BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Plans to introduce body-imaging scanners at airports should be shelved

I do admit that full body scanners are expensive. The way you are putting out your argument is actually quite offensive. I do not have a problem in stripping in front of someone, but other people might. You put out the argument "Even so, some frigid, ultra-conservative women might still feel uncomfortable being groped by nude male security officials so I further propose that all security staff should be female. Similarly, I also realise that some men may object to being fondled by some boot-faced hag or some fat old munter, which is why I also propose that all the security staff should be recruited from the ranks of glamour models and porn actresses." What if the male in question was homosexual? Do you not think they might be uncomfortable being searched by a female? It would i admit be uncomfortable to the male security staff. Which is one reason why strip searches are, in essence, fallable to the system. For no one would want to be touched. And your comment about tugging is a little disrespectful.
Plans to introduce body-imaging scanners at airports should be shelved

Body-imaging scanners are expensive and they don't even show airport security staff what passengers really look like in the nude - the images the scanners produce are in black and white and are not really that much better than pornographic photographs from the Victorian era. [1, 2] That's why I propose that all air passengers should be required to submit themselves to a full strip search by security staff instead. Now, I realise some people may be embarrassed to strip naked in front of fully-clothed security staff which is why I propose that the security staff should also be naked and thus put any especially shy passengers at their ease. Even so, some frigid, ultra-conservative women might still feel uncomfortable being groped by nude male security officials so I further propose that all security staff should be female. Similarly, I also realise that some men may object to being fondled by some boot-faced hag or some fat old munter, which is why I also propose that all the security staff should be recruited from the ranks of glamour models and porn actresses. Naturally, adherents to certain spiritual faiths will object to my proposal regardless of what safeguards are put in place, but in the United States the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) have already made it quite clear that fanatical religious extremists who are opposed to full body-imaging scans (because they believe that only God should be allowed to see them naked) are not to be exempted from body scans and the same principle would, therefore, apply to strip searches. [3] Of course, the main advantage of my proposal is that it would enable security staff to conduct more thorough searches than is possible with the use of body-scanners and pat-downs. For example, smugglers may be able to conceal illicit drugs in prosthetic penises but the gorgeous nude security girls will be trained to make scrupulous and exhaustive examinations of male passengers' appendages – you know, rub and tug them properly to make absolutely sure they aren't false. In conclusion, strip searches are more effective than body scanners at intercepting drugs, weapons and explosives and they are also cheaper and for those reasons I affirm that plans to introduce body-scanners at airports should be shelved. Thank you. [1] http://factstoknow.co.uk... [2] http://i3.ebayimg.com... [3] http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com...
Students should be able to defend themselves against bullies

You have presented one reason, depression on why it is good to fight back, I have presented many reasons on why it is bad. In your closing you said, "If you're just called an idiot or something like that, then fighting the bully may be over-reacting" but that is where 99% of the problems are. Being called an idiot and feeling you have to go in to fight or die mode is what barbarians do, we live in a civilized society, be civil. No, not depending on the insult you are justified, you never are. "Congress shall make no law that prohibits the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech" That is the first amendment of the constitution. I don't care how you think it should be, that is the law of the land. Your argument has been very bland and vague, you have done a terrible job in presenting your argument. You said in response to assault," I know it's not allowed, but I think it should be". You never expanded on it. Then later," there is a fine line between defending yourself, and being a jerk". With what you are saying if someone bullies you you should be able to fight back. That means if I call you a name and you feel its bulling you can "defend yourself" against that mean word, it will only create a mess. "If you are insulted multiple times, several times a day, then I believe you should fight back" By the same person? or multiple? Say they call him an,"jerk" well what if he is an "jerk" and the people who called him "jerk" are not bullies but they just called it as they saw it? Does he have the right to "defend himself"? What you're saying yes. if you are called a mean name you can. That is the reality of what you're saying. For what ever reason if an individual feels another individual has bullied them they can become a street enforcer and without any due process they can be judge, jury and executioner. That is scary, and it is anarchy. http://constitution.findlaw.com... http://billofrightsinstitute.org... http://www.law.cornell.edu...
Students should be able to defend themselves against bullies

You can do what ever you want to in America, but there are legal ramifications for some actions an individual may decide to do. We both agree that if it becomes physical everyone has the legal right to defend themselves, however if it is a verbal attack the victim under no circumstances has the legal high ground. If you allow someone to attack someone else because they did not like what they had to say our society as a whole would collapse. People everyday say mean and rude things to others, but it is all subjective to the individual what ticks me off may not bother you, if I do not like something you have to say and I physically assault you doesn't the irony become the victim becomes the bully? I am in no way condoning someone bullying another person, but the principle of free speech what is behind this. Allowing something as small and what seems like the right thing to do in allowing a victim to attack a bully after some verbal harassing will snowball into every group from A-Z is attacking anyone who says anything negative against them, it has happened to South Park and most recently with the Seth Rogan Movie," The Interview" The North Koreans find it very offensive but The First Amendment makes it legal.
Students should be able to defend themselves against bullies

The First Amendment of the United States constitution gives any American the right the free speech. That means anyone can say whatever they want to say with out punishment, how ever harsh ones words may be to another person that person has no right and will be breaking the law if they physically harm another human being for saying something they did not like. http://constitution.findlaw.com... "there's nothing else to stop the bullying except fighting back, then the child could get depressed. This depression could lead to suicide" There are a few problems with this statement. The stereotypical bully-victim scenario is a "big alpha male" lets call him "Mike" against a "scrawny kid in the band" who will be called "johnny" Mike likes to tease Johnny but he doesn't find it very funny and the only reason Mike continues to do so is because of the knee jerk reaction Johnny gives. Johnny does not make clear that he feels Mike bully's him to anyone, never talks to a teacher, counselor or his parents and lets anger build up to the point where he feels he has to become physical with Mike to stop an action no one knew bothered him. Scenario 1. He builds up the courage to attack Mike with his fists and Mike being so much bigger than Johnny turns the table and slaughters Johnny, but Johnny threw the first punch so Mike isn't in trouble he was defending him self. More resentment will build up as Johnny will be disciplined because of something called, Zero Tolerance. Scenario 2. Johnny brings a gun to school and goes on a rampage. Unless you are being physically attacked, you need to talk to someone to help solve these issues so they do not escalate. Because the law is on the instigators side if he is just saying mean words and he is attacked by the victim.
Students should be able to defend themselves against bullies

Well there is a fine line between standing up for yourself, and being a jerk who will attack anyone for any small thing. Let's say a student is constantly getting harassed by another student. If that student were to punch the bully, more than likely the bully will leave the student alone. Especially in high school, telling a teacher or a parent doesn't always work. If this is happens, and there's nothing else to stop the bullying except fighting back, then the child could get depressed. This depression could lead to suicide. Fighting back against the bully could stop this from happening, or help get the depressed victim's life become better. Not only that, but if the bully learns from this, the less chance he'll be like this as an adult.
Should there be a new day of the week

Though everyone would enjoy another day off work I'll show that this is actually a bad idea. The first instance of this new system we can use the example of the French Republic Calender. It had 10 days in a week and 10 months in a year. With some extra days added in at the end. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) This was appart of the French's war against the clergy as they sought to remove all things religious from society. If we do this here we can see that it would face the same backlash as we would be attempting to rid a religious 7 day week. So if you want to incite a religious war then be my guest, but I highly doubt that such a topic area should be ventured into as you could see a lot of religious backlash from it. Another key flaw is that the days would no longer be 24 hours nor would we have a regular year to to the breaking up of the calender. This would cause havoic upon the average person as not only are they being foreced to change their lifestyles you are living and force them to buy new clocks and systems to account for this extra day which can place a finacial burden on the average citizens.
Judging and shaming are great for realizing your negative traits

I was agreeing with everything you said until the final slanderous comment at the end showing that you judge and shame people as well proving my point by insulting your debating opponent. Everybody in the world judges, Employers, Police officers, Teachers on and on. First impression are huge because they institute a level of judgement against an individual. Now people can judge you and have negative feedback towards you in their manner and behavior but unless they speak out how will you know that they have a problem with you. It's best to let people know when judging them as they then become aware of what the issue is. Now I'm not saying that a person needs to change because of judgements or shaming, But it lets a person know what they are being shamed or judged about and then it's up to that person to decide whether they want or need to take action. Constructive criticism can be hurtful but can also help a person grow. Shaming is a form of letting a person know they are a shame to society either by their actions or appearance. If you pick your nose and look like a freak, I believe shaming someone for it will let them know they are a weirdo at least and give them a chance to improve. As for insults and profanity that just shows the true character of a person and a low education level by the amount of profanity used as the person can not express themselves creatively so they resort to profanity as a way to vent frustration. YOUR TURN MEATHOOK
Judging and shaming are great for realizing your negative traits

I will be arguing that constructive criticism is good for a person, NOT SHAMING. First of all, Criticism helps to give us a new perspective and opens our eyes to things we may have overlooked or never considered. Whether it's a peer review of your work or a performance review, Constructive criticism and feedback can help you grow by shedding light and giving you the opportunity for improvement. Just remember, It's important that you don't take criticism so personally, It's meant to help you learn and grow and is not an attack on your skills or character. Shaming is a ATTACK on the character. YOUR FLOOR @SSHOLE
Judging and shaming are great for realizing your negative traits

Judging and shaming of others are great ways for people to realize they have faults, Since nobody is perfect and everyone has flaws and problems and room for improvement. Therefore judging and shaming of someone is a good trait to have as it opens the eyes of the individual being judged or shamed and makes them realize that they need improvements and or change. As that crushed velvet, The stretched out ears, The blue hair or the ugly face you have is not ok in public and you are a freak. Just because mom says you are great, The general public might not think so, Therefore by being judged and shamed you can realize you need improvements and or change somewhere. Therefore judging and shaming are excellent traits to possess and use on others to make them aware they stand out like a sore thumb in public, Otherwise they would not be judged or shamed and would just blend in with the rest of society instead of looking like a freak.
Judging and shaming are great for realizing your negative traits

Constructive shaming that's what I call it. Beside look at you the hypocrite kid who says shaming is all bad but yet he is badmouthing on here. Hey go back to math class Grade 9 geek. Talk to me when you have something intelligent to say. By the way the chess club called they said you left your glasses behind nerd. You can't play sports because you are a wimp, Did they write the diary of a wimpy kid based on your life BHahahahaha You couldn't catch a football or a baseball unless it hit you on the side of your large head. I don't need to use profanity trying to sound all cool, NERD!
Judging and shaming are great for realizing your negative traits

well you did call people freaks in your first argument and you claim that fortnite os for HDHD and losers and as well as people who don't play sports. Your an @ssWhy should we hurt ones confidence? Constructive criticism helps people. Shaming tears down people. Criticism is especially beneficial at work because it shows that your managers and peers care about you and want to see you succeed. Receiving feedback, Whether it's positive or negative, Is a good thing because it just goes to show that your peers are invested in your future and they want to help you learn. Rather than letting you fail and replacing you, These people feel that you're the right person for the job and they want you on their team. With a little bit of guidance, You will be an even better fit for your position and learn a thing or two along the way. In an environment where people are able to share feedback and constructive criticism, Everyone is a winner. Creating a transparent, Collaborative atmosphere at work gives us all the opportunities to become better workers and people. With feedback and input from our peers and managers we are able to learn and expand our horizons while creating trusting relationships with others. Most importantly, An open environment like this allows us to be proactive and share our input without putting people's personal feelings in jeopardy. YOUR TURN C0CKSUCKER
I don't like Snickers.

I am in no way trying to demote you from your rank as the Supreme Overlord of the FCND, in fact I am doing quite the opposite. If you get plump that will be to your benefit, seeing as that is the custom of all great rulers. Being plump will show your dominance over your minions in the FCND. It will make them see that they have a strong willed leader and that they mustn't be afraid any longer. So ultimately I must urge the readers to vote Con in this round because I am a) trying to secure Pro's position as Supreme Overlord of the Fifth Caliphate of Nomadic Disciples b) trying to ensure he has a well rounded diet and c) trying to open up a world of sensual delights that most men wouldn't dare dream of. (in the chocolaty fashion)
I don't like Snickers.

It is hard for me to get personal against such a dear friend, but the situation has undoubtedly called for it. He wishes that I continue to supplement my diet with snickers, even though one Snickers bar contains 25% of my daily saturated fat intake. He clearly wishes to fatten me up for his own sick, twisted, and sadistic socioeconomic gains. He's been trying to overtake as supreme overlord of the Fifth Caliphate of Nomadic Disciples (FCND), and making me plump will greatly hinder my standing amongst the rest of the malnourished tribe. I implore the audience and voters to see past this poorly veiled attempt at dethroning me, and vote for the true Supreme Overlord of the FCND. Also, Snickers stick to your teeth.
Abortion is Immoral.

Just to clarify, I didn't post this in my first argument. When it comes to the situation in which a mother's life is at stake I believe that is a different situation that in many cases it cannot be helped but to abort the baby. For example, if a mother needs chemotherapy for breast cancer. Same would go for if a fetus with certain health conditions that would prove to be life threatening. This is a different situation than the one I am arguing which is that people will have abortions because they choose to abort the baby out of convenience. Reality is, there are people that make stupid choices, and there are instances of intense bad luck. Either way, two wrongs don't make a right. I completely agree sex education needs to be more widespread than it is, and I would love to see birth control be much more affordable than it is already. But I would still like to see my opponent address my question more thoroughly, you mentioned when a baby is born it gains it's rights. So then you assert that it isn't about the physical characteristics of the baby that make it human, but the placement of the baby. Ok, but, now you cannot legally do anything when a woman decides to do drugs, smoke, or drink a lot during her pregnancy. Even if someone from outside strikes the womb, they cannot be charged with manslaughter but only assault. By that logic you can no longer accuse a woman or anyone of abusing an unborn child. If you're ok with admitting that, then your argument is sound.
Abortion is Immoral.

I will like to take the stance of Pro-life as well. As it is just a common term, but people for abortion are not against life as that is a misconception. I am however, labeled as pro-choise. I am proud of that term to describe myself. It indicates freedom of what option to choose. How to do it right is another issue. I will say before I continue that this really is an issue in which women really need full access to decide. The man may have given the seed, but the women go through all the hard work of pregnancy. And if society wants to label women as people that should stay in the kitchen and take care of kids and do most of the raising of them, then they should even more so have complete say on what they do with their unborn fetus. Now, I realize it is a bit off topic, but I did want to say that as to give background on women and the common society's view on them. Now, on the main subject, I fully believe there are many cases in which abortion is the moral thing to do. Many examples can include things like rape and limited financial and emotional resources to support the baby in the future. Another popular example is if the fetus is born improperly and would have little chance of surviving even with surgery or of living a life free of physical pain because it did not develop properly up until it was born and may continue to develop in more painful ways. The ways in which I'm describing may be missing parts of lungs or a heart or bladder or some sort of similar combination. It may in fact, realistically, not be worth it to let the fetus survive if they end up just living a life of misery, physical pain, starvation, or the like. All the resources used for the baby that will not be happy or live long anyway could be used for another baby that actually has a lot bigger of a chance to survive. Now to address my opponent's concerns, a human is born and automatically has a right to life. However, this may involve taking the mother's life. Or, as i addressed before, the future that can be very painful and full of problems that healthy babies don't deal with. I feel any at any stage it is up to the mother and maybe with input from the father when the fetus should be aborted and if it should. This argument can maybe set the grounds about how to prevent this sort of issue in the first place, like teaching about sex instead of abstinence only. But in the end of the day, it is not up to us what to do about an unborn fetus. It is up to the family involved and the only involvement we should have is spreading the correct education and we only have say in this sort of matter in very particular situations like a couple with mental issues that purposely have cause pregnancy and abortion for the sake of sadism or something of the like. This however, is rare, and so our involvement of this sort of thing should be kept minimal. All that I have said was similar to that of a professor of Human Sexuality at Tarrant County College in Fort Worth, Texas.
Abortion is Immoral.

I will take the stance of Pro-Life. I believe that a fetus is considered a form of human life and has the rights a human has from the moment of fertilization to birth. A few things to begin, scientists have established that life begins at fertilization (Princeton). With this in mind, it is important to understand that an abortion at any week during the pregnancy is the taking of a life, regardless of the physical traits that the fetus has yet to or already has developed. Note that terminology (fetus, cellular organism, etc.) isn't enough to justify the right to take the life of the fetus. So to the person arguing against, I would ask at what point during the development of a baby does the fetus obtain human rights or the status to be treated as such? What physical characteristics does a fetus need to obtain in order to be considered eligable for the right to life? How do you determine the standard as to how you judge that decision?
Nazism vs Democracy

This is my first real debate. I will be arguing that Nazi Ideology is better than Capitalism. Some definition first. Nazism: the body of political and economic doctrines held and put into effect by the Nazis in Germany from 1933 to 1945 including the totalitarian principle of government, predominance of especially Germanic groups assumed to be racially superior, and supremacy of the f"hrer . https://www.merriam-webster.com... Democracy: 1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections 2 : a political unit that has a democratic government 3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U. S. from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy " C. M. Roberts 4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority 5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges . https://www.merriam-webster.com... Rules: No racism allowed No Ad Hominem Be willing to debate all 4 rounds You are allowed to waive one round if you don't have the time.