BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Diet pills should be banned

Of course, anything needs a time to be work or to see the result...However, in a desire to have a slim, beautiful body people often forget about their health! Our health is more important! These diet pills work by blocking and removing the fat you eat from your intestines. That can't be good. Also they can habit-forming. As I mentioned, each pills containing amphetamine, (which still used to loose weight) and synephrine. You lose weight by burning more calories than you intake. Amphetamines cause weight loss by supressing the diet and increasing the heart rate. What else...Despite the fact that the manufacturers of sports nutrition will present synephrine as completely safe component, in reality it is not so. Sinefrin has few side effects, especially when combined with other stimulant substances such as caffeine etc. In general sinefrin has the same side effects as ephedrine, which may suggest that synephrine is a weak analog of ephedrine. This is the wrong way to use this powerful drug. Effects on the body are unpredictable. This stuff can cause the burning away of muscle tissue. Then, don't compare a year old child (who is too young to understand) and a 72 year old man or women (who sitting in front of TV and watching to much advertising!)....or you are so sure that they did't want to try it too?! Limitations?! I don't think so... In our country, there's no need for doctor's prescription to buy this diet pills! Any pharmacy offers a huge HUGE selection of these tablets...you CAN FIND IT EVERYWHERE, just have some money! But let's turn to our topic...If you want a nice body, you need to actually work at it. It means going to the gym and eating a balanced diet. Why peole don't want to understand that weight loss starts in the kitchen. If you're serious about it, then you need to be serious about what you eat.
Diet pills should be banned

THANK YOU !! So as you ^^ I didn't say SOME, I said regular exercises. How stupid those people who take it that they don't even know that it must take time and I think everything, anything needs a time to be work or to see the result, you know there's nothing quick here on earth, be realistic! Everything here on earth needs time to focus and to be studied, just like those pills, it takes time to work and I will repeat(I think you have studied biology already, and you know this) EVERYTHING IS INTERCONNECTED TO EACH OTHER. The issue about the consequences, For your information MADAM, everything even a little termite has its own NEGATIVE and POSITIVE side, just like those pills, why should you take those pills if you know that you'll die ? Think about it. First is Caffeine, Parkinson's Diseased is caused by the loss of brain cells that produce a chemical messenger called dopamine. According to a researcher from the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, people who drink coffee or consume caffeine regularly have a lower risk of developing Parkinson's disease, and they MIGHT lose weight because the pills they are taking in use caffeine as one of the ingredients. :) And for your information Caffeine also seems to protect human brain cells. FYI again, caffeine which is in the diet pills REDUCES RISK OF LIVER DAMAGE, PAIN RELIEVER. So what's bad to caffeine ? Ephedrine, that's why its name was DIET PILL because it helps you think that you must not eat and that's the purpose of Ephedrine which is an appetite suppressants, use your common sense please. Do you think they will include an ingredient that helps you think YOU MUST EAT a lot ?! HELLo ?! Lastly, synephrine. Synephrine is very safe and although there are countless papers and articles pointing to the oddball adverse effect, the millions of doses of synephrine make it extraordinarily safe as a dietary supplement. It's estimated that over 100 million doses of synephrine containing drinks and supplements have been taken since it's introduction as a dietary supplement in the 90′s. The law specifically says that a product must be "reasonably expected to be safe". Any question about synephrine ?? May I ask, do you study biology or even values education ? because you don't know that everything has its own bad and good effects. Sigh. Don't you know that pills are not taken REGULARLY, now you know! At any age ? Of course not ! Even a year old child can buy and take it ? even 72 year old man can buy it ?! Of course it has its limitations and pills are only recommended by doctors and those who don't have any prescription and you can ONLY buy those pills at DRUG STORES not in the streets- I don't know if you buy something on streets. PILLS help with PROPER DIET and REGULAR EXERCISE, to shut you up.
Motion: TTHW allow corporations to pay higher salaries to employees who agree not to have children

Since this is a 1 round argument, and my opponent didn't make any argument, me even making anything valid gives me an automatic win. This motion is a good thing. The reason being that when people have children, they take more days off, and have to take maternity leave. Corporations find this tedious, and thus giving people who agree not to have children higher salaries. Those peThis is a fair motion. Since I am the only one with an argument, I automatically win. Childless workers do not recieve any tax refunds from the EITC. Because of such, they are dropping into poverty. " Through those three features, the tax code pushed 1.2 million childless workers into poverty and another 5.8 million deeper into poverty in 2012. "[1]Corpertaions giving childless workers a higher salary is just due to the fact they don't recieve any money from the EITC. So if the TTHW allows corpertaions to do such, it should be accepted because it is fair and just. SOURCE:[1]. . http://www.newrepublic.com...My opponent presents no argument, whereas I have. I also posted a reliable source, and had superior grammar because they wrote "I invite anybody" which is wrong grammar. Since they presented no argument, I believe I had superior conduct as well.
Mary H Christ kicks Alluah Akbars right in ther goat for unlawful carnal knowledge's balls.

Since pro didn't define terms in their opening argument, I will define terms in my opening argument. DefinitionsMary H Christ- This is open to interpretation, but will be assumed to the the mother of Jesus H. Christ, the messiah of Christianity. Alluah Akbars- A misspelling of Allahu Akbar, in the plural form, which translates to "God is Great" in Arabic, and is a phrase widely used in Islam. . http://www.urbandictionary.com... Goat- Any of various hollow-horned ruminant mammals (especially of the genus Capra) related to the sheep but of lighter build and with backwardly arching horns, a short tail, and usually straight hair; especially : one (Capra hircus) long domesticated for its milk, wool, and flesh. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...Unlawful- Not allowed by the law. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...Carnal- Of or relating to the body : sexual or sensual. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...Knowledge- Information, understanding, or skill that you get from experience or education. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...Balls- [From Context] A man's testicles where sperm is produced. . http://www.urbandictionary.com...Opening Argument"The Balls"First off, I would like to analyze the nature of the balls as put forth in the debate topic. Now, what exactly does the phrase "carnal knowledge balls" refer to? Now, by the definitions above, carnal refers to something of the body, sexual or sensual. Thus, since carnal is referring to the balls, it is to be understood that the balls in question are that of the man's testes, Now, "knowledge balls" refers to the balls containing some sort of knowledge. This "knowledge" could be thought of as the semen, which has the genetics of the male, thus containing the knowledge of the male. The Kicking of Balls and GoatsNow, regardless of what Mary H Christ is, by the structure of the debate topic, it is inferred that Mary H. Christ is kicking the balls which belong to Allahu Akbar. Now, here's the problem: a phrase (which is what Allahu Akbar is) cannot actually have any physical manifestations, as it is just a phrase. Thus, it cannot have balls, which is what Pro's case relies heavily upon (the kicking of Allahu Akbar's balls). Thus, since Allahu Akbar has no balls, it is impossible for anything to kick the balls, since what does not exist cannot be kicked. Also, it is implied that Allahu Akbar posseses a goat (as is apparent in "right in ther goat"). Here's the problem with that: a phrase cannot own a goat. Thus, it is impossible for anything to even kick the goat, since the goat doesn't exist, due to a phrase not owning a goat.
Standardized Tests are Ideal for College Admission

The proposition is that Standardized Tests, such as the SAT and ACT, are ideal for the college admission processes. I will argue in favor of this proposition.Layout:1. Only accepting debate, and defining terms.2. Opening Arguments & Rebuttals3. Final RebuttalsWith that out of the way, I would like to define ideal as the best or most advantageous [1]. This will not be to only one aspect such as thoroughness, or practicality, or any other single aspect but the overall of all aspects presented. And as for standardized tests, that is a test that is the same for all test takers, allowing for comparision of each individual's results to that of others [2]. Sources: 1. http://dictionary.reference.com...;2. http://edglossary.org...;
Standardized Tests are Ideal for College Admission

I have not been clear with my argument obviously, so I will rephrase it. Instead of a standardized test, we need to have individual college tests for each university and degree program you enter. I don't see how me, wanting to study political science in Florida, and someone who wants to study philosophy in Alaska should have the same test. I propose that a college with should have an entrance exam for each college and/or major degree the college has because you need to be able to see how the classes will be oriented. Harvard is a very high intense lecture college. Lectures consist of long, drawn out, constant information. Many students can handle this, and it is perfect for many professions and those students have to be able to handle that. But what about those in a degree program that involves more of a hands on teaching style. There should be a college test for each college so that way they can be more tailored to what the student will have to deal with while in the degree program. http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org...
Standardized Tests are Ideal for College Admission

Standardized Testing is not the best option because they need to be adaptive to a student. Many students are not testing people yet have been proven to be college students. I have a personal experience where a friend of mine got a 19 on the Act, and because of that, got accepted only to Miami Dade College. After having struggled in high school and receiving a 2.004, she was told by her guidance counselor that McDonald's manager was a perfect job that would make her plenty of money and a decent healthcare plan. When she entered her 1st year of college, she quit McDonald's in a risk to have a better future. Because of her hard work, she has a 3.402 GPA and has passed every test, with no lower than a B on any midterm and all A on final tests, except on her English 101 and 102 test that she got C's on because of her mild dyslexia. She is now in her 5 year of college at FIU going for her masters in Psychology. -Danna P. (Close-Friend and the one that broke the system) This is just one of 5 experiences I have that show how unreliable the ACT and SAT tests are. (Other ones are mine, my mom's, my girlfriends, and best friend's mom) Besides the tests themselves, the two tests have changed the type of education that our children our currently being taught. Because the schools are being pushed to have as many high school to college students. This is explicitly said by the Secretary of Education. This is good, but because of the way college acceptance relies on these tests, teachers are forced to change from more interactive and all-encompassing education, to focusing on certain aspects of a subject and take away from what could help those with futures in labor jobs and need more interactive and on the job training rather than intense in class room lectures. http://www.ed.gov...
My opponent can easily explain these stats

You... offered no argument, just reasons why it shouldn't be what it is. True, it should not have been applied to this site, but it was nonetheless. It is not fair. "You probably chose the name first and he just copied as usual." Yes. "I note with some surprise that there is no comment on who might be monkeyrocks and monkeyrocks2 since it would be quite unusual to have two sets of teenage twins in the same town and not know of each other's existence. You might ask around." Eh, that might be a duplicate file, with the same stats as well and all, which explains why the accounts are closed. Besides, it is extremely likely that we woudn't know them even if they were twins, because its a big city, not a town.
My opponent can easily explain these stats

Perhaps once a computer programmer set about writing a program to calculate team standings for football, baseball, hockey and basketball leagues their win ratio. He (or she) discovered that he (or she) could do this without actually calculating the win ratio, using the following algorithm: Sort the teams by most number of wins, then within that by least number of losses, and within that by least number of ties. This I believe is the system you were trying to describe. It works quite well under the following circumstances: Each team has played approximately the same number of games at any point during the season, and there are no never-ending games. These assumptions were pretty much valid at the time. This algorithm was never intended to be applied to situations such as debate.com where neither of these assumptions hold. That is my explanation. You may or may not be aware that I have issues with your [body part] twin brother, or even whether you have one, so if you wish to comment on that or not I would understand, especially since he is such an [body part beginning with a vowel]. It certainly must be trying having such an [body part beginning with a vowel] brother. You probably chose the name first and he just copied as usual. I note with some surprise that there is no comment on who might be monkeyrocks and monkeyrocks2 since it would be quite unusual to have two sets of teenage twins in the same town and not know of each other's existence. You might ask around.
My opponent can easily explain these stats

"These two explanations do not agree: my example blah blah lies lies blah blah my other example" They both explain it. I just forgot the people with only ties. So insert "Next come those with no wins, and one tie, and however many losses, etc. " For the second one, I mentioned that it first checks if you have debated. This means that it doesn't matter if you have one loss or one hundred losses, it only matters if you have debated. They both make sense. They are both valid explanations. "Anyway you appear to be attempting to describe a system that rewards the one who takes the most debates since no matter how bad your win percentage is, if you take enough debates you can pass anyone no matter how good a win percentage they have, without really improving at all, since it is wins that count. Two wins and a million losses is still better than just one win. " . http://www.debate.org... I never said the system was fair. I just explained how it works. NEWSFLASH: Life is not fair. "That explains a lot already. "
My opponent can easily explain these stats

These two explanations do not agree: Those with no debates go at 0%. Those with only one loss go next at whatever it is that they are the percentage of. Next come those with no wins, at least one loss, and one tie. Then come the rest with no wins, at least one loss, and two ties, etc. Then come those with one win, no ties. The scheme above leaves out those with no wins, some ties, and no losses. The scheme above checks losses. The one below does not. Both adequately explain neither the system nor the logic behind it. So first it checks if you have debated. Then it checks the number of wins you have. Then it checks the number of ties you have. It does not ever check losses. Anyway you appear to be attempting to describe a system that rewards the one who takes the most debates since no matter how bad your win percentage is, if you take enough debates you can pass anyone no matter how good a win percentage they have, without really improving at all, since it is wins that count. Two wins and a million losses is still better than just one win. That explains a lot already.
My opponent can easily explain these stats

"Lawsonishere is a fine person and I am just using his record to make a statistical argument. Okay. "Lawsonishere, with an 0-1 record, is still in the 48.43 percentile. What is going on here?" Everything. Anyone who has not debated is in the 0th percentile. Anyone who has debated gets to go above these non-debaters, even if their only debate was a loss. This means that about 48.43% of all members have not completed a debate. "Presumably this was calculated after first removing all members with 0 - 1 records and calculatihg the percentile based on the remaining debaters" Nope. "Everyone below him has to have no wins and at least two losses. They have not lost any debates to one another because that is not who they are debating. There is not a single completed debate between any two of them." Naturally, they have completed no debates, because then 1 of them would have to win. "So about half the debaters in debate.com (without 0 - 1 records) are consistently debating and losing to the other half, and 38% of the time it is to the top 7.6%." Not necessarily. Almost half of the debaters have never debated. They could be debating anybody who would beat them, not just the top 7.6%. This is how the system works: Those with no debates go at 0%. Those with only one loss go next at whatever it is that they are the percentage of. Next come those with no wins, at least one loss, and one tie. Then come the rest with no wins, at least one loss, and two ties, etc. Then come those with one win, no ties. So first it checks if you have debated. Then it checks the number of wins you have. Then it checks the number of ties you have. It does not ever check losses. 'By "consistently" I mean always, without any exception." Okay. That was easily done.
My opponent can easily explain these stats

Lawsonishere is a fine person and I am just using his record to make a statistical argument. Lawsonishere, with an 0-1 record, is still in the 48.43 percentile. What is going on here? http://www.debate.org... with a 5-0 record, is only in the 92.4 percentile, so at least (7.6% x 5 =38%) of the wins go to this group, and you have to be over the 48.43th percentile to get any wins at all. Presumably this was calculated after first removing all members with 0 - 1 records and calculatihg the percentile based on the remaining debaters Everyone below him has to have no wins and at least two losses. They have not lost any debates to one another because that is not who they are debating. There is not a single completed debate between any two of them. So about half the debaters in debate.com (without 0 - 1 records) are consistently debating and losing to the other half, and 38% of the time it is to the top 7.6%. By "consistently" I mean always, without any exception.
Evolution created morals

My opponent misunderstands what evolution implies. Variations within a species always occur, and do not demonstrate that a certain trait is not hereditary. The important information regarding heredity is not minor variations within a species, but common features shared by the majority of the population. While many humans have differing feelings on certain issues, most humans generally share much in common in terms of their beliefs about whether it is good to kill, lie, steal, etc.With that said, here are my arguments.Point One: Evidence of cooperative behavior as natural to the human mindset is found in early humans.[1]Point Two: Evidence of cooperative behavior as natural to the brain is found in human's evolutionary ancestors.[2]Point Three: Cooperative behavior inevitably leads to the development of moral faculties.[3]Conclusion: Our sense of morality has evolutionary origins.I can provide specific quotations if necessary, but they are found in the books listed below.SOURCES:[1]Fukuyama, Francis, and Francis Fukuyama. "The State of Nature." The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman times to the French Revolution. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011. 29,30. Print.[2]Waal, F. B. M. De, and Stephen Macedo. "Introduction." Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton UP, 2006. Xii,xiii. Print.[3]Fisher, Len. "Let's Get Together." Rock, Paper, Scissors: Game Theory in Everyday Life. 124. Print.
Evolution created morals

Well if there was a sense of morality is what you refer to when somebody is murdered most shake it off but thos cases were people are horrified to the bones about the subject usually comes from past experiences like if you were in battle and developed PTSD it would severely change how you feel about morals and war and can lead to you having Different outakes on what humans are we do not know morality by ourselves army soldiers are trained to see people differently so that it would make it easier for them to cope but it can be hard getting used to life in our utopia we live in nowadays. As well you say if it is passed down genetically does that mean if you're father and mother hate gore in movies does that mean you would. Also morality itself is also evolving at a rapid pace because of the Information Age and it is also more basic today as the Information age made it so and also the Geneva conventions and the U.n I do not argue that that feeling comes from evolution but how it's initiated is what I am talking about if that is what you were debatong then I will happily oblige and debate with you.
Evolution created morals

I would like to build upon and refine the definitions you provided. Additionally, I would like to specify that when I argue about "morals" I am referring to the sense of morality as defined below.DEFINITIONS:Evolution - The descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations. [1]Morality - a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons [2]Sense of Morality - The feelings we have about the morality of our actionsSOURCES:[1] http://evolution.berkeley.edu......[2] http://plato.stanford.edu......;I await your argument.