene with Robert Duvall and Martin Sheen It is meant to be taken in many different emotions Beautiful music (especially during the opera) and the trauma of war are all combined to make a neutral scene
Can a human truly be liberated from their ego

My opponent claims that a human would be liberated from their ego while asleep or in a state of unconsciousness. I would like to state a short but clear and concise rebuttal. With this discussion, we are dealing with a humans mental state and not the physical state. With that said, for a human to be freed or liberated, the subject would need to be aware of this process. In an unconscious state, there would be an unawareness of any such state. Even if it was ascertainable! If a human was considered to have any mental condition, e.g., mentally insane, Schizophrenic, ADHD, etc., the human would be still regarded as such during a state of unconsciousness. This same principle follow with the attachment of the brains ego. Furthering my argument, this can be illustrated to be invalid by his own sources, referring to Freud's model of the psyche. For the unconscious mind, while not aware is certainly active with an egoic entity. -Freud applied these three systems to his structure of the personality, or psyche the id, ego and superego. (Here the id is regarded as entirely unconscious whilst the ego and superego have conscious, preconscious, and unconscious aspect.) - Freud believed that the influences of the pre-conscious and unconscious reveal themselves in a variety of ways, including dreams, and in slips of the tongue, now popularly known as 'Freudian slips'. For these reasons I state that the human mind is not void of ego during a state of unconsciousness.
Can a human truly be liberated from their ego

Thank you. I appreciate you clarifying those parameters. With regards to the ego. I would like to clarify that my reference to the ego is in the realm of psychology. With this in mind, our debate over the ego would encompass far more than simply the feeling you have about yourself or feeling of superiority or inferiority. Examples: A. Psychoanalysis . the part of the psychic apparatus that experiences and reacts to the outside world and thus mediates between the primitive drives of the id and the demands of the social and physical environment. B. the "I" or self of any person; a person as thinking, feeling, and willing, and distinguishing itself from the selves of others and from objects of its thought. The human condition would be required to strip themselves of all the elements that the ego is powered. The human mind cannot fully be cleansed from conditioning from birth. That coupled with the genetic traits that the homosapian carries.
Can a human truly be liberated from their ego

May the best debater win! Because my opponent has not clarified the definitions of the terms of the debate, I shall provide the definitions of the terms. Can: "to be physically or mentally able to" -Merriam Webster Human: "A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance. " -Oxford Dictionary truly:: "in truth : actually or really" -Merriam Webster liberated: : "freed from" ego: : "the opinion that you have about yourself. " egotism: "the feeling or belief that you are better, more important, more talented, etc. , than other people" In order to truly be liberated from one's ego, a person simply has to stop having an opinion of himself or herself. In order to be truly liberated from one's egotism, a person simply has to stop having a feeling or beleif that they are superior to another person, either by a person thinking that they are inferior to other people, thinking that other people are superior to them, or thinking of themselves as equal to others. For the sake of clarification, do you intend to debate whether humans can be truly be liberated by their opinion of themselves or from the belief that they are superior to other people?
PMDD as an Insanity Plea in a Court Case

I was also going to base my argument on refutations, but I will change tactic. PMDD is a very severe and extreme thing to experience. Every woman has mood swings on PMS, but for PMDD it is a lot worse. I know someone with it that before menopause would tell her daughters to lock themselves in their room and not let her in when she was hormonal. Now she is a sweet normal woman most of the time, who loves her daughters, but PMS for her is uncontrollable. Many women with PMDD get severely depressed and severe anxiety along with a lot of pain. Many cannot go to school or work during times of being hormonal as well. In other words, people with PMDD are normal most of the time but in times of being hormonal are thrown of guard. It can take them many years to learn when it's coming and how to control the PMDD, and even then the mood swings and rage can easily get out of control if someone gets on their bad side. http://www.neulaw.org...
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should establish a colony on the Martian surface.

This is part of the DDOlympics. Rules1. No forfeits2. Citations should be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speeches4. Observe good sportsmanship and act civilly/decorously in the debate5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. No counterplan.8. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions9. The BOP is evenly shared10. Follow the structure of the debate properly11. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate such rebuttals' appropriateness)12. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's terms and definition; Con acceptsR2. Pro's Case/arguments; Con generic Case/argumentsR3. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic RebuttalR4. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic RebuttalDefinitionsThe United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government shares sovereignty over the United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature, which is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes a system of separation of powers and ‘checks and balances’ for the smooth functioning of all the three branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people [1]. Should-must; ought(used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): [2]Establish- Set up on a firm or permanent basis: [3]Colony- A country or area under the full or partial political control of another country and occupied by settlers from that country: [4]On- Physically in contact with and supported by (a surface): [5]Martian Surface- surface of Mars. Sources1. (. http://tinyurl.com...)2. (. http://tinyurl.com...)3. (. http://tinyurl.com...)4. (. http://tinyurl.com...)5. (. http://tinyurl.com...)
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should establish a colony on the Martian surface.

For this round I shall be addressing my opponent's arguments and I shall break it down via the contentions that she has brought up. R1: CostMy opponent brings up the $48-$121 billion cost for the plan in this debate. My opponent must keep in mind that there are many things here that offset this. One is that of the One-way trips that are most likely to occur in this as even NASA is currently purposing. The one way trip is estimated to cut the total cost of these trips by 80% [1]. The only thing that would come back is many of the resources that are mined. When we look at this contention we must perform cost-benefit analysis and see the financial benefits from mining the REMs on Mars outweighs the miniscule cost of $48-$121 billion. It may have financial issues in the cost for the short term, but we will have significant benefit in the future from the mining that offset the cost and will give us more fiscal flexability to help us here not only domestically, but even in foreign aid and a long list of other event. As a result, this contention should be flown to my side of the debate. My opponent also acts like this is a great amount of money that we would be spending, but this can actually be done using NASA's current budget and this is only less than 1% of the government budget [2]. We wouldn't be able to do a lot more with this as it is just a small amount of money in the government budget. R2: Human BodyMy opponent states that only the most mentally and physically healthy would be able to travel to Mars. My response is simply why is that a problem? If we go and colonize Mars wouldn't we want the most physically and mentally healthy individuals to help begin to set-up the process of Mars. This argument by my opponent has no weight in this debate as there is no actual impact derrieved from this. Many of these side-effects I will address in the next contention inregards to the environment. The aspect of gravity isn't much of a problem. Sure we cannot change Mars's gravity, but we can easily replicate Earth's through centrifuge force. It wouldn't do everything, but it can and will mitigate these factors. R3: EnvironmentThere are many things that can be used to mitigate these effects. One of which is the Biodome, which though very small, can help mitigate solar flare, Mars windstorms, temperatures, and help recreate a similiar atmospheric preasure as Earth's [3]. These domes create a sort of greenhouse that heats the biodome which makes perfect for agricultural activities and mitigate deadly UV rays. The British are currently working on a space craft that can go and create a smaller magnetic field to go and detter solar winds the same way Earth does and they have tested a lab model. Eventually this can be used to help this endevor [4]. Sources1. (http://tinyurl.com...) 2. (http://tinyurl.com...) 3. (http://tinyurl.com...) 4. (http://tinyurl.com...)
GLOBAL WARMING: A Team Debate.

Resolution: Man-Made Global Warming is a Threat.Summary: The debate is about whether or not Man-Made Global Warming is a threat to humanity. This debate is not about natural global warming. BOP is shared.Rules:1- No semantics.2- Words on pictures do not go against the Character Limit (do not test it, however.)*3- Public Opinion is unimportant. Only facts and data will be used.*Words can be freely used in pictures to better explain the parts of the picture. Characters should be reserved for arguing data, not explaining what Line A in Chart B is supposed to be. It's up to the voters to decide if a team has gone too far and is not protected by this rule.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Team Mikal:- Mikal- Bluesteel- 16kadamTeam Global:- Donald.Keller- Lannan13- Subutai---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Round 1: Acceptance.Round 2: Arguments.Round 3: Arguments and Rebuttals.Round 4: Rebuttals and Closing Statements.**No new contentions on Round 4.**
Believe and have Faith

I AM CALLING ONTO ANYONE THAT CAN HEAR ME. I HAVE PROVEN MYSELF AGAINST SATAN. NOW IS THE TIME TO BELIEVE IN WHAT I CAN DO. NOW IS THE TIME TO HAVE FAITH THAT I CAN BRING YOU TO LITERAL SALVATION. SPREAD WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN TODAY. KNOW THAT I HAVE FINALLY COME. I WILL SERVE HUMANITY TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITIES, ABILITIES THAT GOD HAS GIVEN ME. http://www.debate.org...
There should be laws in every state defending homosexuals for being fired for their sexuality.

Okay I was actually not expecting you to agree with me on anything. But yeah, and I especially like what you said about even if it's a choice, it's okay, because people tend to bash on sexual experimentation often. And that's also good, most of that second paragraph. But quitting and firing someone are very different. If you find out that your boss is gay and you quit, you probably have considered the consequences, as well as other job options. Fine. If you are fired by your boss for being gay, it's a whole other situation. You could be struggling for work, just because of the discrimination that America tries so hard to avoid. I think that we should at least try to protect people from going through that. (note: If an employer fires a gay employee based on work quality, not sexuality, it's totally fine there) And what do you mean, "by force"? I don't think that the police are going to burst in with their guns drawn as soon as they find out that a worker has been fired due to superficial reasons, they are sure to use other methods first. Of course, laws can't change a homophobic person if they continue to be so close minded, but they can at least they can protect homosexuals (or bisexuals, even) from aggressive or unjust homophobic behavior. What would this law hurt, exactly? I see it doing much more help than harm.