BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Dating techniques should be taught in schools.

1. For public schools this is just more money that the government has to spend in order to provide the right structure and teachers for dating. America is already spending so much money on school as it is.On average, it costs $10,615 to send a kid to public school for a year. That would only go up if we have to provide another class for the students to attend. 2. Not only will this raise people taxes and the amount of money money we spend to go to public school we would have to either make the school day longer, witch would cause less sleep and less time to do things that will help them socially. Or we would have to take time out of other important subject and put it into a class that won't affect alot 3. Kids do after school curriculum that allow them to be better socially without having to have a class for it. Kids have to learn by themselves in order to properly learn.
Dating techniques should be taught in schools.

The reason why dating techinques should be taught in school are for the 2 main reason 1. It will help people not be socially aqward 2. It will provide life lessons 1A The reason why it will help people not be socially award is because it helps you find a date. Practice makes perfect, and this will give you the opportunity. 2. This will not only help you in school but it will help you for the rest of you life. When you are at a bar 20 years after high school you could pick up on someone without fear or and awkwardness. Therefore dating techinques should be taught in school.
Gaming is a sport

The term gaming is an umbrella term including all the lazy slob versions of gaming too, you can't then say that since a select few forms of gaming have exercise incorporated into their interface that gaming itself is now a sport.Your point about Pewdiepie earning money is irrelevant since a job is not a sport.Your definition of a sport means that to live is a sport since living involves moving cells and biological molecules. (http://tinyurl.com...) You can't dictate a definition in round 3.
Gaming is a sport

Sport: An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. (https://tinyurl.com...)Gaming: CAN BE DONE BY STEPHEN HAWKING THINKING INTO A COMPUTER! You can hack, troll and efficiently chat while gaming, do any of this at sports and you will get completley demolished.Chess and poker are nothing like videogames.http://www.youtube.com...Observe the video for an example of gaming.
Where did God come from? A dream, a lie, and an explanation

Since the original article is completely fine and understandable and has been posted more than any other article, by far I might add and that I have used as people like to shut it down because they have 0% of the answers just like you, and just because you, a teeny bopper most likely, but one thing is for sure you like they do not understand it, and another thing for sure is that I am not going to bite into your tragic neanderthal mind numbing Partridge Family yodeling grunge country opera juvenile hall illustration of first grade stick figure attempts to sway the topic (bad idea) from any proper course of direction, the article and especially the final question will remain intact for you to answer, or leave. In other words, everything you tried to panhandle for your gold in your cavity's in RD1 will be discarded and urinated upon as you made the very same plastic hard hat yamika attempt to do as such but failed.
Where did God come from? A dream, a lie, and an explanation

Since your species is a bit inept at understanding the importance of "Too Long; Didn't Read", I shall do one for you.TL;DR = An incomplete and impotent argument that attempts to group all human creatures into an early shaman based religion from which "God/s" arise from "The First Conman" lying about dreams."Why do you think God was invented?"Argumentative Answer: You assume God was invented, you flawed biological beings tend to make mistakes such as this.True Answer: To take part in the lives of the creatures."But how to get from spirits of the dead to gods? I like the idea that is based on a basic human weakness that exists still today."Obvious Insult: This person LIKES the idea that is based on basic human weakness. They have revealed themselves as an enemy.Do not waste your brain cells reading the Instigator's article, here is why in a short quote:"At some point in human history, some human decided to lie and claim that they could understand those nocturnal communications."Response with Pity: Yes, this probably happened in more than a few cases when you include the entirety of the human creatures, but the fault lies with the jump to the next step. The article is slanted negatively towards any spiritual religion by trying to inject that a conman took advantage of the shamanistic role, which was not even a universal practice of all human creatures during that time.I will spend no more time on that pathetic article, re-read it if you don't realize how slanted it is, and take off your veil this time, if you can.I will leave you with a true quote that won't reduce your I.Q., and the real reason God was invented: "Philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote: "'Religion is based...mainly upon fear...fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand.... My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race.'"
Locally grown food or company manufactured food

in this debate, I am for and again .let me hear your views AS technology advanced, everything has become more facilitated, including the production of nourishment. Heated debated have surfaced about whether the food manufactured in factories has an upper hand over locally made food. The main reason people advocate locally produced food is the fact that it doesn't contain preservatives which said to be carcinogenic (can cause cancer) nor artificial food colouring which can cause allergies leading to asthma. on the other hand, people argue that the locally produced food is expensive compared to supermarkets.For example, a product such as an egg bought at the farm is more expensive compared to ones bought at the market.This would put a load on families with budgets thus causing an inconvenience.
vaccinations should be mandatory

You cannot just take a vaccine when the disease arrives, as if you have already got the disease; chances are the vaccine wont do any good in that situation. Or it will be too late before you can take the vaccines. And I made an error on the first paragraph that you pointed out. I shall rephrase: A large percentage of those who do not take the vaccine will die from a disease and will let the disease progress. Actually, the claim that the mercury contained in a vaccine dose causing autism and similar side-effects is a controversy. There is no evidence for the claim. And after eight whole decades of using vaccines, I doubt that doctors would still be making this mistake. Furthermore, I go back to my other argument: Even if it did cause 1 in 100 to be autistic, your chances are better when you are faced with a number of deadly diseases. Furthermore, those who claim to have found that it causes autism in 1 in 100 do not give any conclusive evidence. And even if 1 in 100 who have received vaccines had autism, did you know 1.5% of the American population (more than 1 in 100) have autism? There are lots of causes for autism, and concluding that vaccines cause autism is irrational. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... <--- Vaccinations causing autism controversy Again, I rephrase: even if vaccines did cause a 5% death rate (which there is no proof of), then someone refusing to take a vaccine would rise their death chances to a lot more than 5%. Lastly, I simply contradict your last argument. If you refuse to take a vaccines you are putting others at risk. Because of the Taliban several diseases haven't been eradicated due to them refusing the vaccines and letting the virus / disease roam free and evolve. So what you are doing by not taking a vaccine, is signing yourself up to being a disease carrier, and because a disease can evolve so quickly; you would be letting the disease evolve. At which point when it evolves, we would have to make an entirely new vaccine for the same disease because the previous one didn't work. This would obviously cost a fortune, but could be avoided by mandatory vaccines and eradication of the disease in question. The choice does not lie with the individual, it lies with the survival of the human race. http://www.theguardian.com...
vaccinations should be mandatory

I believe vaccines should be mandatory as since they have been used, they have helped to save the population from a various number of microbes, and have even eradicated numerous diseases including smallpox in 1979, and Rinderpest (a viral disease that infected cattle). Without vaccines a huge percentage of the population would be handicapped or die unnecessarily. Your first point about not guaranteeing 100% efficiency from a disease is irrelevant. If I was faced with a large number of diseases, then I would still take a vaccine even if it only granted 50% efficiency. This is like saying: I can't get to work on time in a car, so I'll walk. As for your argument about vaccines containing mercury, I don't think you've done enough research here. Vaccines contain Thimerosal, a mercury containing compound. The purpose of which prevents the growth of the dangerous microbes. Thimerosal has been used safely since 1930, and has never shown any signs of harm throughout the 8 decades of it being used. Now, your argument about vaccines causing severe allergic reactions and having side effects that may lead to death is also irrelevant. Think about it this way: Even if it did cause an allergic reaction in for example 5 in 100 people, then removing the vaccines would mean killing ten times as much people as vaccinating them would. Furthermore, in the article you used, they say that they have no idea whether or not these reactions are related to the vaccines or not. So not only is it silly to remove vaccines for a 5 in 100 death rate, but there is no evidence to support the claim. Probably my greatest problem with those who refuse to take vaccines is that you are not only putting yourself at risk by exposing yourself to countless diseases, but you also put the world at risk by letting yourself be a carrier and letting the disease roam free and evolve. This is not just a personal matter, it is not just about you because you are putting the surrounding population at risk. Examples of this would be those who think that vaccines causes autism, which it obviously doesn't. Or the Taliban who still think that vaccinations is a plan by the west to eradicate them, which it isn't. And thanks to the Taliban, we have failed to eradicate the disease Polio. Your last argument seemed a bit strange, vaccines have protected our civilization from dangerous diseases and have even eradicated two, and almost eradicated several others. In my view, I see absolutely no point in refusing to take a vaccine. In choosing to not take one, you are condemning yourself and others to a disease that could be eradicated.
vaccinations should be mandatory

Vaccines should not mandatory as: 1) They do not guarantee 100% protection from the disease. The efficiency of the vaccines can depend on various factors such age, health, sex etc, the efficiency of vaccines is usually between 60% to 80%. http://www.nvic.org... 2) Vaccines are not very safe, many vaccines contain mercury which is directly entered into our blood stream. That could lead to mercury poisoning. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3) Everyone is different, so a vaccine which might work for one individual may or may not work for the other. In some cases these vaccines can have a severe allergic reaction, which in rare cases lead to death. http://articles.mercola.com... Even after taking the vaccines the person may or may not get exposed to the disease, let us assume that at the very least the vaccines are 50% efficient, and from those people who are vaccinated 50% of them are exposed to the disease at the most, since the vaccine is only 50 % efficient half of those people will benefit. If you do the maths here, we can see that 75% of the people who take the vaccine do not benefit from it, they simply suffer the side effects. So it should be clearly the peoples choice, if they would want to risk taking the vaccine or leave it. Thus vaccines should never be made mandatory.
Low paid workers work harder than high paid workers

I have not been a doctor or nurse but I have spent much time around them as one of my children was very sick and nearly died. I was by his side for a long time and saw the effort put in by nurses as apposed to the doctors. The nurses put in at least 200 times the amount of effort in keeping my boy alive. I will say no more about that. I think it speaks for itself. Vetinary surgeons are overpaid. Why even have vets? If we shot all the sick animals there would be no need for vets at all. Vets are a waste of money. It is stupid American things like pet insurance that has pushed up the price of vets - something that the vets themselves probably lobbied for in order to gain more wealth - a symptom of greed bought on by the overpayment of vets. Bus drivers do deserve a pay rise. Driving a bus is not just about sitting on your bum. A bus driver may endure all kinds of danger from the public. Unlike vets, they are responsible for the safety of all the human lives on board - a responsibility that is greater than the responsibility of a vet. Lawyers should not be paid the extravagant fees that they demand. Lawyers are the true scums of the earth, always manipulting the truth in favor of the entity with the most money. They don't care about truth or ethics or morals, all that takes a backseat to money. They are the antithesis of all that my argument stands for. Increasing minimum wages does not hurt the economy. Every bit of historical evidence shows that lowering or maintaining low minimum wages stagnates the economy while stimulus packages help avert economic collapse. It is simple logic: if people can't afford to buy stuff then businesses will fail. The so called "stress" of higher paying jobs is an absolute cop out and an outrageous excuse to proclaim entitlement to luxury. Billions of people around the world can barely feed themselves, yet they work grueling hours in conditions that the likes of you would not be able to tolerate for a minute. Do these billions of people deserve a further pay cut because they are not as "stressed" as you? Do you want to take more food out of their children's mouths so that you can maintain your unjustifiable income? Hard work deserves proper remuneration. Those who have high level jobs need to humble themselves for humanity, or else be legislated against by a wage reduction. Perhaps they should even be made to work for free. After all, they already have decent houses to live in. Most people in the world have absolutely nothing. The privileged people should be made to work for the unprivileged. Not the other way around as it is today.
Low paid workers work harder than high paid workers

No my argument does not imply that. You said nurses work harder than doctors. Have YOU been a nurse AND a doctor? I wouldn't think so. How can you possibly compare one profession against another. It is ignorance at best. I agree education is a privilege. Maybe that should be the focus of your government. To achieve a University degree is common in my country, however with my degree I earn about minimum wage, maybe less if I'm desperate for a job. Those jobs and physically and mentally demanding, but i don't cry out that Veterinary Surgeons get paid more and their job is less demanding. That is the path they have chosen, and this is mine. To do so would resemble something like a kiddie tantrum. Nurses do not want to do the job doctors do, otherwise they'd be doctors - not nurses. If we lower the wages of doctors, lawyers etc. then whats the point in the extra training and education. I wont bother be a doctor, I'd be a bus driver where i can sit on my behind all day. This debate is not on the injustice of nurses. You anger is misplaced, it is not Doctors that set the wage of the nursing profession. So lets say the majority of people then wanted to become nurses, then we'd have too many nurses. Then we cant afford to pay all the nurses, so then they get a wage decrease to allow all nurses to actually have work and some sort of an income. What about home-care, the individuals that take care of the elderly? surely they deserve a pay rise. What about vet nurses? They do all the jobs the Vets don't want to do. They are the ones who do all the caring and looking after of the patient. They endure terrible situations, and they do this on comparatively low incomes. Lets give them a pay rise too. Who else is next? Teachers are empowering the young minds of today!! Those too. And so on and so on. Next thing we have is inflation, as peoples income increases so does the cost of living. Bubble builds, bubble bursts. Recession What do you propose we do with celebrities?? They really rake in the big bucks! Cap them at minimum wage? Where do we put the rest of the money earned. Charity? Your job got easier? I'm genuinely curious. Anytime I've gone up in rank, the responsibility is piled on and with that comes stress. And I'm the fall guy. do you propose we all have an equal income? There is income inequality in this world. Unfortunate, yet true. ** Apologies if there is no sources etc. as this seems more of an informal debate**
Low paid workers work harder than high paid workers

Your argument implies that a person should be paid according to how much education and training they receive. Education is a privilege that few people have available to them. Billions of hard working people all over the earth are being paid miniscule wages while many of the highest paid people barely know what hard work is. Having a high education is a luxury of the privileged few. To automatically expect to acquire a high paying job just because of your education level shows a gross pomposity of self importance; and this is an attitude that, if it can't be changed, should be legislated against in order to instill a more ethical society. Nurses do the jobs that doctors do not want to do. They are the ones who do all the caring and looking after of the patient. They endure terrible situations, and they do this on comparatively low incomes. Some doctors on the other hand have what amounts to a cushy desk job. Being a doctor means to be a part of a fairly exclusive club instituted to exclude those who are already trapped in a societal prison of low economic status. The priveleged few think that they deserve the further privilege of a large income. If we lowered their wages, we could make them work harder while simultaneously making it easier for more people to become doctors, which would save more lives. At the other end, by raising the wages of nurses, we could get more people to become nurses, which would ease the burden of health care more so. It's a win, win, win idea. The fact that it can be so easily dismissed shows the ugly nature of mankind where it values the brutality of capitalism over human life. personally, I have noticed that every time I was promoted to a higher paying role, my job got easier. I resigned from those jobs and I now work in a warehouse.
Low paid workers work harder than high paid workers

This is a very closed minded argument if I'm really honest. Let's just say I am a Surgeon and you are a nurse. Why shouldn't I get paid more than you? I spent a long time training in University, not to mention the grueling unpaid work and study just to get into Pre-med. It takes me approximately 4 years to get a Bachelor's Degree. I spend another 4 years to get my Medical Degree. After medical school I do a residency program, this will last 3-7 years depending on my specialty. I might even have to spend an additional 1-3 years of post doctoral training through a fellowship program. Now I have to get my license and become board certified. After all my studying and internships it doesn't get any easier. I have long work days, on-call days. Don't work 5 days like we take for granted. Surgeons actually have a life in their hands, adding even more stress and pressure to the job. Why shouldn't they have a higher salary? They have gone through extensive training, spent an ungodly amount in university fees. Salaries like these are denoted to the profession. I have nothing against nurses (btw), but if it was a high income profession they were seeking they sought the wrong one. Some people do it for the love of the profession, nevertheless they know the average salary before they become a nurse. All professions are difficult. If there is a simple job that pays the big bucks, sign me up! What you really should be asking is why shouldn't we do away with social welfare?? Why do we continue to provided financial support to those who don't work AT ALL?! Some of these don't meet qualifications for get a job. Shouldn't the aid go the educating these individuals with skills, so they can attain an income? What about criminals? e.g. Drug-dealers who don't pay tax and risk the lives of others. what about celebrities? They're earning millions, they break all the rules, they endorse products so WE buy them! You can't simply determine which jobs are harder than others. Have you done them all?
Germ theory is false

Thanks. The opponent didn't specify any round structure here, so I'm not sure whether he expects me to immediately present my arguments or simply accept the debate. As a result, this round I'll attempt to do something in between. I'll briefly address each point the opponent brought up, frame it as relevant or irrelevant to this debate, and finally address areas I'm particularly interested in my opponent talking about when he gives his full opening arguments. We'll begin. Opening Statement/Argument Classification I'll simply address each statement by the number the opponent labels them. 1. This is what we'll be discussing in this debate. 2. It is possible that Louis Pasteur was a fraud/bad scientist, but this has little to do with whether Germ Theory is true. I'd suggest we stick to examining the evidence and minimize ad hominem arguments. 3. This statement is interesting and I'd like the opponent to expand upon what this means in his opening arguments. 4. Number 4 is interesting and certainly relevant. I'd ask that my opponent includes evidence that disease did not exist prior to agriculture and evidence suggesting that agricultural products cause ~98% of disease. 5. This statement seems to neglect the logical possibility that germs can come from both internal and external sources. I'd ask the opponent to reformulate this argument to account for that possibility. 6. This statement is actually a question; one I'll address next round in my opening arguments. Summary I've presented these opening remarks as I did because I hope it will help focus the debate. We're sitting on a 6,000 character limit, so it's important to be specific about what it is we're debating. As a summary, I request the opponent presents scientific evidence that Germ Theory isn't valid. (Valid meaning likely to be true, I suppose. )