BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Obama Nationalizing the Suburbs

Hi guys Obama is nationalizing the suburbs through HUD. HUD is going to collect data on every single nighberhood, and if it's not "diverse" enough, they will reform the community. They want poor housing right next to million dollar homes. Do they actually think they'll get away with this? The reason people move to the suburbs is to get AWAY from crime and poverty. If poor people want "equality" they should work thier way up. Dr. Ben Carson is a prime example of this. I warn that poor housing in the suburbs will NOT be tolerated by the community. They will either move out or violently get rid of it. If they place poor housing in my suburb, I myself will tear it down.
Charizard is a Bad Pokemon

While Charizards base stats are low compared to some of the newer generation pokemon and legendaries, for a normal pokemon and a gen 1 pokemon is it relatively powerful. Both of it's mega evolutions, (which is a nice advantage having 2) are in the ou tier meaning that they are in about 50% of ou teams, which is the "competitive" tier. Now while it is not the strongest pokemon in the game, it is still an above average pokemon. Mega Y has a sp. attack of 159 and is a good special attacker, provided you can remove the early game hazards. Mega x has the fire dragon combo meaning the rocks only provide 25% damage rather than 50% and has a lot of options as both the physical and special attack have a base stat of 130 meaning that you can use it as a physical or special sweeper. Lastly it's ability is tough claws meaning that all contact attacks do 1/3 extra damage making it a dangerous attacker. If I had to rank it I would not put it number one, but he is still not a joke in the competitive field, and he certainly cannot be qualified as bad. Source for everything here (http://www.smogon.com...)
Win Court Cases In Bellville,Mitchell'splain,Cape Town,+27737016174~herbalist healers london,UK,USA.

Stop Cheating,Jealousy IN UK,USA*sOUTH aFRICA*[ 27737016174 herbalist healer/traditional healer/love spell/bring back lost pretoria/johannesburg south africa/london love spell/protection herbalist doctor/magic healer/spiritual healer/magic ring/black and white magic/penis enlargement creams enlargement pills for sale in pretoria north centurion mamelodi mabopane soshanguve sunnyside arcadia Aliwal North Allanridge Atlantis Balfour Ballitoville Barberton Beaufort West Benoni Bethal Bethlehem Bhisho pretoria,johannesburg Bloemfontein Bloemhof Boksburg Bothaville Botshabelo Brakpan Brits Bronkhorstspruit Butterworth Cape Town Carletonville Centurion Ceres Christiana Cradock Cullinan Delmas De Aar Diepsloot Driefontein Duiwelskloof Dundee Durban East London Ekangala eMbalenhle Empangeni Ermelo eSikhawini Fochville Fort Beaufort Ga-Rankuwa George Giyani Graaff-Reinet Grabouw Grahamstown Harrismith Heidelberg Heilbron Hendrina Hennenman Hermanus Howick Johannesburg herbalist healer/love spell/bring back lost lover same day Kimberley Kle 27737016174 TRADITIONAL HERBALIST SPIRITUAL HEALER omarl dalati 27737016174/ MAGIC RINGS AFRICA,EUROPE UK,WALES,SCOTLAND,LONDON,USA HERBALIST HEALER. frican love spells, Spiritual medicines, traditional herbalist doctor in Cape Town/south Africa/UK. Contact 27737016174 Spiritual Healer, Traditional Healer and Herbalist Doctor omarl dolati can help you in all financial problems in Cape Town/ South Africa/ uk/ Johannesburg/ Pretoria. Contact 27737016174 Fortune Teller and Traditional herbalist Doctor in South Africa Doctor omarl dolati can now help you to bring lost lover 27737016174love spell,money spell pretoria,johannesburg,london,herbalist bellville,cape town,george,new york,dallas,gautengwestern cape portelizabeth cape town address and phone
Things Are Only Offensive If You MAKE Them Offensive

Unless it is obvious that there is a reference being made in a joke, or a name being said as talking inappropriately then no, it is not offensive. Ideas or thoughts aren't offensive unless one desires to make them so. They come as a spontaneous thing. No one can really take in control of what they are thinking. Therefore, yes, things can only be offensive when they are meant to be offensive, and not otherwise.
Strong Muslim outrage over satire related to their religion cannot be justified.

Thank you for wanting to continue the debate however you did not have to. I always found it hard to argue against my actual stance but that's just me. Nonetheless I appreciate your desire to continue and I too will continue as normal. You seem to have a decent case against your stance anyway so that's great. Now on to the argument, Firstly whatever happened to free speech and freedom of expression? Since when was strong outrage such as rioting more justifiable than freedom of expression, in the form of satire? Also why is it that Muslims are the only denomination that feel the need to cause such mayhem over petty satirical jokes. You don't see Christians or Jews taking to the streets over petty jokes aimed at their religion. Satire is and has always been something in which everyone receives at some stage in their life. Turn on the TV on any given night and you will see jokes aimed at celebrities,politicians and religions yet why do only Muslims kick up such a storm? Insignificant jokes should never be worth causing mayhem over such as rioting in the streets, putting people in harms way. I'm offended by all sorts of things but I, like the majority of denominations don't feel the need to riot over satirical jokes. You can call it a direct insult to faith but again it is just the Muslim religion that appears to cause such strong outrage and how is their faith stronger than the Jewish faith or the Christian faith? for example. Why is it that just Muslims feel that they deserve special treatment when it comes to satirical jokes in which everyone receives. You say you are an atheist. I too am an atheist. You say that you would not appreciate satirical atheist jokes however there is a difference between strong outrage e.g rioting and simply not appreciating jokes. I sincerely doubt that you would take to the streets in outrage over satirical atheistic jokes so why should we let Muslims away with it, compared to not only other people but other faiths and religions who can just take satire as satire. There is a right to free speech and therefore this includes satire, but there is no special right that allows Muslims not to get their feelings hurt, unlike the rest of us. I look forward to your response.
Strong Muslim outrage over satire related to their religion cannot be justified.

Oh! I am so sorry! Well, I do not mind changing my stance, as it was really my mistake. Outrage against satirical material against Islam can (and quite often should) be justified, as it is demeaning and insulting to one's beliefs. Satire, in particular, uses humor to make fun of religion/religious beliefs, a topic which is extremely close and sacred to many, MANY people. In fact, most consider it as verbal abuse if their faith or religion is so much as questioned, much less made mockery of. Why do people need to exaggerate and ridicule religion? I think that whilst QUESTIONS are entirely acceptable if phrased in a diplomatic manner, blatant insult is not. As an atheist, I would not appreciate anyone making satirical cartoons and comments on what I think. Students and children are taught to respect one another's opinion/religion/culture/beliefs from a fairly young age; the use of satire goes against this mutual expectancy of respect.
Strong Muslim outrage over satire related to their religion cannot be justified.

It appears you have misunderstood the stance that I am taking on this debate. I am against Muslim outrage over satire, therefore I am pro satire, but it appears you are too as you say "I believe that using satire should be acceptable towards not just Islam, but any religion or belief." The topic is "Strong Muslim outrage over satire related to their religion cannot be justified." And I took the PRO side to this. A slight misunderstanding perhaps?
Strong Muslim outrage over satire related to their religion cannot be justified.

I have tried to debate this topic numerous times before but have often been unsuccessful due to opponent forfeits or non-serious challengers so I am looking for a good and thorough debate here. I am for the notion that strong Muslim outrage (ranging from protests to riots) over satirical images or satirical jokes etc towards Islam cannot be justified. Round one is acceptance only. Followed by rounds of back and forth argument/rebuttals.
cell phone should be allowed in middle school .

" The average U.S. cellular phone user uses 490 minutes of cellular time per month. Late in 2002, cellular phone use in the U.S. overtook the use of landline service."" As of September 2003, it is estimated that one in three students aged 10 to 19 have a cellular phone."Why do you consider this relevant?" In a September 2003 poll taken by an online mobile retail company only 10 percent of respondents said it was acceptable to talk on a cellular phone while on school property, including classrooms."Please give a link to the poll, or the voters have to assume you are lying." Cellular phones distract students and teachers by interrupting classes and disrupting the learning environment."Cell phones can be on silent, and use during classwork to do calculations and check spelling for a project does not appear to be particularly disruptive. " Cellular phones have often been linked with the sale of drugs and other illegal behavior." Sources?" Messages can be given to students by contacting the school. There is no need to reach them by cellular phone."True enough, although having one person text rather than having an announcement disrupt the entire class seems like a much better plan. " In the event of an emergency, students should focus on following the instructions of school personnel, not using a cellular phone to contact their parents or other relatives. They will have the opportunity to contact their families once the emergency is over." Parents can teach their kids the wrong and right times to use a cell phone. This argument makes no sense." The odds that a school will be the target of a terrorist attack are much lower than the odds that students will be distracted by using a cellular phone during class or during the school day.You have already stated that using a cell phone during a terrorist attack is a bad idea. Are you contradicting yourself?Conclusion: No arguments stand, there is no evidence here that children should be prohibited from having their cell phones in class on a normal basis.
cell phone should be allowed in middle school .

Fact Set " The average U.S. cellular phone user uses 490 minutes of cellular time per month. Late in 2002, cellular phone use in the U.S. overtook the use of landline service. " As of September 2003, it is estimated that one in three students aged 10 to 19 have a cellular phone. " In a September 2003 poll taken by an online mobile retail company only 10 percent of respondents said it was acceptable to talk on a cellular phone while on school property, including classrooms. Arguments in favor of allowing cellular phones " Cellular phones are necessary for safety. Their use on September 11 demonstrates how helpful they are in allowing parents and students to contact each other in an emergency. " The Columbine attacks and other instances of school violence show how helpful it might be to give students the ability to contact emergency personnel while at school. " Schools can require that students turn off their cell phones during classes, but students would still have them for use in an emergency or to check messages in between classes. " Cellular phones can be set to not ring during class, therefore minimizing the disruption to the learning environment. Regulating cellular phone usage would be better than banning them altogether. Arguments against allowing cellular phones " Cellular phones distract students and teachers by interrupting classes and disrupting the learning environment. " Cellular phones have often been linked with the sale of drugs and other illegal behavior. " Messages can be given to students by contacting the school. There is no need to reach them by cellular phone. " In the event of an emergency, students should focus on following the instructions of school personnel, not using a cellular phone to contact their parents or other relatives. They will have the opportunity to contact their families once the emergency is over. " The odds that a school will be the target of a terrorist attack are much lower than the odds that students will be distracted by using a cellular phone during class or during the school day.
cell phone should be allowed in middle school .

As I stated, it is unnecessary to completely prohibit cellular phones in class in order to prevent them from being used to cheat on an exam. There are several alternatives to complete prohibition, including not allowing cellular phones out of backpack during the exam, collecting the phones prior to a major exam, and simply notifying the parents of a cheating child that he or she is using a cell phone to cheat during an exam and letting the parents deal with that kid.I am in high school, so I don't have kids, but I completely agree with your second statement. When I have kids, I will make sure they conduct themselves with academic integrity, and they will be severely punished if I ever find out they cheated on something. You are very right when you make that statement, but that does not help your argument much unfortunately. In short, cell phones should not be used to cheat, cheating is horrible, BUT cell phones in classroom should not be prohibited on that premise alone.Thank you.
cell phone should be allowed in middle school .

My Opponents points and my rebuttals:"...Cell phone (sic) should not be allowed in middle school because they will use it in class..." What suggests that middle school students will use their cell phones in class? Do you have any references to support this statement? Also, what problem do you see with students using their cell phones in class? Modern cell phones have several features that would in fact enhance a student's learning experience: A stop watch for P.E., an advanced calculator for higher mathematics, a dictionary for proofreading an essay, and an encyclopedia for use during an in-class research project are all features of a smartphone. Furthermore, a teacher could merely set times in class when a cell phone can not be used, such as during testing or a lecture. It is unnecessary to prohibit cell phones altogether."..to get not (sic) of school/class..."I assume you mean get out of class. If I am incorrect, by all means correct during the next round.In any case, it is unclear how exactly a person could use his or her cell phone to get out of class. Please specify how exactly this will take place."...also can (sic) cheat on test (sic) they will text friends to cheat, but lie say (sic) they (sic) not..."As previously stated, teachers can prohibit cell phone use during testing times. It is unecessary to completely remove cell phones from class in order to prevent them from being used to cheat on tests.Thank you for the debate, and I eagerly await your reply.
The parents should be responsible for any bullying their children do.

In the state I live in,Ohio. A minor is charged with a felony for cyber bullying. I'm not talking about preschool and little children games. I am talking about the 15- 17 year olds who should know better. Four teens have died in my high school due to bullying and the parents did nothing to stop it. Some parent even in courage bullying. Why shouldn't they it has no effect in their life. Only affects the teen life not theirs. And a parent job is to monit their child! You say a parent doesn't have too, but what real parent doesn't. Parents today are lacking in punishment. Making this generation of children a mess of lack of discipline and ignornant. If punishing the parent, leads to more discipline in the child. My opponent would like to point out flaws in my argument instead of making his own. Well point the flaw out of this, if parents were held responsible this would lead to a better discipline child; because now it not only the child life on stake but the parent as well.
The parents should be responsible for any bullying their children do.

A child is not consider an adult till the age of 18. Till then the parent is held responsible for every action their children make. A parent has to keep a close watch on child in this generation, because social media is making it easier for a child to bully and be bullied. You may say a parent can't always watch their children and they can not see what they do at school, wrong! Today generation is posting everything they do on the social media or through their phone. Parents can also now watch children messages to see if their child is bullying. Phone messages can be linked to a parent email and can see every received and sent message. Their is no valid excuse for parent not to stop bullying, so why are we not charging both child and parent? Because society see it as the child fault and not the one raising the child. The one who was suppose to put morals and values into their child lives. I swear to you ladies and gentlemen if parent where now to be put on trial for letting their children bully another child, their will be less youth bully. And maybe a life, a young life would be saved.
plea bargaining ought to be abolished in the United States criminal justice system.

1.Theory-The aff has dropped my theory that it is abusive to force the neg into only focusing on innocent people. It is due to this drop that I win the right to bring up guilty people as well as innocent. 2.Liberty-While I understand where the aff is coming from, he doesn't realize that he is taking the choice away. He is trying to abolish them from the United States justice system. Big blanketed topics have big blanketed effects. He is forcing a responsibility on every person in America to have to go through the justice system if they want to or not. He is saying that since you are pressured into it, that means it goes against liberty but maybe the aff isn't focusing on the correct problem. Maybe defense attorneys need to help there client. If a tool is used to hurt people, do we blame the tool or the user? Even if the aff wants to blame a very helpful tool, it is still the user's fault and that fact doesn't change just because we shift a light away from the issue. 3.Court Log-All the aff said is we should change society and focus on quality of quantity. He never focused on the fact that a lack of patents would cause the economy to crash. He just wants to change society without giving us any direction on how to do that. I think if he wants to propose impossible and outlandish ideas, he should have to have a suggested course or evidence. Just to recap, his two propositions is to one, change society and two, let the economy collapse to preserve quality over quantity. 4.Racism-I'm not denying that racism exists, I'm saying that trying to fix the problem causes the public to believe there is no race problem and minorities complain to complain. This leads to nothing getting done for decades or possibly a century. It also magnifies the racism that already happens. You're proving the point further by showing more evidence that says were targeting minorities. To summarize my arguments, Theory-Was dropped so allows me to involve guilty people. Liberty-The aff is ignoring certain facets of the argument because they believe that taking away a decision helps liberty when it hurts it by definition. Court Clog-Gave to alternatives, the impossible "change society" or allow the economy to collapse for "quality". Racism-By making minorities professional victims, nobody takes the issue seriously leading to an increase in racism and nothing being done for decades. For the security of liberty, the economy and minorities I urge a neg vote.
Who will play in the Superbowl of 2013

I don't see how Manning is important to bring up, anyways... Big Ben's average is higher then Manning's with his at 257 yards a game http://www.nfl.com..., but what you have is a young Big Ben vs. an aging Brady and in this battle Roethlisberger would easily win, the only reason for 3 losses this year in Pitt is because of his injury. My opponent brings up Pitts bad game against the Ravens however that is one play and not the whole season averaged out and when it is averaged out the Steelers are the best in the NFL in total defense and yards. (5th in the league in defense against rushing). My opponent drops the fact the Texans are heading to the Super Bowl. The 49ers are 2nd best in the league (behind Pitt.) in total Defense and passing yards, while they're 3rd in defense against the rush. The 49ers are also 2nd in the league in Rushing http://www.nfl.com..., these my friends are stone cold hard facts and stats.
Who will play in the Superbowl of 2013

look at how the steelers played against the ravens in Charlie Batch's last game. the interception in the last quarter was caught at the Steeler's one yardline, yet it was downed at the 40 after the raven's intercepter broke off 5 tackles. the steelers have really bad form tackle and dont wrap up. i know from experience. plus why is Woodley practicing when Harrison isn't? the Patriots are ranked first at 425.7yards. the steelers are ranked 19th with 341.8 yards matt ryan averages 261.5714 yards per game whereas manning averages 244.9286 and that was boosted only becase of their game against tampa bay. t falcons have a better total offensive yards at 4890 while the giants are at 4848.
Who will play in the Superbowl of 2013

49ers is winning the series against the Falcons http://mcubed.net..., Mat Ryan isn't going to get a ring. The Steelers are 16-11 against the Pats, but you can't say a QB is better then the other without looking at the defense. http://mcubed.net... Total defense is led by the Steelers fallowed by who else, but the 49ers, this shows that even though Ryan and Brady might be future Hall of Famers that they will have a bumpy ride facing these teams. http://www.nfl.com... (I would ask the Pro to please bring up evidence to back his arguments.)
Who will play in the Superbowl of 2013

the New England Patriots (10-3) will most likely play the Atlanta Falcons (12-2) for the AFC, the Steelers aren't going to win agaist the Patriots. As much as i am a fan of Big Ben, he can't possibly compete with Brady. look at how bad they did against the Chargers. 34-24? how do u looselike that to the chargers? as for the 49ers, they aren't playing as well as the falcons. You are what your records says
Who will play in the Superbowl of 2013

Nope the Superbowl will contain Houston Texans (11-2) vs. Sanfranscio 49ers (9-3-1) http://espn.go.com... The Texans have a tough schedual coming up and with having to face Indy twice and then facing the Vikings the Texans will get roughed to the number 2 seed in the playoffs this will go great for the Texans. Here's the playoffs AFC Pitt beats Denver 21-17 Pitt beats NE 28-21 Texans beat Pitt 35-14 Indy beats Baltimore 34-28 Texans beat Indy 40-23 SF beats Texans 28-23 NFC Green Bay beats Seattle 42-17 Chicago beats ATL 24-20 SF beats Chicago 31-28 OT Chicago beats NYG 24-17 SF beats GB 14-13