BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
more bike lines in NYC

P1 more lines does mean bicyclist are more safe here is stody done by Peter Tuckel and William Milczarski of Hunter College at the City University of New York, New Yorkers on bikes are measurably more law-abiding than they were just four years ago. "Bike Lanes + Bike Share = Bike Safety" PDF, looked at the behavior of 4,316 bicyclists at 98 different locations in central and lower Manhattan. The researchers compared the resulting data to what they found in a similar, although not identical, survey in 2009. Since that year, the city has installed more than 200 more miles of bike lanes, for a total of 537 miles; launched a bike-share system with 6,000 bikes (in May 20) “There has been a significant improvement in bike safety,” says Tuckel. More riders are stopping, or at least pausing, at red lights; riding in bike lanes; and wearing helmets. Fewer riders are pedaling against traffic. http://www.theatlanticcities.com.... More lines means more drivers are awere of bicyclist are righngt next to them that teaches the drivers to be more carful. P2 if it is true what you say “moving vehicles are still not following traffic laws” are we safe. We have to understand that bike lines is relatively young idea a new precaution for public safety. With time and more bike lines drivers will have to lurne to be precarious. P3 here is how more bike lines helps both move the traffic faster and lessons the capacity of nys trains. “ The common-sense way to use the streets is not to clog them with passenger cars that go nowhere fast. Instead, it's to make more room for safe, gridlock-free walking and bicycling to ease growing demand for mass transit. If 10,000 of these people are using bikes instead of subways, the M.T.A. no longer has to worry about 10 subway trains each day, which is important when parts of the subway system, like the No. 4, No. 5 and No. 6 trains on the East Side, are over capacity.” http://www.nytimes.com... P4 Adding more bike lanes would not impose as a threat to the vehicles on the road. The line is there to keep the distance from bicyclist and driver its there bikes only the wheels of car should not be on bike line and this makes bike lines safer. It does not disturb the driver because is in separated space and bicyclist could ride on his own speed without slowing down the car. C: we need more bike lines in NYC
Abortion is Murder

Thank you, you saved me a lot of time allowing my to copy and paste my previous opening. :) When a women has an abortion, she is removing only a clump of cells from her body ( I am opposed abortion after 6 months ). Should the government force her to birth what is technically a parasite in her body? Arguing that a fetus is a human and should receive basic human rights is a viable reason for not aborting, yet if you do believe that a fetus is a human, and thus with human rights, a fetus does not have the right to live inside another organism (just as any other human), nor does the fetus have the right to use another human's organs without his/her permission, just as someone can refuse to donate their organs, even if it puts another's life at stake. Taking away a woman's control to her body is taking away her rights, her life, so I am pro-life, pro the life of the pregnant individual. Childbirth is the 6th leading cause, causing over 200,000 deaths in 2013 and around 10 million become injured, infected or sick (http://www.who.int......). If you are truly pro-life, then you would agree that it is more important to save a woman who has lived and can think for herself, than a potentially harmful parasite residing inside of her. A woman should be able to eliminate her risk of death as she needs. Some say that abortion has too many dangerous side effects, though you can see in my previous paragraph that pregnancy also does, a woman dying from pregnancy is 14 times more likely than dying from an abortion (http://abortion.procon.org......). Making abortions illegal won't necessarily cause them to stop, only make them more dangerous, as those who do not want children will engage in unprofessional means of aborting their fetus. Any religious reasoning for being anti-abortions should not be forced upon our government, much less other's lives. For people who are only okay with abortions when a woman is raped, I ask you to question your logic, for if you believe that abortion is murder, then why is a baby conceived from rape any less than one who is the product of a stable marriage? A common solution that is proposed for minors and others not (financially or maturely) ready for a baby is adoption, yet putting a baby up for adoption costs a lot more money than an abortion, usually around 3,500$-7,000$. Forcing a minor through pregnancy not only hurts the child (their likeliness of teen pregnancy rises) but also hurts the mother, as only 1/3 of teen mothers graduate high school, and 80% of them end up on welfare (http://www.teenhelp.com......).
Abortion is Murder

I don't mind if you cherry pick from the last post, copy paste if you like :)I'll start my opening case short and simply.Modern science indicates that the beginning of life occurs sometime after the fertilization of an ovum by a sperm cell(1). Every human should receive basic human rights. This includes the right to live. To kill a human life when it is most vulnerable is murder.A fetus may be "just a clump of cells" yet these clump of cells are a human life. In fact, you and I could also be defined as "just a clump of cells" for that is what our bodies are made up of.There are many arguments as to why it's okay to terminate an unborn baby, but all of these are justifications for murder because they kill an innocent human life. In order to justify abortion we need to change the definition of what it means to be human. I do not believe in discriminating against someone because of their age or physical development, yet abortion does precisely that.I would like to make the comment that I do not think that women who undergo an abortion are wicked or deserve punishment. I believe we've created a society that makes it okay for women to have an abortion and we as a society are to blame.(1)http://bdfund.org......
Rap battle! Mindagger VS Mraaj.evil

So you think you know me.. I'm rated R like edge n christian No thanks I'm sikh Yes that's because i am the illest better than you, everything armani, gucci, polo shoe. Pushova, ura Pushover chump, ya stupid like gump jus go jump, I call ya momma, then we hump. You think im fake, nigga u da flake, cheaper than 99p, ya weak, come here there's a gas leak. Il kill you like its 1940, when days were that peak. You da trainwreck, bomb hard like 7/7, u dead all ready, mind dead all ready. I'll grab u the shovel n a dagger, I'll bury you like ya name ain't Mind Dagger. Sorry, i ain't even started yet, sorry I ain't even started yet..
Rap battle! Mindagger VS Mraaj.evil

RAP BATTLE! Instrumental: Mindagger VS Mraaj.EVIL BEGIN Now before I send your Edgy self into the morgue Tell me friend, how does it feel to be the Shadow of debate.org? Your a Copy and Paste! You fill your good side with distaste! And I have a feeling That your sense of flow will be misplaced! Lets watch this Wannabe try to spit out some crap, While I move the world with my own rap. Go ahead man its now your turn Try not to stutter from all the burns
Rap battle! Mindagger VS Mraaj.evil

Well sh1t just got real, cos my real nickname is maaji, that's how real i am, whereas you fake plastic n repetitive, sadly not competitive. Mind the following profanities, my man here can't handle his insanities. He rashin to the sanitaries, that's how tight his pu55y is. Since your windows 98,mr repetitive, not so great, lemme take u back to 1942, cos your lucks run out, go find a horse jew. Slaughtered, left right n centre. Reborn, its 1943, what can you see, nuttin but your own debri'. 1944,your moms on all 4, 1945 oh god they still be alive, rejoice rejoice, the kingdom's alive, 1946, ffs stop being such a bum lix. 1947,10 gurus party in heaven, see that reference there, reference where? Reference in the bin, cos no one hiring yo dumbass bimbo, mafia hard like nelson jimbo 1948, fam what's the wait, u know I am MRAAJ THE GREAT, rivaling Alexander, Genghis n Caesar, salad, yo girl salad messy. I am legend like will smith n messi. 1949,buildin u a cheapass shrine, cos u buried by now. 1950,why so shifty That there sums up the 10 years of war, real power ala Thor, will n grace break ya jaw. Shark bitten, this aint no shark tale, yo b1tch a fat whale, coffin sealed the nail. JESUS, Deadman walking, please stop ya stalking. I AM THE REALEST ONE TALKING.
Rap battle! Mindagger VS Mraaj.evil

Like flatstanley, ill end ya faster than all 7 of your ties your rap is served with salt, so get me some fries using @'s man? that fills me with distaste because I have a feeling you used a copy and paste Which girl ya got dancing, cause I have too many to count I'm climbing up a ladder while you stuck in a mound Because I could roast ya with a E-P Because you are just a maaji.E-X-E I'm the golden age, you are the bottom year! because I got some Info that will leave ya in tears! yes this, shall be the perfect remedy why is your only win a battle of comedy?!
Rap battle! Mindagger VS Mraaj.evil

Someone lacks swagger, man like Dagger tryna act hard like Mike Jagger. Nope, you're jaded, faded and outright gay-dead. Cos you have no mind, you're just blind, blind, check, all in. I don't mess about, I'm jus here to sell, I hope you treat my girl well, she known for that voodoo spell, a witch, just like you are yo mommas b1tch. Your girl ask me to the dance, said hold on, mans winning FIFA avec la France. Yep Ypres, I'm international- milan, orlando, zurich and Prague. Il give you diarrhea with some world famous saag. Naan bread greasy, greasy like your palms. I mean you no harms. Cos you already running, boy sit down, what u been bunnin'. Looks like we half way through, must ask what to do... With my life, cos I am at crossroads, its death or fame, so far ur raps been lame, oh yes I AM THE GAME, put abit of gaucomole with that wrap next time. cos you ugly, ugly like pork duckling. Huh? Huh? Oh babe please stop, that's what she said. Now yo momma in the back of @BryanMullins' shed, cos he a weirdo. Weirdo like Al, impractical joker like sal, boi i aint ya pal. Il end u like kal-el, crypotonite, man wins every night. I'm too gassed, hold up ain't we been here before? It must be 1941, cos I'm still The One.
Rap battle! Mindagger VS Mraaj.evil

So you like talking about killings, but I have never heard a bigger bomb in your flow, now that's just absurd ill throw you down in rap in this word rumble-r Because I've heard better insults, from an SJW in tumblr! And then Ill call your girl, yeah she likes it when I look at her! You think that you are committed, but you never were! So sorry man, looks like you are struggling to keep a specific other So maybe you should try to keep making out with your good side brother!
Battlefield is a better series than Call of Duty

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be mean at all. I was just looking forward to a discussion with my fellow gamers! Besides, if you have a pc you can game. All of the games are available online (yarr!) and have allowed many of my less-wealthy friends to enjoy them just as much as i did - if not even more. The fact that i buy the games legal is only because i play on consoles, which you are obviously referring to when you say that you can't afford them. I'm sorry if you can't.
Battlefield is a better series than Call of Duty

because everyday, i dream that SOMEDAY i will be able to afford some of the luxuries that you middle class people have. when i need to use internet, i dont have the ability to go to my office, i have to go to the public library and use those terrible and slow computers. i dont have the luxury that you richer people have thank you. you shouldn't be mean to people that are less fortunate than you.
Battlefield is a better series than Call of Duty

I am well-aware that this debate is already on this site - but the one defending battlefield is not good with words and practically lost a debate by missing out on arguments he could have used. The reasons why Battlefield would be better are in fact quite simple. 1) The gameplay will initially provide the feeling of being a true soldier. Undeniably, it is very realistic to a degree and this will stimulate players to play safer rather than bothering to be the n1 player in the game. Later on, ofcourse, that changes: everyone wants to be a good player, right!? But still, the player will be more likely to care about team work and have more purposes than simply being the best. 2) The vehicles are diverse and each type has its own interesting attachments. They are not simply transport and provide more potential situations for the player to face, whereas Call of Duty simply has the situation of PvP combat never requiring to take out a rocket launcher to blast the opponent's heli or tank. 3) The large maps are NOT a disadvantage. They give the player an opportunity to snipe from a safe distance and give the player more places to hide/defend/attack from. Flanking suddenly gets important again. Players can easily take off with their squad in a tank/jeep to try and turn the tide on their own. However, running alone is indeed not fun. Let's not forget though, that there are maps like Operation Metro too. 4) There is a decent soldier system that stimulates players to do teamwork. The fact that each member in a squad can choose to be medic, engineer, support or recon, gives each individual a function in the game that he will feel like doing. It is quite obvious an engineer will stay with a medic, and that the medic will provide health when needed. Points are received when doing so. In Call of Duty, none of this exists: players even evade each other in fear of getting their "kills stolen". The headset system there is also used mostly for speaking of a player's own achievments, like "oh my god, i quickscoped a camper!" rather than: "there's a camper here, help me take him out". 5) I cannot make a count of which game has more weapons and attachments, but where Call of Duty gives its players alot of completely useless weapons and some overpowered, each weapon in battlefield has its own purpose and advantages. There isn't a weapon in the game that is completely useless. 6) This last comment is an argument why Call of Duty would be bad. Call of Duty takes skill. A player cannot learn and be good, an untalented player will at the most become average. As it is each for himself, this makes the game quite frustrating when facing people with a better aim and quicker reflexes than yourself. Battlefield does not have this problem. Each player will be of use, no matter what: noobs are still going to be able to shoot an enemy as long as they stick with the others. Moreover, reviving is so easy they will quickly become an essential part on the battlefield.
Should abortion be allowed

The tricky part of the abortion debate is deciding where to draw the line. Should abortion be allowed if the woman was raped? What about if the baby is guaranteed to grow up in poverty?? What if the woman's life is on the line, should she risk killing both herself to avoid the unthinkable moral crime of abortion? Where should exceptions be made? For the sake of simplicity, let's imagine that none of these questions apply. Even if this was the case, a pro choice argument can still be made. 1. The birth control argument: Abortion is essentially preventing a human life. If this is considered morally and ethically wrong, then logically; condoms, birth control, and oral sex should also be outlawed. Condoms prevent what could potentially be a life. any form of birth control would. The problem here is essentially, where does life begin? This brings me to my next point. 2. Can you murder what is not yet alive? Fetus's develop the capacity to become conscious sometime between 24-28 weeks (1). This is the point where the part of the fetus's brain responsible for consciousness starts to develop. Consciousness develops sometime after this point. Before this, the fetus cannot feel pain, it does not know it's alive, it is essentially a growth. So essentially, aborting the baby before this point, (during the first trimester) is as morally wrong as preventing a life, or using birth control. So what about after this point? 3. Human rights In North America, if a person falls into a vegetative state , they forfeit their decision making rights to their next of kin. If this person is hooked up to a life support system, their next of kin can legally decide to "pull the plug". Similarly, the fetus is dependent on it's mothers "life support system", and has not obtained the mental capacity to make its own choices. So shouldn't the mother be allowed to "pull the plug" ? 4. Population control This may seem cruel, but it is a valid point. The human race is grossly overpopulated. Science estimates that the earth is only fit to handle about 12-13 billion people. The human population has doubled in the last hundred years. This is what you call exponential growth. What happens when the population of any species exceeds its capacity? Well they die out. DRAMATICALLY. As the amount of people increase, so does world hunger and poverty. Abortion (and other types of birth control) provides a healthy means of controlling this. (2)(3) The Pro-choice argument: If it is assumed that a fetus is part of the mother, (not a separate person) then shouldn't the mother have the right to decide what to do with her body? And if a fetus is considered to be a separate person, then where do you draw the line? So I ask my opponent, where do you draw the line? Should a mother who was raped be allowed to abort her child? What about if her life is at risk? What if she can't support the child? What if the fetus hasn't gained the capacity for consciousness? I look forward to your response, and what I hope will be a lively debate. 1. http://www.scientificamerican.com...... 2. http://www.worldometers.info...... 3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com......
roman catholic church has never contradicted itself

you are being too literal with the prohibition on "father". first, that is a practice, not a doctrine. and second, we have to look at it as less literal. Jesus meant not to call people father as if they are God etc. here are some father son verses from the New Testametn. "But Timothy"s worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel" (Phil. 2:22). "To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior" (Titus 1:4); "I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment" (Philem. 10). None of these men were Paul"s literal, biological sons. Rather, Paul is emphasizing his spiritual fatherhood with them. "No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth" (3 John 4). In fact, John also addresses men in his congregations as "fathers" (1 John 2:13"14). ---------------- i know some books in the deutero canonical bible 2 Maccabees (12:44-45) has people praying to the dead. the issue here is whether tge catholic church is the authority to begin with for why the bible exists. for the bible didn't just fall from the sky, it was put together and ratified by the pope. In 2 Timothy 1, there is a form of prayer on behalf of the family of Onesiphorus (v. 16). Subsequently, in verse 18, the apostle prays for Onesiphorus himself. whether you use the protestant or catholic bible. id also use a common sense example. .... most people except the extreme, find no problem praying to their dead loved ones. they often even go to cemetaries and talk to them there. we could also note that jewish people pray or their dead... who we take traditions from, and early christians did too, who we take even more tradition from (just example Tertullian (A.D.160-240) wrote about anniversary Masses for the dead, advising widows to pray for their husbands. St. Augustine remarked that he used to pray for the sins of his mother, remembering her request: "When I die, bury me anywhere you like, but remember to pray for me at the altar instead of all this at best debateable stuff, matter of interpretation, things you personally disagree with at best, you should be finding some contradiction. this bible stuff as said is too open o interpretation. and it deont seem like it'd be too much to find some contradictionfrom popes over a two thousand year period. this was all the standard of the debate anyway
roman catholic church has never contradicted itself

"If the Catholic Church would not true, then it would of contradicted itself". Something doesn't have to contradict itself for it not to be true. Example: I tell my parents I'm going to a friends house, when in reality I'm going to a party. My parents try calling me, I don't answer due to loud noise. The next day my parents ask me why I didn't answer their call, I say me and my friend fell asleep early. This doesn't contradict my story, but it doesn't make it the truth either. I suppose you're referring to truth as in the true Church? If this is the case then, why does the Catholic Church teach praying to Mary and Saints as reasonable? Some would see this as idolatry. The Catholic Church calls all their priest father, Jesus himself spoke against this. The ball is in your court for you to explain why you feel the Catholic Church is the objective truth.
roman catholic church has never contradicted itself

in this debate, i am not counting the issues of limbo, or "no salvation outside the catholic church". you would think if the catholic church were not true, that it would have contradicted itself at some point in two thousand years. the only things that count are statements that are authoritative, things that could be considerted "infallible". the pope, intentionally, teaches, the church, on faith and morals. that is the criteria. it includes many councils and other statements by popes. note: this does not include moral corruption, only official teaching. that means you can't use bad priest, even peodofile priests. it means you can't use the inquisistion where millions were killed by catholics. can't use bad popes. it has to be actual teachings of the church, as said, councils and statements by popes. etc. impeccable v infallble, there's a difference. since we are comparing official statements, id rather not use the bible either. it's usually too open to interpretation to begin with. we are examining the church's consistency on its own anyway... and you'd think even beyond the bible, it'd have contradicted itself within two thousand years. also there's a differnce between widespread belief and doctrine. that so many believed the earth was made in six days, that the earth was flat, that man wasn't from apes etc... only shows they are human. it'd make sense at first impression. this isn't doctrine. you have to cite a quote or citation.
Pizza vs greens

Hello John_Raine. It appears we are in perfect agreement. Not much of a debate then. Nonetheless, it's good to know that you have a responsible attitude regarding your diet. If you are creative with food preparation, all vegetables not just greens can be made extremely tasty. My favourite pizza is topped with mushrooms, peppers, olives, anchovies and cheese and always accompanied with salad. Yum Yum. Yes for greens and yes for pizza and definitely yes for a balanced diet.