BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Piercings

There should not be any laws. It is discrimination. If a person is turned away due to looks that is discrimination and that goes against legislation surrounding equality and diversity as well as human rights. Piercings can be taken out and so if they need to take them out in a workplace then they can easily do that, however, people should still be allowed piercings generally if they want to. It is their body and if they want lots of piercings then I don't see the problem? It is nobody else's business if another individual has piercings.. If they don't like it, they do not have to acknowledge it. It is all about being yourself and if people can't be themselves what exactly is the point? Might as well be dead.
Piercings

It is self expression though? Surely if people like lots of piercings they should have the freedom to have them? It is their body and nobody should judge how many piercings they have. It is discrimination to say someone should not be allowed to express themselves as an individual.. it is diversity. They should be able to be themselves not not labelled or judged as having too many. It all depends on personality and some people love piercings.. so what?
Piercings

It is art, there can be lots of different styles/ colours and shapes to fit your personality. It is a way of showing visually the kind of person you are aside from makeup, hair styles, clothing or music taste. For example goth look, girly look, etc. Piercings can look beautiful on people and can go with many different types of outfits. For example pretty diamond earrings to go with a wedding dress or a septum piercing to go with a band tshirt.
should girls go out side with out bras on

Women cannot help that they are born with breasts. It is no one's business whether women are wearing bras or not unless you intend to stare at them and check which is wickedly inappropriate. We are in an age where the female body has been overtly sexualized through media/porn, which spawned some "rule" that women should cover up. There is no such rule that women need to be confined to wearing undergarments. But of course conservatives are convinced they're being lewd due to the rest of society insisting that female breasts = sexual.
Chicago, bastion of slavery.

Slavery has a technical meaning and this sounds too much what like some ignorant Northerners who support the Union believe. lol. That slavery and horrible conditions are the same. Plus there are homeless shelters to help the poor in Chicago. Just because a place is far from perfect, does not mean slavery. Slavery has to involve being held against your will. No poor person in Chicago is being held against their will. People in the Fascist countries were not slaves. *BTW, correction: I meant that if the blacks escaped, the Jim Crow murderers would not bothered to find them, they would have moved on to terrorizing others in the areas they lived that did not agree.
Chicago, bastion of slavery.

Well, do the less fortunate of Chicago have the blessing of the powers that rule the land, to protect themselves? Not very likely. Take away their guns, right? No guns, no self protection, don't worry because your owner will protect you? Is that the moral of the story you tell? Slaves with good owners, believed they would be protected most likely, and better then the American citizens of color that reside in 3rd world neighborhoods in our so called "most respected cities". I am sorry Adam2, but your references to Jim Crow has no more meaning to me then mine, of Johnny Goodboy Tyler, most likely has to you. If your retort comes in less then 10 minutes, I will believe it is honesty, but it will have to come in less then 3, to be believable. What does the term "freedom" mean in the depths of The Windy City, where there is no hotter air blowing?
Chicago, bastion of slavery.

No, they're not. They're victims, but they're not slaves. Last time I checked, no one stopped blacks from moving around in the South. If many had left, I'm sure the Jim Crow murderers would not have even bothered to have murdered the blacks there (not that I agree with the laws). They would have just moved on to more victims who didn't follow their ways. It's repression, but last time I checked there were no bounty.No, slaves were mistreated, but they were needed by thir masters for labor. Anyways, there are no bounties existing in Chicago to catch people who escaped from the city. (Escape -- you see how silly that sounds). Yes, (sarcasm), poor people are chained to master's rooms in Chicago for moving around and being forced to do labor).No, Chicago has to have that kind of thing for there to be slavery. Just because Chicago has hard times does not mean people are slaves. So wrong.
Chicago, bastion of slavery.

There are bad places in Chiago, granted. However, that's not all of Chicago. Chicago has plenty of lovely areas. Also to say that slavery and horrible living conditions are the same is a lack of logic and doesn't make sense. SLAVERYA civil relationship in which one person has absolute power over the life, fortune, and liberty of another. In a horrible ghetto, people still have freedoms to move and are not going to be threatened by someone who has a whip.In Chicago it's not legal to own someone, as it's not legal anywhere in America to own. http://freephotooftheday.com...From the Wilmette areaand plenty of othersTo say that slavery is what Chicago has is like saying Jim Crow and slavery are the same, when they aren't. One has to do with exclusion and possible threat of lynching if the "law" isn't kept. The other has to do with working for someone for free, chained, with the threat of being whipped and beatdown.
Weak Atheism is Logically Incoherent

I've "lurked" for some time, but this will be my first debate, so I will endeavor to not make any stupid mistakes. Since KeytarHero has only created definitions in his first post, I presume the first round is for acceptance of the debate and terms only - So far, I find nothing objectionable, and agree to all definitions. "God or gods" isn't defined, so I presume we're to be using the standard dictionary definition for those. (1&2 here: . http://www.merriam-webster.com... ) I am very curious about and look forward to my opponent's argument, in particular how he reconciles his own atheism (There being an infinite number of potential "gods", at least one of which he must surely lack belief in) with the idea that weak atheism is incoherent. Cheers, -Dirk
Homework Should Not Be Given In Schools

"Well Kids need homework to practice the skills they learnt and can be used as a study guide" Although this is true, homework can also put a lot of stress on the students and as I said before it limits their free time and can cause sleep loss. If a student stays up all night doing homework doesn't it become hard for them to stay attentive in class the next day? Homework as I said before is not necessarily a bad thing. Yes it can be used as a guide for revision but it can also be a bucket of stress waiting to explode. The more stress put on students can limit their learning and ability to function during class. So in conclusion, homework can be useful and beneficial but it also has a lot of downsides to it which include stress,mental exhaustion,being tired,sleep loss and limits free time and social interactions just to name a few. Homework adds more pressure to already pressured students and adds load to their already stressful school career. It's been nice debating with you. Thank you for accepting this challenge and have a nice day/night.
Homework Should Not Be Given In Schools

I think that homework should not be given in school. Yes homework sometimes benefits students but it also prevents them from having free time. For example if a student was given about 4 different sets of homework from separate classes that were due the next day,student is expected to submit the homework for each class the next day and if he/she doesn't they are punished. To avoid being punished, the student would have to spend countless hours doing each set of homework and therefore this limits their free time to enjoy life. This can also prevent them from getting 8 hours of sleep because they struggle to do the homework and when you don't get enough sleep,you can't function 100% the next day. I'm not saying that all homework is bad I'm just saying that homework can prevent a student from enjoying their free time. Students have to go to school 6-8 hours a day, 5 times a week and then they still have to do homework when they get home. I don't think this is fair honestly. So in total students not only spend time at school doing work but then they have to go home and do more work and they may even have to do chores. So basically the students spend more time doing work than interacting and enjoying themselves. The weekend isn't even a time to relax anymore because on the weekends homework doubles(most of the time) In closing I would like to say once again that homework is not necessarily a bad thing but it cuts down a student's free time and may overwhelm the student. It can cause sleep loss,mental exhaustion and even stress. This is my opinion and I believe in freedom of speech so please don't hate because I'm stating my opinion. Thanks for reading.
Cesar Millan's dog training philosophy and methods.

Rebuttal 1: They Didn't Keep Holly & "No Improvement"Con suggests that because Cesar advised not to keep Holly progress wasn't made. I submit evidence showing Holly did improve quite profoundly, as you can see in the citation below [1], even Cesar notes how impressive it was. Remember that Holly's reward for aggression was being fortified over serveral years. For any progress let alone such profound progress to be made is very impressive, also note that three other trainers attempted to rehabilitate this severe case. [2]Rebuttal 2: Resource Guarding - Fear or AggressionCon contends that Holly's resource guarding was fear, I submit it is aggression based on the intense aggression she displayed to her owner (since she was a puppy) while he was both far away and not showing aggressive body language. [3, 4]Rebuttal 3: Desensitization Vs FloodingCon submits that flooding and desensitization are different things, upon following her citation I noticed several things:1) Foremost, this citation is a forum post with no citations to back up its conclusions.2) Additionally, this citation even if true does not indicate flooding is a ineffective training method. As we see in Con's own citation, this therapy is suprisingly effective. [1]Rebuttal 4: Cesar Promoted Fear in HollyAgain, I submit evidence indicating that Holly's behavior was not fear but aggression [5] and as the evidence shows, backing away in these scenario only fortifies the validity of behaving aggressive to Holly. [6, 7, 8]Rebuttal 5: Video TamperingCon now contends the validity of the citation she presented for review. Unless Con can provide enough evidence from either former or current crew members, friends, past clients, producers, bystanders than we've no reason to believe Nat Geo's claim of this being a reality program was subverted.Rebuttal 6:Positive ReinforcementPositive reinforcement certainly has it's place, I submit however that in overboard aggressive cases, positive reinforcement has lost most if not all of its usefullness. Consider why, if a dog is not willing to produce behavior that can even be positively reinforced then positive reinforcement is not a possibility.Conclusion: Cesar's techniques produce positive change in the behavior and lives of dogs and their families, Con's arguments to show otherwise have been rebutted. Vote Pro!!!! - Please look at the top of Round 3, thanks again to the readers and my opponent for their patience with me.It was fun Con!Citations: 1) 2) ;3) 4) http://www.aspca.org...5) http://www.aspca.org...6) http://www.belmontveterinarycentre.co.uk...7) http://www.dog-obedience-training-review.com...8) http://www.pet360.com...
Cesar Millan's dog training philosophy and methods.

1. Holly I think it's noteworthy to point out, that the family decided not to keep Holly. The point of fixing resource guarding is to not stop the dog from biting, but to teach the dog that there is nothing to fear in the first place. Backing off can be seen as "rewarding" and therefore cause reinforcement of the aggressive behavior, but putting the dog in that "fight for food" state to begin with was the first mistake. He could be communicating to Holly that every meal is a fight and she should be on high alert next time based off of the altercation that happened last time. http://drsophiayin.com... You don't see "improvement," you see the dog being insecure about Millan's presence near her. She's turning away, licking her lips, and avoiding him. She's not comfortable with him near her. That doesn't indicate the problem has been fixed, but that Millan put a big bandaid on it. Furthermore, this is the aired episode. This has been cut and pasted to LOOK like improvement is happening already. We have no idea if that took weeks to accomplish or hours, or anything. As for the desensitization therapy. That's not the same method as flooding, which was mentioned earlier. http://www.mdjunction.com... And the point of desensitization is to get the dog accustomed to the stimuli, so they no longer fear it. Holly jumped away when the hand was put in her food bowl. Millan didn't desensitize her to the hand, he taught her to fear it even more. The touch: yes it is, and he got bit. Walking away from the dog and allowing it to return to a calm state of mind would have been a better option for the dog. Unfortunately, that's boring to the TV viewer. If the dog was in such an agitated state of mind, touching the dog, regardless of speed or pressure of the touch, is only going to increase that agitation until she bites. Which she did. You then link a dog that has less of a resource guarding issue, and then go onto say "this dog isn't fearful or anxious" That dog is clearly a different dog with different issues. That's kind of comparing apples to oranges. Its easy to teach a dog that's not crazy about food to leave the food alone. Semantics http://www.cesarsway.com... This is what Millan defines as dominant behaviors and submissive behaviors. This explains why those behaviors are in no way linked to "dominance" https://apdt.com... The collar: If he doesn't recommend it, it's a moot point. "the behavior was changed immediately" again, this is a cut and edited video clip. We have no actual evidence to prove the results happened immediately or over a longer period of time. DDO and Error http://totallydogtraining.com... That should take care of any link issues. It's a link that contains links to multiple studies done on positive reinforcement vs negative.
Cesar Millan's dog training philosophy and methods.

I accept.Regarding Pro or Con:I am a little confused as to our roles. The way you phrased round one seems invested, as in; you dislike Cesar and believe he is outdated, disaproved, etc... But then you selected Con meaning that you will be defending Cesar and his techniques, please elaborate, will you be defending Cesar's techniques or criticizing them? I ask because you are new and I suspected perhaps you actually meant to fulfill the position of Pro.Clearing the Semantics:Considering the context - canine training techniques - "terrible" should be defined as 'of very poor quality'.[1] Poor quality in respects to training techniques would mean they're ineffective and inefficient. To conclude, we must debate whether Cesar's techniques are:1) Outdated - Meaning less credible and or relevant than newer techniques and research.2) Disapproved of - Meaning the majority of the scholarly community specializing in animal psychology and training disagrees with Cesar's methods.3) Cesar's techniques are terrible - as in ineffective and inefficient toward the end of training dogs.Are these agreeable goals? Thank you for bearing with my request for clarification, the clearer these things are the more productive our debate will be!Sources:1) "Terrible" Definition #3c As accessed on 5/14/2015 - http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Cesar Millan's dog training philosophy and methods.

Cesar Millan uses a highly outdated and disproved method of training and has a complete misunderstanding of canine behavior. The dominance theory of wolves and domestic dogs is widely disproved and yet he still claims you must be the "alpha" He's a terrible dog trainer and knows nothing about domestic dogs and his television is hazardous to the well being of any dog who lives in a household that watches it.
"Global Warming" is a hoax

You bring a very well-researched argument to the table. I am out of ammunition and I have said what I needed to say. I believe the earth goes through natural warming and cooling trends, without having humans being the number one cause. You believe humans are slowly destroying the planet and the planet will eventually melt and feel we need to stop driving SUV's and need to start riding our bikes to work...or so I assume you believe that. However, if you don't necessarily believe that, then more power to you. We can agree to disagree. Take care man.
"Global Warming" is a hoax

A well-researched response sethgecko13. I praise you for your efforts. Here is something I would like you to read: "It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus. Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. ...There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming. In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped. The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway. I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend." --John Coleman, Founder of the Weather Channel Scientists have no proof that CO2 output has any effect on the climate. If that were true, that wouldn't explain the cooling trend from the 40's-70's because CO2 output was rising. The National Academy of Sciences report stated there is no conclusive link to human activity and "global warming." The idea that global warming would melt the ice caps and flood coastal cities seems to be mere science fiction. A slight increase in temperature--whether natural or human induced--is not likely to lead to a massive melting of the earth ice caps, as sometimes claimed in the media.
"Global Warming" is a hoax

"Global Warming" is one of the biggest scams in history. To go to the extreme of saying our planet is "melting" and man is the main cause, is utter foolishness and complete ignorance. I feel bad for anyone who takes Al Gore seriously. According to Accu-Weather, the world's leading commercial forecaster, global air temperatures, as measured by land-based weather stations, show an increase of about 0.45 degrees Celsius over the past century, yet CO2 output continued to rise at an extremely fast pace throughout the 20th century. From the 1940's-1970's, temperatures dropped, yet CO2 output continued to rise. About 80% of the CO2 from human activities was added to the air after 1940, which cannot account for the pre-1940 warming trend. The trend, therefore, had to be largely natural. Then, as the air's CO2 incrased most rapidly, temperatures dropped for nearly 40 years. Crops were damaged during the summers of that time period due to frost on plants. Studies show that 420,000 years ago, temperatures were warmer than they are today. Evidence of a cooling trend debunks the theory of global warming. The snow-covered continent of Antarctica has cooled over the past 35 years, according to scientists with the National Science Foundation's Long Term Ecological Research project.
Resolved: Bishops are superior to knights in the game of chess.

Unfortunately, Pro was unable to finish the debate. I was counting on using this last round to bring some of my separate and unconnected points together, and to offer a lucid summary of my position. That said, I don't want the debate to be too unfair because I had an extra round. Suffice it to say, Pro never showed that the number of positions favoring bishops surpassed the number of positions favoring knights. I just want to briefly point out, for example, that Pro himself admitted that knights dominate closed positions, and Pro never contested the fact that closed positions make up half the number of positions. That alone made my case for me, in Round 2. It's a real shame this debate ended early. It was a lot of fun, and I thank my opponent for debating this with me. And with that, I'll let the debate end early and leave the rest to the voters.
Obi-Wan Kenobi Is The Best Jedi Of All Time

I will be arguing that Obi-Wan Kenobi was the best Jedi of all time.Rules 1. Movies only. No Expanded Universe information allowed.2. 6,000 character limit.3. No trolling or schematics, real Star Wars fans only please. 4. First Round acceptance only.Opponent gets to pick any other Jedi from the movies (the original six Star Wars films by George Lucas).Should be fun! Good luck.