BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The media should portray Adele's body image more responsibly

Last week, writing in an Italian newspaper, fashion designer Karl Lagerfeld described pop singer Adele as "a little too fat". (1) Herr Lagerfeld's remarks were, of course, outrageous: Adele is not a little too fat, she's much too fat. This matters because Adele is a bad role model for young girls who might think that being overweight is no barrier to becoming a successful female pop singer as a result of the positive media coverage of this voluminous vocalist. Just last weekend, for example, Adele, who is English, disgraced herself and her country when she hauled her considerable bulk onto the stage at the Grammy awards in front of a worldwide audience of millions and clomped about like some sort of warbling warthog in a dress - and what's more the show's presenters conspicuously failed to make any derogatory remarks about her weight. (2) The fact is successful female pop stars are almost universally been nice and slim and so have been excellent role models for teenage girls because they send the message that being slim is desirable - and that encourages girls to lead healthy lives that include plenty of exercise and a balanced diet. Personally, I enjoy listening to Adele singing but the sad reality is that she is overweight, and that can lead to serious health problems, and for that reason the media should be more responsible and portray her unhealthy body image in a negative light. Thank you. (1) http://www.bbc.co.uk... (2) http://www.bbc.co.uk... http://www.youtube.com...
The human eye evolved.

A common fallacy regarding evolution? I did not say that anything was perfect. I said perfection was the goal. A light difference, but extremely important. That is the goal. It is put forth by any atheist spokesperson of importance(not that other spokespeople aren't important, but of world known levels) Nietzsche himself always advocated for a superhuman evolution, if you will, an evolution to achieve godlikeness. So while we may not be "perfect", we are on the way to becoming so. So evolution says. If it isn't, then what are you, we, evolving to? And you said something earlier about how evolution was not completely random. But to start it had to have been. Otherwise we would have something intelligent guiding the process. Because I don't think nothing would suddenly think, "hmmm, I want to create a universe today!" Anyway, the eye. An early response to light. Ok, still order out of nothing. My science teacher(ooh, I'm bring in the big boys), when I asked him about a little thing I like to call the scientific method, agreed that it could not prove anything. the man believes in evolution. Science cannot prove anything. It simply can point you in a logical direction. That is what you are doing I'm sure. Because if one says science has proven, one is in direct violation of the scientific method. It would then cease to be science, and become sciencism, a religion. That is not relevant, but, simple=y, another thing I rambled about. A thousand apologies. I will say nothing further. I have given my evidence. Some times, a human quality is to get focused on the small scale thing, while ignoring the big picture. I believe that debates would be better focused on the beginning, rather then the byproducts. But, to question things is all to human. Another thing that is human is to get so wrapped up in the big picture, that we tend to forget about the little things, like a little kid's smile, or the smell of freshly cooking bread. Corny, I know, but true. I will say that as a Christian I have my share of doubts, but instead of burying them to leave them to ferment into disbelief, I ask questions. It works better. I will say that the eye has an amazing movement system, beter then many hypodermic things taht move(I can't find the word, sorry) The thing with evolution is that you can explain all body parts one way or another. What it has a very difficult time explaining is ethics...(appropriate pause for unbridled fury and thousand of debate requests.) I'm finally done. Many thanks, it has been educational and fun. I enjoyed learning. Even if I won't believe it, it is good to know what to talk about. Sorry for not being as articulate as you might've liked, I am still learning. Oh wow, good music on the radio. That is also something, the effects of music and art. But I'm sure that is useful too. Until next time, live well!
The human eye evolved.

Well, thank you for giving me the honor of debating you. You seem to have picked a very good topic as I am not very good at science and the eye is very scientific. However, I shall "do or die", but most likely die. Nice move with the whole "Intelligent Designer would not incorporate flaws into a system" thing. Because then, you would proceed to say that an Intelligent Designer would not put blood vessels so close to the surface making them liable to pop and ruin the eye. You might also mention that an Intelligent designer would not have made eyes to see upside down, which we learn to flip around as babies using touch. Of course, there also is that blind spot(sorry if I stole your thunder.)*evil cackle* Now, the heart of the issue. I am simply going to show you the complexity of the eye, because I am at a loss to do anything else. Understand I do not doubt here, I just like to go to the root of issues, like how life began or why we have ethics. However, eyes are important too. A close look at the eye reveals a lot of different parts. And no matter how long you have to evolve them, from nothing, to light sensing chemical patches, to the state-of-the art eyes we have today. You know, it has been estimated that a Cray supercomputer would take a hundred years to process what we see and process in one second with our eyes. To me, it is alot to think that the eye formed by itself, but of course I'm not very good at science. The ciliary muscle, in order to focus, changes the shape of the lens itself!!! That is more sophisticated than any technology we have today. Look at all the parts, and just for a second, don't worry about how it came to be. There is the protective lens, the pupil, which is a wonder in itself(it is a hole in the eye, a HOLE!!), the iris, the ciliary muscle, the retina, the rods and cones. Of course, over gazilions of years, oh, sorry, millions, maybe billions of years, the eye could have evolved. Little step by little step. I am unable to comprehend that, but, that is what you are trying to show me. Many thanks. My last point for now is in the beauty of the eye. There is nothing so delicate looking, so open so individual as the eye. The old saying, "The eye is the window to the soul" is very true, unless you don't believe in the soul. It still shows you alot of what the person is feeling or even thinking. I don't have a faint clue as to why that would be built into the eye!!! It doesn't help survival at all. Another thing is that no one has an eye like another person. Everyone's is unique. Every single eye that has ever been recorded, look at them closely, and every eye is a little different from anyone else's! Why would that happen??? Genes is my best guess, but do tell yours! Your turn
The human eye evolved.

Thanks to my opponent if he accepts, not sure if this is the evolution debate you wanted, though you did state the complexity of the eye as an indication of an intelligent designer. Next one can be your choosing. ;) Essentially I will show that the eye evolved, using the human eye, and eyes found in nature in general, to show the stages of development and how relatively easily it occurs. I assert that an Intelligent Designer, by definition, would not incorporate flaws into a system, as the argument of ID rests on the creation having no components that are wasteful, or could not be better designed as seen in their present form. So with that, I will leave it up to my opponent to make the opening gambit as to why the eye could not have evolved.
Morality Improves Society

My opponent does not seem to understand that morality does not evolve. Slavery was opposed by many God-fearing people. The Catholic Church always opposed slavery. Now yes, many Catholics supported slavery just like many Catholics today support abortion rights, it doesn't mean the Church supports it. If morality is viewed differently by many people than that is to mean murdering an innocent person is not always wrong. That is to say that rape is okay. It is to say that stealing is necessary. Slavery is still around in some parts of the world and is accepted, is that to say that their beliefs are moral just because they view them as moral? You must accept the fact that there are some universal morals that have never evolved and have been around for centuries. If someone believes killing is moral, does that mean if that person killed someone they did a moral thing just because they had a different view of morality? We all have a conscious to do what is right and wrong. If we choose to do what is right, we can have a better society. Now there are some issues that not everyone may agree with but morality can be done in a secular society. There are some universal morality truths. The world doesn't always evolve. When was murder a good thing? My opponent is being premature by assuming that I want to have "Christian values" in this country. Most religions are against murder and rape and those are illegal in the United States.
Morality Improves Society

Tom95 states, "My argument is that good moral values can be good for society whether it be economic, social or military. Morality is not just idealistic, but realistic and morality may not always be the easy way but the easy way isn't always the best way." I will challenge this proposition as there are no limits or guides on what one person or another believes is moral or immoral. Morality is personal and based in personal belief. Morality differs depending on culture, religion, ethnicity, and economic status. Also, let us remember that morality is an ever shifting force that changes throughout time as societies and cultures change. To state that "moral values are good for society" implies that we all have the same moral values. This or course is not true as we all come from different backgrounds. Historically in the United States moral values are traditionally connected to Judeo-Christian beliefs. However, we live in a nation that is ever changing and a world that is becoming increasingly globalized. This presents a challenge for those who desire to set a pretense on what they believe is moral or immoral. Does Tom95 mean to imply that Christian morals should be used to improve society. While I am sure that there are many Christian morals that have and will continue to benefit our society, there are also many Islamic, Hindu, Scientific, and ethnic morals that have and will benefit our society. Finally, there is also the fact that what one party believes is moral could be considered immoral to another party. Let us look back in U.S. History to see that in the 1800, slavery was considered a moral practice by may people in the world. While others felt that it was an abomination. Readers might view this as extreme but lets be rational. Many god fearing people thought that slavery was moral. Only through struggle do we now know that this group was in fact immoral. In closing I motion for people to vote against Tom95's statement that "morality improves society" as morality is not a quality that can be gauged or outlined. I would even state that forcing one person's moral beliefs on another is fundamentally un-American and could...(or has) been used to thwart other people's freedoms. More important than moral values dictated by one group or another are distinct and concrete laws. Laws are able to be adjusted as society shifts and can encompass both morals and ethics.
It Was A Wise Move to Have Mr.McMahon Win the Royal Rumble 1999

I'm going to do a quick rebuttal to my opponent's claims. Rebuttal Number One: "It was too base on the story line. In my opinion ProWrestling should not Based too much on the story line, It will be better if they were like MMA's but of course there should be feuds. But Matches should not be determine by the Story line. " This information that my opponent gave is irrelevant to the topic that we are debating. Rebuttal Number Two: "ProWrestling especially the WWE were too easy to predict, we can predict the result before the Match by watching the Previous episode. I wish something like that never happen again. " I wouldn't say that McMahon winning the Rumble was predictable. All of the previous wrestlers were legitimate wrestlers, no on-air non-wrestlers ever won the Rumble. It was a completely original outcome. Rebuttal Number Three: "Mr. McMahon The chairman of the board is just showing the immaturity of The WWE/WWF. Royal Rumble 1999, Wrestling fans like me waited so long for that Rumble only to be won by Mr. McMahon. " This just furthers my point. McMahon was one of the most hated people in the business at the time. So, the fact that you would show anger at the fact that he won the Rumble shows that the WWF did a good job in choosing a heel that's over to win the Rumble. Rebuttal Number Four: In my last round, I established many reasons why McMahon winning the Rumble was a wise move. In this round, I made a sound rebuttal to all of my opponent's claims. That's why the following statement that my opponent made is false. "It was never a wise move. "
It Was A Wise Move to Have Mr.McMahon Win the Royal Rumble 1999

It was never a wise move. Mr. McMahon The chairman of the board is just showing the immaturity of The WWE/WWF. Royal Rumble 1999, Wrestling fans like me waited so long for that Rumble only to be won by Mr. McMahon. It was too base on the story line.In my opinion ProWrestling should not Based too much on the story line, It will be better if they were like MMA's but of course there should be feuds. But Matches should not be determine by the Story line. ProWrestling especially the WWE were too easy to predict, we can predict the result before the Match by watching the Previous episode. I wish something like that never happen again.
It Was A Wise Move to Have Mr.McMahon Win the Royal Rumble 1999

Title: It Was A Wise Move to Have Mr. McMahon Win the Royal Rumble 1999 Purpose: To show that it was a wise decision by the WWF to have Mr. McMahon win the Royal Rumble in 1999. Rules: 1. First round is acceptance. 2. Second round is only arguments. 3. Third round is a "free argument". 4. Con must think it was unwise to have Mr. McMahon win the Royal Rumble in 1999. 5. There is no burden of proof. I am hoping to have an exciting debate with another open minded wrestling fan.
Religious/Faith Schools should be banned in the UK

I apologize to my opponent for not being as rapid as him in posting my arguments. Rebuttals 1) Freedom of choice. Under my opponents definitions,all British private schools are included as faith schools. Many of these schools provide great freedom of religious choice, such as Sevenoaks school, which although it ostensibly is humanist, still allows great freedom of religious expression and respect for lack of religious expression. Half of the RS staff (RS being a non-compulsory subject there, unlike many grammar schools) are Atheists [Source - I went to the school in question] 2) Segregation. Private schools do not discriminate entry on the basis of religion. Anyone with the wealth (and in public schools intelligence) to attend may. 3) RE. In most private schools RE is not even compulsory, and the standard syllabus (ie a wide and varied religious education) is taught when students choose to take it. I can vouch that in Sevenoaks school, the RE teachers also came from a wide and varied religious background. I had one universalist Christian, one Rabbi, one bog-standard Christian, a strong atheist, and one guy who we never found out what beliefs he had because he rarely ever turned up to our lessons. 4) Though it is not monitered by the state, private schools sex ed meets the government standard set for state schools. It is also inspected by independant private boards to assure a certain level of quality. 5)It would not be illegal for someone to set up their own school, with their own money, and select whomever they want as their pupils. What you are assuming they will teach is what might be illegal. Since you haven't shown that faith schools all teach the incitement of religious hatred (the law I'm assuming that your assuming they will break), this argument is not substantiated. 6) Regardless of education, children are all indoctrinated to different degrees by the state, parents and other third parties. The right to education is the right to be indoctrinated. You must show that the indoctrination provided by all faith schools is sufficiently abhorent that the schools need to be banned. Counter arguments 1) Private schools typically provide a superior education than state schools. It would be harmful to society to shut them down. 2) The proposal is very exteme. Why ban, when we could just have school inspectors instead? They could eliminate cons objections to the system, whilst the schools could remain open and provide an education for many children. 3) Even if many are faking religious belief there is still enough religious belief to ,at minimum, warrent at least one school run by the church. If there is demand for one school they ought not to be banned outright. I apologize again for not being as quick as my opponent. I look forward to his response.
Religious/Faith Schools should be banned in the UK

I will be mainly arguing that as your definition includes all private schools, regardless of how secular ("any school whose religious teachings are not monitored by the state"), and that private schools provide decent social benefit. Whenever the two clauses of the definitions are in conflict, or describe two different groups we shall err in favour of the latter clause. As my opponent has not stated a definition of religion I shall do so; "the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices" from : http://dictionary.reference.com... Also the BOP is firmly placed upon Pro. He must demonstrate clearly that all faiths schools in the UK ought to be abolished. I look forward to his round of arguments.
Baseball players who were discovered to use steroids shouldnt be in the HOF and their records erased

I'll answer your questions first 1. I think that players who we are not 100% sure used or who used when they were not illegal should be in the hall of fame. I also think that you must make exclusion from the hall part of the consequences before you do it. 2. I don't care if Clemens used and I don't know. All I need to do to win this argument is to point out my first few arguments. They are strong and I do not need to do much more than I have already done. Now, my opponent mentions that records set in this time are unfair. Let me remind you that mount height has changed, making strikeout records 'unfair', bat technology and knowledge of physiology has changed, making home run records unfair. Times change. We deal with it. Good debate. Enjoyable
Baseball players who were discovered to use steroids shouldnt be in the HOF and their records erased

I could spend an hour or so on the net trying to find the exact press release the day of the Mitchell report, but instead I found this: http://www.csmonitor.com... "Through his lawyer, Rusty Hardin, star pitcher Roger Clements vehemently denied the steroid charges against him in the Mitchell report. The report contains testimony from Mr. Clemens's personal trainer that he administered steroid shots to the pitcher at least 16 times. But Mr. Hardin claimed that the trainer had been told by federal authorities that he had to produce names, or face prosecution himself." DATELINE December 15, only 2 days after the report was released. His most public denial came when you mentioned, but he denied it many times before that. You are wrong. Sorry. Now, unfortunately, I can only respond to arguments you actually made, so while your original post may have been better, I can only respond to the post you made and that post leaves the vast majority of my arguments untouched. You only respond directly to my fourth point. First of all, if you wanted to respond, you should have done that the round after I made the argument. It's too late to do it now. But, additionally, my argument is that legal consequences must be stated ahead of time and should not increase in severity retroactively. Find me a single case in all of US law history that contradicts this. 5) I was claiming that banning players for a single steroid injection that may have been accidental and that was not stated in the rules is unwarranted. The Olypic rules state that players lose their metal if found using steroids. Jones knew this, so the consequences are just Look, if you want to debate this, let's do it. This is not a debate, it's a random sputtering thoughts that do not really interact with my arguments for example arguments 1 and 2 are still untouched and your responses on every other point leave a lot to be desired.
Baseball players who were discovered to use steroids shouldnt be in the HOF and their records erased

ok so my window closed on my whole argument and I don't want to type it all over again. here's the main gist of my argument. The Clemens denial was 10 days after the report came out, so check ESPN, you should watch it a little more. the report came out on the 13th and his denial was on the 23rd. there's a video on ESPN, http://sports.espn.go.com... McGuire, Bonds and Sosa indefinitely used steroids after the league made them illegal. Stat spikes I was referring to were ones like Bonds' HR total after 2000 when he hit 43 (ESPN, can't remember exact #) and 73 the next year, followed by it dropping off into the 40's again the following year. the only explanation: steroids. I shall respond to your 4th point in the form of analogy. You are saying that if murder was legal, and someone went out and killed another person for no good reason, you would find it OK to let them walk even though they knew it was wrong? It's the same kind of philosophy. Banning them from the HOF is NOT too harsh. If it is, you better give Marion Jones back her 5 olympic Gold medals. They knowingly cheated, and should NOT be rewarded for their actions/behavior. My original argument was better but I didn't want to spend the time retyping it all. I apologize for that.