BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Spongebob Squarepants does drugs.

So are you actually saying, in all seriousness, that the show is about drugs? Because the comparisons you mentioned could very easily be coincidences. Yes, almost everyone loves krabby patties but almost everone also loves Big Macs. Are you indeed implying that Big Macs are part of a huge drug scheme? What about french fries? Gummy Bears? When a TV show is about drugs, it's usually a lot more obvious. Take Scooby Doo, for example. -Scooby "Doobie" Doo -The Mystery Machine -Scooby and Shaggy suffer from the munchies As much as I would like to admit it, I highly doubt Spongebob is a show encouraging drugs. That does not go to say, however, that the writers and directors of the show were sober during their studio process. After all, we are all on drugs. Also, do you seriously find pleasure in talking about people burning to death? Might need to see a doctor. -Oh and thank you for joining my conversation. 'Twas fun.
Islam is Not a Religion of Peace

Of course, As the founder of Islam lived so many centuries ago, It is hard to determine who Mohammad was. Before you go and spout accusations about a man being a violent pedophile, I want definitive evidence because from a reader's point of view, You sound uneducated in the field and believe that Muslim are only terrorist and dirty people. Now, I want to focus on the core ideas of the Qu'ran which is the holy book of Islam. The Core ideas are known as the Five Pillars of Islam. The ideas represented by the pillars must be followed or the person is NOT considered a real Muslim. One of these pillars is called "Zakat". It essentially means Alms. It states that those who are more fortunate are to give to those who are less fortunate. This may not seem like much, But when you really consider, You are expending resources to those who you are not familiar with purely based on the idea of Zakat. Before I move on, I want to address the so-called Muslim Extremists. Terror Groups such as ISIS or Al-Queda are factions that hold power in the Middle East often instigating wars with countries like the USA. These groups are radical but not all who fight for the groups are radical. Many of them are simple people who lived simple lives but were forced to fight to ensure the survival of their family. ISIS is quite scary in the Middle East because instead recruiting, They took over towns and forced the men into submission and forced labor. These men are then taught to believe in the radical ideas of the minority who lead the group. Movies like 12 Strong, Which came out fairly recently, Express this clearly. Again, A majority of the Muslim population are friendly and amiable people. It would be unfair to stereotype as terrorists an entire religious group based on less than 2% of its population. If this stereotype were true, Because Islam is the fastest growing religion, There would be no chance for anybody.
The Minimum Wage Should Be Abolished

Interestingly, I've wanted to gain some more insight into minimum wage for a long time, so I guess this is my chance. Before we begin i'd like to offer a few definitions, and then debating can begin in round 2 with my opponent. Consumption: expenditure on goods and services for final personal use; the quantity consumed . http://dictionary.reference.com... Minimum wage: the lowest wage payable to employees in general or to designated employees as fixed by law or by union agreement . http://dictionary.reference.com... Abolish: to do away with; put an end to; annul; . http://dictionary.reference.com... If my opponent agrees to these definitions, let's proceed with the arguments in round 2. My position is that the existence of minimum wage increases consumption economically and, to some point, definitionally. But, I don't need to defend the current minimum wage or establish an alternative to it now- rather, I need to prove that the absence of minimum wage is detrimental in comparison to its presence.
The Minimum Wage Should Be Abolished

The debate shall proceed from the standpoint that both Pro and Con wish to maximize the consumption of lower wage earners. My task will be to show that the Minimum Wage Law as passed by the Federal Government of the United States is a poor tool to accomplish this and that this law ought to be abolished (with the implication being that any minimum wage law is suspect, but this will not be part of the parameters of this debate). The Con will try to show that the Federal Minimum Wage is effective at achieving greater consumption for low wage earners and therefore ought to remain in effect, even though the Con may disagree with where it is set.
Rslvd: That merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component of K-12 teacher

Resolved: That merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component of K-12 teacher Merit Pay -- a term describing performance-related pay, most frequently in the context of educational reform. It provides bonuses for workers who perform their jobs effectively, according to measurable criteria. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Advantage One: Pride Merit based pay will increase the pride that teachers take in their work. Teachers now dont have to worry about their performance, they get paid (. http://www.payscale.com...) relatively the same. If they were getting paid by performance, teachers would take more pride in their work, and devote more time to their career. The blunt fact is that not all teachers want to teach, and this would only force them to either a) begin devoting more time to helping their students or b) quit. This would lead to a brighter, more knowledgeable future for our childern. Advantage 2: Returning the Original Purpose of School Merit based pay would be a big step towards the return of the original purpose of school, knowledge. Gaining more and more knowledge. In the status quo, teachers just need their students to pass so they can keep their jobs. Moving to merit based pay would make them focus more on the knowledge aspect of school that we have long forgot about. Knowledge is subjective towards the student, basically the student puts in effort and he gets back based upon how much he put in. This wont change if we move to merit based pay. Merit based pay would make a consideration of teachers caring alot more about how much the student is putting in. Advantage 3: Incentive Merit based pay, in the most blunt way possible, is just incentive to do more. To put more devotion into their work. For teachers who dont like teaching, this may be a turning point in that this is a incentive to start caring about their career, and they may find a rejuvenated love for teaching. For teachers who already love teaching, this would just give them the benefits that they have long earned. Conclusion Merit based pay is good, in that through my advantages of pride, original purpose of school, and incentive, we will look to a brighter future.
Standards should be placed on orginizations that Have the word News in the Title

The code of ethics. Can't say that I disagree. I want facts, everyone does. But the bias of the news and the code of ethics are different. Code of ethics states that it should be done in such and such manner. That it should be facts. Again, who cares what it's bias is if they don't even know their own? No one. If billy is conservative republican, he knows what his bias is, therefore recognizes what he believes in and what he doesn't. Also, your liaison between bias and facts is weak. You have a hard time putting them together in relationship. Just because newsweek magazine is liberal bias, doesn't mean that there is only opinion in it. And what opinion there is, we understand and recognize it as such. Then, if we were to take the word news out, what word could we replace it with that has no relationship to it? There is none. And again, news does not mean that it is all facts. It is simply unheard of stories, events, happenings. Taking the word news out of something because it isn't all facts is preposterous. It doesn't correlate.
Standards should be placed on orginizations that Have the word News in the Title

My opponent declined to respond to my prior citation of the Journalistic Code of Ethics I can only state the following as there is nothing for me to debate. It is reasonable to require that the individual reporting News is qualified and has integrity. The fact that the code of ethics for a journalist prohibits bias in the reporting of the news wholly supports this. Simply put Regulation is necessary if we want the factual truth in any situation.
Standards should be placed on orginizations that Have the word News in the Title

Webster's defines Journalist as :a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium. From the Journalistic code of ethics: Public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility The code of ethics centers around Objectivity not biased interpretation. Without enforcement we loose journalistic integrity and embrace mediocrity. Also from the code of ethics: "Unequivocal separation between news and opinion."
Standards should be placed on orginizations that Have the word News in the Title

News. Yes it is a word that we have all heard. But you don't seem to know what it really means. Definition taken from Webster's dictionary: Lately made/beginning or recurring afresh/unfamiliar/additional News does not mean fact. It simply means happenings and even rumors are distributed among people, by one way or another. Me telling my neighbor something could be news to her because she never heard me tell her that before. Biased? I read newsweek, which is a well known weekly news source. The magazine is supposed to be divided into two groups. Conservative one week, and Liberal the next. But I know very well that the bias of the magazine is Liberal. If I can't tell what the bias of a news source is, then I probably don't know what my bias is, so why does it matter to me? If I say I'm Conservative, I know why I choose to be Conservative, therefore I will recognize what's Conservative and what's Liberal. But if I don't know where I stand, then why would I care? Fact from fiction? A good reader, a person who knows how to read really, can recognize what is fact and what is fictional. Is it a fact that Obama can't be a good president? No, it's simply a matter of opinion. Is the Earth round? Yes, and we know that to be a fact because it is proven science. If someone is so interested in whether or not something is fact or fiction, that person should look into the subject.
Standards should be placed on orginizations that Have the word News in the Title

News, We have all seen this word and there is an integrity with it, However at current there are hundreds of "News" programs that are nothing but propaganda engines, churning out speculation and opinion rather than fact. We need to place standards on any "News" program to ensure that information is broadcast in a non biased way. I am not saying that we cannot have the biased shows, I am simply saying that opinion should not be touted as fact.
Standardized Spelling and Grammar has and is gone and going to far.

A standard language (also standard dialect or standardized dialect) is a particular variety of a language that has been given either legal or quasi-legal status. As it is usually the form promoted in schools and the media, it is usually considered by speakers of the language to be more "correct" in some sense than other dialects. Well my opponent is well worded but for the voting audience I would like to reitterate that he has gone to law school and may be a lawyer. You know what they say about Lawyers, don't you.....Need I say more? probably not..... but I will. Anyway, I got an email in the office the other day. A co-worker had cat spelled kat. I immediately went to grab a weapon, gun or something. I was going to let this guy have it. I mean he either is too STUPID or did it intentional, both an abomination of spelling. Then something came over me and I realized that I have believed the retoric of all the "spelling Nazis". Contention 4 WASTE of valuable TIME I have no reason to judge this slight spelling error, infact I don't think we should even call it an error. Spelling words and performing gramar correctly is just a nusiance. As long as I have effectively communicated, their really isnt a need to readdress it. Of course every effort should be maid to spell words corectly but if not oh well. Contention 5 Standardized spelling errors have been punished to severly The "spelling Nazis" have done it again.....Killed someone for spelling something wrong. Sorry I can't remember the reference to back this up, but you can trust me. Seriously the "spelling Nazis" have encouraged others to mock poor defensless individuals with little spelling erors. These Nazis have denied jobs to people and justified their since of betterment than the rest. Sic this Sic that. A little Sic, sic here, a little more condensending sic here. And I will leave a few more words from Mark Twain and a link to an interesting article. http://news.yahoo.com... ...simplified spelling is all right, but, like chastity, you can carry it too far. - The Alphabet and Simplified Spelling speech, December 9, 1907 I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing. I have a correspondent whose letters are always a refreshment to me, there is such a breezy unfettered originality about his orthography. He always spells Kow with a large K. Now that is just as good as to spell it with a small one. It is better. It gives the imagination a broader field, a wider scope. It suggests to the mind a grand, vague, impressive new kind of a cow. - speech at a spelling match, Hartford, Connecticut, May 12, 1875. Reported in the Hartford Courant, May 13, 1875 I was almost tempted to spell check this, Ha ha
Standardized Spelling and Grammar has and is gone and going to far.

I believe standardized spelling and grammar in the United States English language, both written and spoken has gone to far in regulation. I will type words how I want, with out spell check. I expext my opponent being, CON, will present his arguements with proper spelling and gramar, unlike me. Contentions1 Standardized spelling not necessary for informal communication Standardized spelling and grammar is acceptable for formal situations, such as a letter from the President of the United States, but should not be required for something less informal such as an email, memo, or argument on Debate.org. Contentions2 Spelling NAZIs are generally annoying This pretty much goes with out saying but I will say it either way. Contentions3 Standardized Spelling can generally exclude some people Some people with a lot to communicate don't get heard fairly because they simply have a few errors in the communication. This isn't fair. In the words of Mark Twain " I have had an aversion to good spelling for sixty years and more, merely for the reason that when I was a boy there was not a thing I could do creditably except spell according to the book. It was a poor and mean distinction and I early learned to disenjoy it. I suppose that this is because the ability to spell correctly is a talent, not an acquirement. There is some dignity about an acquirement, because it is a product of your own labor. It is wages earned, whereas to be able to do a thing merely by the grace of God and not by your own effort transfers the distinction to our heavenly home--where possibly it is a matter of pride and satisfaction but it leaves you naked and bankrupt." - Mark Twain's Autobiography
We need to ban FAT marriage

By forfeiting his third argument, my opponent has given up his last chance to negate my arguments against his logic. Thus, I have no choice but to conclude my argument. I will restate my points. My opponent's use of the Bible as a source is primarily conjectural, and one interpretation is not enough evidence to justify his points. He flaunts his opinion as if it were a fact that anyone should be able to understand. He is incorrect. My opponent is very frank about his opinions, and makes no effort to make it appear as if he cares. Judging by his sole argument, it is clear he has no intention to make any distinction that he has a rational reason to believe the position he takes, and instead has chosen to rely on his own bias. His logic can easily be disproved, as I have shown in my rebuttals. He has shown no intention to win this argument, as evidenced by his consistent refusals to respond to my arguments. It seems clear that he realizes his point is weak, and merely wants to get his opinion out. In conclusion, I have shown that his logic is flawed, and based on bias, opinion, and hatred. To my knowledge, these are not rational bases for an argument. I have proved him wrong to the best of my ability, and thus, I claim my own victory.
We need to ban FAT marriage

As my opponent has forfeited his opportunity to negate my rebuttal, I shall continue, discussing points I may have missed in my initial analysis. "Food is a gift from God, but some under the influence of the devil, have polluted it". This contradicts one of my opponent's previous points, which states that the body, the temple of God, is what is being polluted, by the food. This statement suggests that the food itself is being polluted, by the people. My opponent has forfeited his second argument, leaving his sole argument to contradict itself. Can we trust logic that contradicts itself? I say no. "this statement has one unfortunate implication: that my opponent is sexist". I admit this accusation may have been incorrect. I had one statement to base it on, and I chose what was initially an insignificant part of it. I was probably premature, harsh, and misperceived. However, my opponent has refused his chance to prove that accusation wrong. I will give him another chance to do so in the 3rd round. I await my opponent's response, if he choses to give one.
We need to ban FAT marriage

I will do my best to respect his faith, as he seems quite confident in it, and I realize how protective those people can get of their religion. Thus, I will be arguing as a Christian. "Now let me ask you, did God create Adam and eve at over 100 kilo's each ? stuffing their face with hamburgers ? of course not". God made all people different, with different metabolisms. For some people, becoming overweight is easy. For others, it is very hard. "The bible clearly teaches that the body is the temple of the god, well these enlarged salad phobes, pollute the holy temple with their KFC. " God already learned from the incident in the Garden of Eden that even when instructions are explained outright, they will not always be followed. You can't really get much clearer than "Ye shall not touch it. " Yet, Eve touched it. "they seek to adopt. They would bring innocent children into their food perversion life style. For the love of God, won't someone think of the children". Stopping marriage of overweight people will not stop them from adopting. Many thinner people make single adoptions as well. "Here is a tip, drop your pants, stand up straight, and look down, can't see your penis ? well then you my friend are too fat. " Granted, being that overweight does have health risks which I won't get into right now, but this statement has one unfortunate implication: that my opponent is sexist. My opponent bases his argument upon the teachings of God, yet denies that all men are created equal, in that no person or group is more important than another by only the way God made them. This concept is one of the most predominant morals in Christianity, as well as the basic principle of civil rights. Should my opponent be taken seriously if what he believes is a mere skeleton of what he claims to believe? I will give him a chance to disprove my argument. "We must fight these wicked food perverts as much as we fight the sexual perverts, in the love of Jesus of course, by warning them often how they are going to a fiery hell. " If telling overweight people that they are going to Hell were my opponent's intent, he would not be arguing against overweight people's right to marry. I will allow my opponent to overlook my rebuttal, and, hopefully, rethink his logic, which I believe I have shown to be flawed. I thank him again, and I await his argument.
We need to ban FAT marriage

Opening arguments........ Dear brother and sisters in Christ. We all know we need to ban gay marriage cause God created male and female. But another group of moral abominations has been given the right to marry. Now I know what I am about to say is not politically correct, and I am sure will arouse the anger of many, but we must speak the truth according to GODS WORD and not mans. And the truth is this, God didn't make Adam and Steve and God also didn't make Mr and Mrs fatty fat fat fat. Now let me ask you, did God create Adam and eve at over 100 kilo's each ? stuffing their face with hamburgers ? of course not, this is the work of Satan, and we must drive it from our midst. The bible clearly teaches that the body is the temple of the god, well these enlarged salad phobes, pollute the holy temple with their KFC. Now let me ask you what do you think will happen to those who pollute Gods holy temple ? Now some of these fatties for satan, can't have children, probably cause their stomachs are so large as to prevent sexual intercourse, so they seek to adopt. They would bring innocent children into their food perversion life style. For the love of God, won't someone think of the children !!! Here is a tip, drop your pants, stand up straight, and look down, can't see your penis ? well then you my friend are too fat. Food is a gift from God, but some under the influence of the devil, have polluted it, and made eating food into a moral depravity, just like the gays do with their sex. We must fight these wicked food perverts as much as we fight the sexual perverts, in the love of Jesus of course, by warning them often how they are going to a fiery hell. In conclusion, these food delinquents, need to repent, accept Jesus as their lord and Saviour, and eat a God damm salad.
RyuuKyuzo should be allowed in the DDO Debating League

. http://debate.org... "Hmm? You won't let me in the club because my opponents thus far don't meet your standards? That's a particularly weak reason for exclusion. So weak, in fact that I'm going to challenge you to debate me about it. The resolution will be along the lines of "RyuuKyuzo should be allowed to join the DDO League" -- something like that. If I win, I'm in. If I lose, you're reason for exclusion is validated and you can be the guy who gets to say he took down my winning-streak. I think this would be a great opening debate for the league, don't you? ;) Put your money where your mouth is, Stephen. " The burden of proof is on my opponent in this debate.
The earth is ROUND

Blh blah blah. my opponent cant how the huearth is ROUND.But I will show it is FLATChristianity says the earth is ROUND.But Christianity is FALSE.The Bible indicates that the earth is round. One verse we can look at is Isaiah 40:22, where it mentions the “circle of the earth.” From space, the earth always appears as a circle since it is round. This matches perfectly with the Bible.Another verse to consider is Job 26:10, where it teaches that God has “inscribed” a circle on the surface of the waters at the boundary of light and darkness. This boundary between light and darkness is where evening and morning occur. The boundary is a circle since the earth is round.But we all know there is NO EVIDENCE for the bible!!Therefore, the earth cannot be flat!LOL. I dont really believe this, but its fun to show how WRONG your opponent is!!!