BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
mandatory sterilization after second child

Imagine that all the land in the world fit into one acre. It's enough space to feed a family of 4 assuming you all go vegan. If you, your spouse and two children live there, does it make sense to have another child? No it's illogical. So applying this to grand scale, we already have so many hungry people in the world, why would anyone have any more than two children? It seems to me that having any more than two kids at any given time is like saying that other people can't have more than one, but that you are an exception. This is unacceptable and unstable. Why have more children if we already know that we can't even afford the children we already have? Sterilizing all people after they have their second child is a safe and effective way of improving the standard of living for all of humanity.
Euthanasia

You said that all will depend on cost but do you think about money which they will pay for treatment which will have no result. For example people who have cancer, they know that they will die and why they will lose this money for treatment without result. They can give this money to their children or person who they love. And now we have question. Why people should suffer and spend their money without reason? It seems like something immoral I know, but if you think very well, in the end advantages of euthanasia will be more than disadvantages. No one on the Earth is God and this choice of being alive depends on understanding of people who want to have euthanasia. It is only the way how people can die and it is death without pain and without thought that you spend all your money without purpose.
Euthanasia

Euthanasia during years is very debateble issue. But we see that more coutries against legalization euthanasia. And there are a lot of reasons why mostly all world exept 3 or 4 coutriest do not support euthanasia. Firstly we should think about consequences of legalization of right to die. You know that drug used by doctors for kill someone cost about $50 but treatment cost thousands of dollars. Legalization of euthanazia brigns to non-volantary die, when relatives or other close people will ask doctors to kill patient because they do not want spend money for treatment.
Euthanasia

Euthanasia means taking someone` s life to stop his suffering. Why should we do this? People have chance to life without pain and this life will be given after his death. Why people should suffer from their illnesses? It is immoral not to give them to die if they want. Someone says that it is suicide but you do not know what it means. Every day wake up with pain and stay in bed every day and suffer. It is not normal thing. If he or she wants to die it is only their choice and we cannot say that it is wrong thing. Some people start to think that they are gods and try to keep these people alive but it is sadism for people who are ill. People stop and think why ill people should suffer all their life? They know that they will die in pain. Why they will die this way if they have chance to have a normal and good death?
Hamburgers are better than hotdogs.

First of all i would like to refer to this video of How It is Made- Hot dogs http://www.youtube.com... In this video it says hotdogs are made of leftovers of pork, beef, and chicken. Also another topic is that hamburgers are healthier but it matters what are you putting on it? A typical burger is in the 1/3 " 1/2 pound range and made from 85%-lean ground beef. Served with a bun, it can pack as much as 620 calories and 9 grams of saturated fat that"s almost half your daily limit before toppings. A slice of cheese adds another 110 calories and 6 grams of saturated fat. On the positive side, burgers deliver iron and zinc. But on the other hand hot dogs and hot dog buns are typically smaller than burgers and their small size gives them a calorie advantage. An all-beef hot dog and white-bread bun will costs you 270 calories. As a dinner entree, that"s a pretty moderate amount. There are some downsides to hot dogs, though. First, many are sodium bombs, packing 500 mg or more per dog a 3-ounce hamburger, in contrast, delivers around 375 mg and if you"re making it yourself you can add even less salt. Second, many hot dogs contain sodium nitrite additives that help extend shelf life, which are linked to increased cancer risk. Lastly, because hot dogs are on the smaller side, you might be inclined to have more than one. Your turn.....
Rule of Destiny is better being Architect of own Life

Thank you for taking part in my debate! The main character of this book is the example of destiny's existence. First of all, he finds the photograph with woman on it and it saves his life in the several trips to Iraq Secondly, he starts big adventure across the country. Finally, he finds her and fall in love with her. In my own experience, my whole life is full of destiny's actions. Now I'm in the place where I've never wanted to be, but I'm really glad to be here and don't regret :)
"pedophile" is a Blasphemy on Honored Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H)

In the name of Allah Most Gracious, Most Merciful.No sufficent matter cited to be debated and in the last round Con can not speak about it..He merely copied a link which holds no authority to speak about Aisha PBUH and Its was not a one liner debate as Con Proformed it.I was looking for a serious contender which Mr. Con was not. Hence again. No argument presented that can give enough proof of Con's Claim (except a link which speaks more about Ayesha then the topic) Not even One of My points refuted. Rules Broken Vote Pro!Since Con has not provided any argument previously he can not state any arugment in the last round or He will again break a RuleThanks for Those Who read the above Paper of Mine.God Bless You!
"pedophile" is a Blasphemy on Honored Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H)

here is a link that talks about Aisha en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha Aisha it's the little girl who was married at a young age (child). You as a Muslim well know that married a child, your just mad at the word pedophile that it's used know a days to described a perverted situation. Mohamed married a 6 yr old but did not consummate the wedding until she was 10 years old. If you do not know this as a Muslim, you should be ashamed by the history of your own religion.
"pedophile" is a Blasphemy on Honored Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H)

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful Out of Context Rules Consistently Broken. Again Baseless Assertion. No Proof provided to support the claim. No Refutation Provided for My Presented Arguments. No Evidence Cited that Muhammad(PBUH) married anyone "6 Years Old" Claims have nothing to do with Debate Topic and Conclusions does not Follow the Claim VOTE PRO!
"pedophile" is a Blasphemy on Honored Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H)

Oh, voters, ask yourself, did Muhamad may a 6 yr old? He did! That on are times is called paedophile. What I set to prove is that Muhammad and allah are not real or true and therefore answers the debate issue that it cannot be blasphemy for that man to be called pedophile, because he is of no importance to the real God.
"pedophile" is a Blasphemy on Honored Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H)

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful Con has Plagraized Complete Artical from Matt Slick. Burden of Proof was on Him to Prove that Blasphemy (No Proof Presented) His whole argument is Out of Context. He Ignored the Rules in both of His Arguments In second argument again Videos provided with mere comments on videos that prove nothing Not even one of my point is refuted Rules Ignored...PlagrizedArguments ExtendedVot Pro!
"pedophile" is a Blasphemy on Honored Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H)

So with the help of Matt Slick's document, you have helped me prove my point. You twist the truth to fit your want of islam to be true but it is not! For example, you say that Allah created man out of nothing, with dust, mud, coagulated blood? which one? These are obvious contradictions. So muhammad married a 6 year old girl and you call it, blasphemy for him, to be called pedophile. ---------As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in persons 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children (generally age 11 years or younger, though specific diagnostic criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13).-wiki----That is what pedophile means. If you say that he married her and it was normal at that time, you could be right but it is still pedophilia! Here are these videos that say all truth about Isalm, muhammad, allah, and kabal The first video also claims muhammed as a pedophile, and if according to muhammad, he was following orders of allah to be a pedophile, then allah is also a pedophile!! http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Capital Punishment should not be legal.

If the case is a really bad, say if there was more than one murder or multiple kidnappings, then the death penalty shouldn't be an option. If the case wasn't as bad, say if a guy murdered one guy and doesn't have a history of being a criminal in the past, the they should have an option of life in prison or death penalty. I'm not saying the death penalty should be used for all cases, but should only be used in extreme cases.
National security takes precedence over cyber privacy

It appears that my opponent has forfeited this round. For the sake votes and not auto forfeiting, I got to at least have something. I take the stands the Cyber Security should take precedence. Cyber privacy is change to cyber security, because this is debate on security, and thus privacy has an important role in cyber security, thus deem precedence of national security vs cyber security will be the same metrics and is most appropriate Cyber security takes precedence because people may be concerned that their bawankawank is viewed, shared, and spread around world without their consent or their awareness. A huge massives distribution of bawankawanks can be detrimental. We cannot know what can happen when bawankawanks in mass falling into enemies hands and what degree of serious threats and affects are. With precedence in cyber security and privacy those bawankawanks and even your bawankawank will be safe, hidden, and under control. Because you and I least, will not want to know what happens with bawankawanks are in enemies or strangers hands.
An Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent Entity Exists

Pro will write only "I pass this round, at no penalty, as agreed. "Definitions:Omnipotent: "having unlimited power; able to do anything," [1]. Omniscient: "knowing everything," [2]. Omnibenevolent: "all-loving, or infinitely good," [3]. To Exist: "to have objective reality or being," [4]. The full resolution is thus:"An entity, having unlimited power, knowing everything, and being all-loving, has objective reality. "BOP:Pro has the Burden of Proof (BOP) to prove that at least one omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent (OOO) entity can exist and does exist. Con has no BOP except to disprove Pro's arguments, as will be reinforced later. References:[1] . http://google.com...[2] . http://google.com...[3] . http://en.wiktionary.org...[4] . http://google.com...
An Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent Entity Exists

I thank everybody for reading. Pro has forfeited two of three rounds, and appears likely to forfeit a third. Pro has provided no evidence for the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (OOO) entity, and has thus failed to fulfill Pro's burden of proof (BOP), which I have shown to be Pro's in two ways. I, Con, have provided two logical arguments against the possibility of existence of an OOO entity, which necessarily means that an OOO entity cannot exist, more than fulfilling Con's BOP and showing that Pro does not fulfill Pro's BOP.
This house will legalize the sale of organs.

My opponent failed to provide an argument, even though he was given multiple opportunities to do this. He even has admitted that I "won the debate", though he believes I should take a tie since I didn't accept one of his rules when beginning the debate. I'll speak briefly on why this rule is unreasonable and why I was still in the right to accept the debate. First, let's discuss why the rule was unresonable. To be clear, we're discussing his requirement to have a 3,000+ ELO in order to accept the debate. As I have recently explained, the ELO is a bell curve, meaning particularly high ELO's are rare. My opponent points out that 291 people have an ELO of over 3,000, but fails to realize that this site has 29,380 members. This means less that 1% of all people who have made an account on this site have the required ELO. Now many of these users are inactive, while the people at the top are likely to be more active. Despite this, its still reasonable to assume the percentage of 3,000+ ELO debaters who would be online during the time the debate was in the challenge period is quite low. This is important for two reasons. 1. The sheer few potential debaters means the debate likely would not be accepted under the opponent's draconian rule. 2. Given the opponent's relatively low ELO (2,300 as compared to 3,000), it is not likely that a high ELO'er would even consider taking the debate in the first place. Now that we can see how unlikely it is that this debate would have been accepted by someone conforming to rule #2, we must look at why it was still better for me to take this debate. Debates, in the very nature, are designed for intellectual discourse -- a way of discussing and analyzing ideas. Debates in which debating actually occurs are often educational to anyone who reads/watches them and are of particular intellectual benefit to the debaters themselves. By accepting this debate, I made the conscious decision to insure that the debate happened. It would be far less beneficial to the public had this debate simply timed out and never happened. This should have been clear to the opponent, however it seems to have gone unnoticed by him. Despite several offerings that he could still present his argument and depite the fact that my lengthy responses are some indication that am I willing to delve into and explore this topic, my opponent has done nothing but complain. Carry over my arguments from the previous round.
This house will legalize the sale of organs.

I accept my opponent's topic, as well as his first rule. However, I reject his second rule.Aside from that, I hope this is a good debate. I'm sure my opponent will, in good faith, present his argument in its fullest extent, to allow a lengthy and educational debate. I will be arguing that "the house should not legalize the sale of organs". Since my opponent didn't offer definitions or clarifications, I will offer these now. They are, of course, open to dispute.By "sale of organs", we refer to the free market selling of any organ(s) from a donor that has stated they are an organ donor. By "legalize the sale of", we refer to the ability for any agent in legal possesion of said organ(s) to sale said organ(s) to any other entity, within reasonability. By "the house", we refer to a governmental organization similar to a democratic government and based upon real world examples of said democratic governments.I will also be assuming that my opponent intends for this solicitation to apply to all organs of any legal donor to any reasonable candidate of consumption. I look forward to the debate.
'Women wearing make-up is false advertisement'

False Advertising- "Deceptive advertising, also known as false advertising, refers to a manufacturer's use of confusing, misleading, or blatantly untrue statements when promoting a product." Truth in Labeling- Truth in labeling means that all pertinent information that a consumer should reasonably be aware of should be printed on the label of the product. This will ensure that consumers are protected, and know exactly what they are buying. consumer.laws.com/deceptive-advertising/deceptive-advertising-definition * Make-up is false advertising- The product being put out there is deceptive and misleading in that the woman represents her appearance as something it is not in reality. * Here is a web page with pictures of before and after pictures of women with and without their make-up. You visually and physically get 2 different responses by looking at both different pictures. http://www.goingyourownway.com... * If a man puts something in his pants to make it look like he is hung like a horse, he is falsely advertising to the woman. If a man wore a body suit in winter to make himself look muscular and cut, that is false advertising. Do I want women to stop wearing make-up? No. Is it false advertising? Yes.
'Women wearing make-up is false advertisement'

I could partially understand the opening statement - however I feel the opinions you're expressing are just plain and simply wrong. Men surely cannot be that moronic to think that gold eye-shadow and black eyeliner is natural? If they are so insistent on wanting such a 'natural beauty' - don't go for the women which choose to wear make-up. Women's choice to express themselves through beauty should not be ridiculed by shallow men which think that beauty lies within someones physical appearance. Some men as a matter of fact do wear concealer to cover blemishes etc. Make-up is NOT cosmetic surgery, it can not alter a persons look, their facial structure, eye colour, lip size etc, is all still the exact same when they remove their make-up. It simply provides many women with more confidence to go out and be themselves, it can help with low self-esteem and overall restore the feeling of glamour and beauty. Men lie about the size of their penises? What if a woman wants a well endowed man? This is essentially what you're saying - Men can pick and choose their women, but women settle for whatever men provide. It all boils down to sexism, and the fact that men think women desire their approval when in actual fact, all we want is to be able to express ourselves and FEEL good without this overhanging 'false advertisement' stigma which is just total garbage. IF men are so bothered, stop going for women which wear make-up - but the facts are, you don't stop. You just complain because make-up makes people 'flawless' that you expect their natural beauty to be the same impossible level of perfection. If you are attracted to a woman, but are 'traumatised' when they remove their make-up, you clearly do not deserve that woman for who she is. Stop being so judgemental and rising to these social expectations of complete perfection. All of the points you make are 'what if' statements. 'Makeup can cover up a Nazi symbol' - a man could be a rapist but that is all rule of chance. You can't base an argument around 'what if' statements. 'False advertisement' is a term which shouldn't be used; it's pretentious and shows men's provincially minded nature.
'Women wearing make-up is false advertisement'

Yes. Wearing makeup is false advertising. But so is dying your hair to cover up gray, wearing high heels, and wearing clothes to make you appear thinner (or bigger in some cases). As a matter of fact, wearing clothes at all is false advertising. It looks like we all need to be makeup free and naked. Sound good? * It's a matter of fair marketing. (Most)Men are not wearing makeup. If we don't need it to "advertise", why do women? How about letting the product sell itself honestly? It's only true "advertising" if it simply tells us what the product can do, what it actually looks like, and how well it can do its job. Makeup is like taking a picture of a damaged car and photo-shopping the damage to make it appear that it "looks new" in a car add. www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2454391/Is-wearing-make-betrayal-One-womans-dramatic-transformation-sparks-online-backlash.html * Why does it matter? Because everyone has different wants, opinions, and motives. 1)Some guys want a naturally attractive woman for sexual motives and the ability to pass down attractive genes to their kids. 2)Some women go after rich men with their looks. Makeup gives the rich man a false sense of physical beauty from the female. It is a beauty that will fade once she has to wash her face and lies next to him. It could be traumatic for him to see an ogre when he expected a beauty. He might have a heart attack and might even die. 3)The golden rule. Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. Women do not want to be deceived by a man who covers up and hides his flaws, thus they should not do it to men. 4)Makeup can conceal the woman's identity. She could rob a bank, then put makeup on and nobody would recognize her. This is false advertising by the female towards law enforcement. 5)Full disclosure. If you look like a gremlin, we have the right to know. If we can look past it, great. If not, we have the right to find a partner who meets our superficial lusts. 6)Makeup covers up freckles. Maybe we don't like freckles. 7)Makeup covers up skin problems. What if we do not want to pass down bad skin to our offspring? 8)Makeup can cover up an Adam's apple. What if we want an adam's appless mate? 9)Makeup can cover up your Nazi symbol tattoo. What if we don't want a Nazi? So...in order to not falsely advertise, you must take off your clothes and go makeup free. Make sense?
'Women wearing make-up is false advertisement'

I've recently seen too many annoying and almost sickening comments on social media, mainly coming from men (also the odd woman), claiming that women wearing make-up is 'false advertisement'; i.e they're presenting themselves to men 'falsely' because they have make-up on. First off, women are not there to be 'adverts' for men to 'fancy', if a man is interested in woman surely they aren't just looking at their external beauty, there is more to a person than their appearance. As a woman myself, i know that i wear make-up because i really enjoy doing it, i love the expressionism and creativity which it allows. It allows me to accentuate on my natural features. Make-up has boomed in popularity, perhaps due to the rise of social media and the rise of celebrities endorsing these products and 'looks', but as a woman, i do not put make-up on to appeal to men or anyone in-fact. If a man is attracted to the way i fashion myself, for myself, then that is great. But this whole 'false advertisement' debacle is ludicrous. Back to the actual point of the debate - make-up is under no circumstances 'false advertisement', it doesn't change you as a person, it doesn't miraculously change your face to the point of nonrecognition, it simply covers what might be seen as 'flaws' and makes women feel particularly better about their appearance and allows them to feel glamorous.
POEM Battle

The Leper What's wrong with me? They cast me out, a pitiful leper To be kept alone Survive without ever being held again For fear of catching the disease, Or maybe too horrified by my now Mutilated hideous face I am not rescued from my quarantine Are these walls around me made of apathy Or disgust Of hatred Or of pity? Can I, the leper, ignore my disease? My disfigured features? And blame it on others for being intolerant and cruel? I do not possess the strength. Never can I know if I am diseased Or if others have been warped my mirror Either way, reality will be confronted I face dying alone. Mustn't we all?