BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cigarettes should be illegal

My second defense was that passive smoking has hurt many people. Obesity, mountain climbing, eating junk food, etc. are all choices that people choose to do. I and you however, do not say: "Oh look! There's someone smoking! Let's breathe in their smoke willingly." We do not have a choice. Scientists have been researching how to "go green" and not pollute the air as much as we are. A big part of it, however, comes from the millions who smoke in the U.S. Cars do produce more carbon dioxide and other gases, but people are trying to fix it. No one's really trying to help or stop smoking. It's a pollutant. More people die from smoking than almost anything. No one said: "Oh! That car's gases killed him over time." unless you are victim of murder. Smoking is the main cause and thus, we should become a more healthy nation. Even though there are places where smoking is off-limits, if you are in Vegas, there's not a lot. Many times I will walk into a casino and be choked by the amount of smoke and that smell that is in the air. Thank you for accepting my challenge. I do look forward to the next couple of rounds.
Cigarettes should be illegal

Many people smoke in the United States, but it should be outlawed. Smoking harms many people including the smoker and the people around him/her. No one should have to die or have breathing problems from those around them who smoke. It also creates more pollution in the air we breath. Everyone has a right to have clean air, but with the amount of people smoking, that is almost impossible. Not only, then, will the smoker be exposed to every side effect of smoking, but also their lovers, the people they love, and people who are around them. Lung cancer and heart disease can kill the smoker. Read http://quitsmoking.about.com... for more information. For passive smoking read:http://www.stopsmokingtoday.com...
The Protestant Doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" is unbiblical, unhistorical, and untenable

My opponent is arguing that the teachings of the Christian Church are equivelent to the Law of G-d. This is a very false doctrine shared by Christians and Rabbinical Jews alike that the meaning of scripture is subjective, thus we have rabbis/ pastors to tell us what the meaning of them are. I, on the other hand, am a Karaite Jew, I disbelieve Christian Tradition even more so than I disbelieve Rabbinical Tradition, and I will tell you why with both scriptural and non-scriptural arguments: First of all, if the word of G-d isn't sufficient, how then are the teachings of men? To say this would mean that the teachings of men are above the word of G-d, because the teachings of men define the word of G-d, by interpreting it, but the teachings of men would not necessarily be defined by the word of G-d, because they get to decide what any scriptures mean. As we all know, G-d is far beyond any man, and this places his word over the teachings of men, not the other way around. This is taught all over the Torah, Jeremiah 17:5: "This is what the LORD says: "Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who draws strength from mere flesh and whose heart turns away from the LORD." Isaiah 2:22: "Stop regarding man, whose breath of life is in his nostrils; For why should he be esteemed?" Infact, if salvation is taught and defined by the Christian Church, that would be in complete violation of these verses, Psalms 146:3: "Do not trust in princes, In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation." Isaiah 43:11: "I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior."
Mayweather vs Pacquiao

I contend that Manny Pacquiao is a better boxer than Mayweather. I will only present simple points to support my claim because I believe that would suffice since my opponent did not bother to post his own arguments. He is the first and only eight-division world champion. [1] He was named "Fighter of the Decade" for the 2000s (decade) by the Boxing Writers Association of America (BWAA), World Boxing Council (WBC) and World Boxing Organization (WBO). He is also a three-time The Ring and BWAA "Fighter of the Year," winning the award in 2006, 2008, and 2009, and the Best Fighter ESPY Award in 2009 and 2011. [2] He was long rated as the best pound-for-pound boxer in the world by some sporting news and boxing websites, including ESPN, Sports Illustrated, Sporting Life, Yahoo! Sports, About.com, BoxRec and The Ring from his climb to Lightweight until his losses in 2012. [3] Watch this video: Sources: [1] Mark Lamport-Stokes (2010-11-14). "Eighth world title gives Pacquiao unique status". Reuters. Retrieved November 14, 2010. [2] Himmer, Alastair (June 5, 2010). "Pacquiao named fighter of the decade". Reuters. [3] "The Ring Pound For Pound Ratings". Ringtv.com. August 16, 2010. Retrieved August 22, 2010.
Agnosticism is the most logical belief in regards to the idea of a higher power.

Oh no, don't say that, I don't know if you noticed but I have a somewhat ongoing argument with another member of this site about my picture. Don't give him anything quoteable. I am studying political science and philosophy at ASU. It sounds like two really worthless degrees but I plan on going to law school. What do you study? Good point. But then you would have to add a "for me" at the end of the debate topic. I guess the difference is that I am pretty certain there is no higher power, furthermore, I find it a hinderance to believe there is. It is a distinct difference in the way I live my life. We will definitely have to take this further at some point. It is an interesting topic. As is the one on absolute morality.
Agnosticism is the most logical belief in regards to the idea of a higher power.

Since this is the last round I wanted to remind the voters to not vote for my opponent solely on her incredible beauty but on who won the debate. I know that it's hard to ignore it, but be professional people! Also, artC what are you studying at Arizona State? Now onto the debate. You did make sense and had some very good points. You mentioned that your belief is not set in stone and I commend you for keeping an open mind. However, as I am a prideful person I think it's nice to enjoy the benefits of in no way being wrong in this debate of atheism vs. theism. As I declare myself an agnostic I will never have to admit that I'm wrong, I'm just simply waiting. In being an atheist you don't have the same luxury. Again I just think that until we have some level of certainty on the issue we should wait. There still is a possibility that there is a higher power. Possibly somewhere along the lines of deism. I will agree that the biblical god is an idiotic idea; however, there are other theories of a higher power that are plausible. I don't see the need to proclaim that there is no god if I'm not certain, just as I see no need to proclaim that there is one when again I have no level of certainty that there is. We will have to discuss this further at a later time.
Agnosticism is the most logical belief in regards to the idea of a higher power.

No, I suppose there isn't any evidence I could present that you haven't already considered. However, seeing as there is nothing to gain or lose except a title in this, it does not have to be treated like a criminal by the justice system. I am a self declared atheist and humanist. This is not set in stone, if tomorrow I decide to suddenly belive in god, I could. Atheism is based on logic and if logic states something contradictory to present belief, it can esily be modified accordingly. For me, saying I'm atheist is a strong declaration to the world that I don't believe in god. You seem to not believe in god. It is just a clearer title. The title agnostic gives many mixed messages. Is there a time of day or a day in the week when you beive in god? I doubt it. Commit! I'm just kidding. You don't have to, obviously. I respect your attempt at objectivity. I guess what I'm trying to say that if there is uch more evidence against the existence of a higher power than not. And the only evidence presented for the existence is half-baked evidence, than why be on the fence about it? I have been convinced there is no god. Deciding on one side does not end the argument. I know I was all over the place here. I hope I made some sense.
Agnosticism is the most logical belief in regards to the idea of a higher power.

You have some very good points here I'll admit to that. However, I'll make an analogy and treat this like the justice system treats a crime. Both sides have good points and I agree that in the case of Atheism v. Theism there is more evidence towards the former. That being said I don't think either side has surpassed the barrier of "reasonable doubt" to prove themselves correct. Therefore, I think it's most logical to take the sidelines until we can have some level of certainty in this epic debate. I truly don't think that atheists have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that their side is correct, unless you can provide something I haven't mentioned before.
Agnosticism is the most logical belief in regards to the idea of a higher power.

All of your points are true. I agree with them so I will not debate the points from the previous argument but instead the topic. Istead of being the most logical, I believe agnosticism is the most passive choice when deciding a belief in the existence of a higher power. We can not prove anything for certain. There is however more evidence of the non-existence than the existence of a higher power. It must be considered that the logic for the existence is based loosely on the holes that exist in the argument against the existence. Sciene can not prove everything YET. In my opinion and the opinion of many atheists, there is enough evidence to fairly dispute the existence of a higher power. For exaple, why is it an argument for the side of theists that there is a natural order in the world. Why can't this be a product of a universe with no purpose or preference? Well, it's time for class. Don;t want t be late. Looking forward to your reply.
Agnosticism is the most logical belief in regards to the idea of a higher power.

My reasoning behind the aforementioned statement is simply this. We don't know and we can't know much of anything especially in terms of the existence of God. Don't get me wrong I highly doubt that he exists; however in regards to metaphysics it's hard to explain the world and universe as is if you're a theist or an atheist. Here is my logic: 1. There is suffering and there is suffering abundantly on earth, this truism casts huge doubt on the idea of an all-powerful, loving, caring God. 2. There is much order and complexity in this part of the universe, this gives some support for the necessity of a higher power. However there is much "chaos" in other sectors of the universe, this makes me believe that our design and complexity is only a probability. 3. There is the theory of conservation of mass and energy which suggests that it's possible that things were always here. However with the amount of order amongst physical laws and theory there is some evidence for a higher power. Even though there is the theory of conservation of mass and energy I'm still not convinced that the universe has always been here. Both sides have some good points but I don't think that either can definitively say that there side is the right one. That is why I, personally, am an agnostic and think of it as the most logical choice of all belief systems.
Resolved: Allowing deep water offshore oil drilling is in the best interest of the United States.

Thank you for a great debate Pro, I believe it was very productive. To address your claim about the cost: it is true that solar energy is relatively expensive in comparison to oil and coal, at about $0.38 per kilowatt hour. However, as previously stated, while oil and gas technologies tend to get more expensive as time goes on, solar technology gets cheaper and cheaper as it becomes more and more mass produced. Additionally, the government plans to initiate tax incentives to benefit solar industry, which will help expedite the falling costs (. http://greenecon.net...). Wind power is similar in that the startup costs are high, but much like any other long-term investment, both of these technologies pay for themselves and end up saving the investor money over the 20-30 year life of the unit. This is what people with Pro's mentality never seem to be able to grasp. Oil is a short-term investment that will cost us in the long run for environmental and economic reasons, while alternative energy has long-term benefits that will pay off in both environmental and economic benefits in the years to come. Saving the quick buck by continuing off-shore drilling is no way to build a sustainable nation, and sustainability is certainly in the best interest of the United States. The rest of my opponent's final round is essentially a repost of his first round, which I have already negated. I feel no need to do so again. I will therefore end this debate with an appeal to logic and reason. In summary, we have a choice. As world population continues to rise, we can either continue down a road that will inevitably lead to a dead-end when we run out of oil while we do severe damage to the environment in the meantime and miss out on great economic opportunities, or we can immediately shift our focus to alternative energy, which has a greater economic benefit, provides vastly more than enough energy for the entire planet, and is much less harmful to the environment. It is a choice that should be obvious - a choice that is not only in the best interest of the United States, but is in the best interest of the world at large.
School Days Should be shorter, not longer

Response to Study hall: A lot of children have no study hall and are taking challenging courses, so all their down time in that class goes to those classes, and then they have extra HW to do after school. Response to Lunch: Most children use this as a social time. This is where most people hang out with friends. That is what it's meant for. Also, it's main purpose is to feed them, but again, time for friends. Response to Multi-Tasking: Multi-tasking is hard to do when you are eating lunch. Especially doing Calculus or Engineering drawings. Response to Anger Outbursts: Indeed there is a lot of rampages, flipping over tables, cussing at teachers, ECT. Most teachers try to calm these down, but it often doesn't work. Most punishments do not work against angry children. Response to Outbursts after school: Police and municipal punishments would work better than anything a school system can do. Response to Social life: Earlier you said, and I quote: "The resolution can be simple. Down time in class and during lunch time students can get a head start on work that they have assigned for the day. While at lunch they still can eat their food, they would just have to multi-task." Then, you said, and again, I quote, " However, class time is not for socializing. Times for this come throughout the day. For example: Time between periods, lunch, before school starts (in the commons), after school starts (in the commons), etc." How can you do homework, socialize, AND eat at the same time? Your homework would be messed up, you would be distracted from your friends and would keep asking for repeats of jokes, questions, statements ECT, and you would not eat your fill as much as you would want! Response to Sleep: When you do not get enough sleep, are you angry? Yes, you get irratable very quickly. Now, what if you get made fun of or do not get want you so "Desperetly" need? What if someone makes fun of you and tries to beat you up? Normally you would laugh with your friends if their playing with you by making fun of you, right? Yes, but if you don't get enough sleep, are you in a joking mood? No. If someone is going to try to beat you up, and you got no sleep the night before, what are you gonna do? Your gonna fight back aren't you? Yes, you are. Response to Disipline: Most disipline from schools are staying after school, ISS, OSS, ECT. This subject also refers to Anger. Response to Time at home: Yes, but as we all know that teenagers tend to get annoyed of their parents. Parents try to, but when the children become teenagers, that will all change. They will want more freedom and money and everything else that a real adult has. And when they don't get that, thats where anger comes into the situation at home. This is coming from what i have seen at my school over here in Indiana. Welcome to the real world! Looking forward to your rebuttal and closing arguements! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOTE NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
School Days Should be shorter, not longer

Thank you for agreeing. MY first statement is that children will do better in school. If there were less school, children would have more time to study and to do homework. Staying up late is too annoying to finish their homework, and not finishing homework will result in a failing grade. This would also help with anger outbursts, because they would have more time to spend with their friends and could hang out. Also, it would help their social life, especially those who are socially challenged. Also, there would be less fights in school due to extended sleep hours. Also, there would be more of a disipline time for children who are disobediant or disrespectful (ECT.) There could be longer time in school for those children who need it, or for those who display the characteristics above. It is amazing that punishment and extra school time as one actually works! I think that schools should shorten their hours and minutes for the reasons stated above and for many other reasons. It is amazing how school punishments can work! It can also help at home! less time at school means more time at home! more time for bonding time and chats with your children. Especially small children, as their brains are growing, and in doing so they have to learn to respect their parents BEFORE they get to be a teen, as generally teens hate and disregard their parents, twisting their words so they can use their words against them. A bunch of people think their kids are trustworthy, however, it seems to be quite the opposite so often, and their parents don't find out til it's too late. These are the reasons that school hours should be shortened. I look forward to your rebuttal and your first statement.
Ms. Harman's Equality Bill is a bad idea

I think my opponent and I broadly agree that positive discrimination is a blunt instrument and, in essence, undesirable. I very much regret that society finds itself in the position where the Government and other organisations have to resort to positive discrimination in order to combat institutionalised discrimination. Take top universities such as Oxford and Cambridge. The Government has been encouraging them to accept more students from less affluent backgrounds for years, yet students from deprived families are even more underrepresented than ever. Is it possible that young adults with working and lower-middle class parents are inherently less academically gifted than youths from wealthy families? Or is it, as seems more likely, that the Universities regard the Government's advice as an attempt at "social engineering" and there is no small measure of snobbery at the heart of their admissions policies?
Ms. Harman's Equality Bill is a bad idea

Another aspect that I think should be pointed out is that positive discrimination is de facto quotas. We have seen this game being played in the US with some Universities (including my alma mater ). Conceptually this is again another Marxist/Socialist notion. In this case we must define a disadvantaged group. We conceptualize a 'fair' representation. When that 'fair' representation does not show up in the area we are reviewing, 'action' must be taken to correct perceived current and past injustices. Note that even though we do not use specific numbers in an express quota system, we are nevertheless quantifying an 'injustice'. If there are too few 'members of a disadvantaged class' then we are in fact counting members.
Ms. Harman's Equality Bill is a bad idea

In reply to my opponent's comments, I do indeed agree that companies are all about maximizing profit and for some companies this means putting profits before people, hence the need for regulation. I started my own company way back in 1993 (that's right, not all company directors are frothing neo-cons) and I have always maintained that a contented employee will be a more loyal and productive worker. That's why I pay above industry-average salaries and accord my employees far more benefits that I am obliged to by law. Furthermore, our clients tend to be very discerning and ethically aware and I am confident that they would not give us their custom if they discovered that our staff were not being treated fairly. So, we can see that respecting workers' rights and being a considerate employer can make good business sense. That said, we do not positively discriminate in favour of female employees, as this would, as my opponent rightly points out, breed resentment amongst our male employees and, thankfully, this is not what is being proposed in Harriet Harman's white paper.
Ms. Harman's Equality Bill is a bad idea

Tsk Tsk. You are shooting the messenger instead of the message. Consider this concept: Business are profit maximizing entities. Do you agree? I sure do. But what does this bill imply? It implies that they are not in fact profit maximizing! If women were as productive as men as a whole then they would be paid the same. Note that she uses consolidated data, meaning she aggregates workers regardless of profession or circumstances. As a profit maximizing company, all one would need to do to make a huge amount of money is simply hire nothing but women until the pay between the sexes were the same. Alternatively, all these smart ladies could get together and form their own company. With such a huge pay difference they could meet half way and get the benefits of a higher wage and lower cost structure than their competitors. So somehow you need to explain why these companies that are 'discriminating' are leaving so much cash on the table and why all these underpaid women don't simply start their own company.