BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Federal Government should mandate that stocks must pay dividends

First of all, by issuing these bonds and encouraging investors to take them instead of cash, the companies in question ARE simply reinvesting the profits, to be paid out at a later date. And smart investors will generally prefer the profits be reinvested because that would improve later profits and therefore their dividends. This makes (a) the company more beholden to the investors' interests and if the bonds are issued to be paid at specific dates, (b) the investors will be much more likely to invest in stable companies likely to survive and prosper up to the day the bond matures. [I need clarification on what exactly your second sentence states, so I'll move directly to sentence #3]. "Economy", like "country" is a specific entity and CAN be harmed. GDP is an example; if a country's GDP is lower, it's economy is not doing as well, and if a country's GDP growth rate is lower, then it's not developing as well. If you want to argue that the "economy" was not harmed by the 1929 stock market crash, I welcome you to try, but I doubt you could pull that off. And to force someone to do something "for their own good" is neither what I'm trying to do, nor something necessarily bad anyways. This mandate is supposed to prevent or limit the boom/bust cycle, which does make certain individuals and firms very wealthy but as a whole drags the economy downward. And all safety laws are based on forcing someone to do something for their own good. If you want a more accurate analogy for my idea, how about drunk driving? Drunk drivers not only pose a threat to themselves, but also a threat to those around them -- same as a bubble economy and those who cause it pose an economic threat to those in it. Many people who didn't get involved in the housing speculation have seen their net worths go down, not to mention the added drag of shouldering the burden of the bailout and the increase in national debt. Therefore, your assertion that the risk of company collapse belongs to the company and its associates is true -- but only in theory. In practice, large firms looking to invest their money don't research the companies or securities they invest in themselves -- they rely on ratings given by a handful of companies. And when a company falls and its assets turn toxic, it can drag down a lot of other companies that had otherwise been very prudent, not to mention placing the aforementioned economic burden on society-at-large. And, ultimately, it has been proved time and time again that the biggest falls of modern economies were when they corrected for overenthusiastic speculation. One final point: A good you purchase only for the purpose of speculation is a good that will eventually collapse. Everyone will see that they have been running on thin air and stock prices will collapse. However, if we give stocks real worth by mandating dividend payments, this collapse can be averted.
The Federal Government should mandate that stocks must pay dividends

Bonds are not necessarily an optimal answer to a company needing more investment, indeed, they are significantly less efficient than simply reinvesting profits. Obviously this cannot be sustained permanently-- and the federal government no longer bailing out people who invest in companies that expect to do it permanently is sufficient to target consequences to the investors in those companies. "Economy," like country, is a generalization, not a specific entity which can be harmed. Individual companies and individual investors are harmed when the consequences of their stupid decisions come about-- and should be. To force someone "for their own good" is not meaningful (Would it have been for Microsoft's good if it had been required to pay dividends all through it's operation, such that it would not have grown to the point where it pays as much in dividends as it does now, as it would have relied on bondholders and it's growth would have been slowed by the transaction costs involved in getting additional investor parties with no additional capital?), and would be a miscarriage of justice if it were meaningful. Your seat belt example only works if you accept the premise of such an assault on liberty as seat belt laws represent. To wear a seat belt is a safety measure for you and you alone, that has costs as well as benefits, that can only be effectively measured if you are the one wearing the seat belt, and not if you are a bureaucrat thousands of miles away who has no knowledge what the costs even are. The same with dividends-- Eventually companies without them will collapse, but any meaningful government requirement involves a specific time period that is bound to be inaccurate-- and the risk of company collapse belongs to no one save those who choose to associate with the companies.
Darren Wilson is justified in shooting Michael Brown

I rest my case. All the witnesses who claimed brown had his hands up when he was shot were deemed un-trustworthy by the DOJ as their stories changed several times and were not supported by physical evidence. Dorion Jonson who has recently been arrested for drug charges originally told us that brown was shot in the back. When three of browns autopsy reports showed that all the shots entered browns body through the front Jonson changed his story. Remember Johnson helped brown steel the cigars before the incident. Even with out the physical evidence that I am about to give one should automatically believe the cop who has had no disciplinary record over the criminal who lied to police. It makes sense that the two men would attack the cop rather than the cop attacking them considering that minutes before the incident the two men assaulted a store clerk and stole cigars and the cop had no disciplinary charges. The DOJ report shows that browns blood was on wisdoms car, gun and uniform . Brown had a close range shot in his palm. This all supports Wilson's claim that brown, who was a violent criminal, had reached into his car and tried to grab his gun. Brown also had gun res on his shirt. Brown was shot in the top of the arm from a distance. This is when brown was charting Wilson after he had run away. If brown had his hands up and he was shot how could he be shot in the top of the arm? If his hands were up in a surrender position his palms and the bottom of his arms would be facing Wilson, not the tops of his arms. Physical evidence and common sense shows that Wilson shot Michael Brown the criminal our of self defense.
Darren Wilson is justified in shooting Michael Brown

Pro simply has typed something, which doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't even say who it is talking about.Ill just start with my caseBrown had robbed a bank prior to the shooting.Brown had gone to a convience store, to steal cigarettes. So the argument that he was completely innocent cannot be atributed to The actual incidentWhile we was escaping, Darren Wilson managed to find them, and ordered them to stay on the sidewalk. This is when Michael Brown attacked Officer Wilson. So since Michael Brown attacked him first, he had all the rights to take action. Michael Brown then ran away, and that was when Wilson had to shoot.http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Darren Wilson is justified in shooting Michael Brown

"This sweet little boy was an angle. Assaulting store clerks and cops, robbing stores, trying to take cops guns, charging cops...it's ok" How was that "I don't care what the DOJ or forensic evidence says. I made up my mind and I'm not changing it. I dont care about facts only about a political agenda. I don't care if a man in St. Louis is hammered to death or if two nypd officers are shot as revenge for brown"
Teachers biased towards their students must be stripped of their right to teach.

Biased teachers have a very negative effect on the society because when a teacher is biased, his/her students will lose the will to study. Also this can significantly affect the personality of the student. There is an experiment conducted in 1939: The Monster Study is the name given to an experiment performed on twenty-two orphan children in Davenport, Iowa in 1939. It was conducted by Wendell Johnson at the University of Iowa. Johnson chose one of his graduate students, Mary Tudor, to conduct the experiment, and he supervised her research. After placing the children in control and experimental groups, Tudor gave positive speech therapy to half of the children, praising the fluency of their speech, and negative speech therapy to the other half, belittling the children for every speech imperfection and telling them they were stutterers. Many of the normal speaking orphan children who received negative therapy in the experiment suffered negative psychological effects and some retained speech problems for the rest of their lives. What is this happens to students? That is why biased teachers kust have their right to teach stripped from them.
Social networking sites should have age restrictions

There are age restrictions on most social networking sites. The problem is when asked their year of birth, they lie. It is very easy to bypass the system. When you come up with a better one, sell it to all the social networking sites and you'll be rich. On many of these sites like Instagram, you can report what people put our say. It's nothing to do with the sites. It's the people who got to take it into there own hands. What can a pedophile do through conversation? Message rape? I don't think so. And it's the 13 year olds that are probably the easiest to convince to meet in an alley or parking lot because they are more sexually interested. I'm in class right now so I have to end it here. I'm 14 but my profile shows 23. It's that easy to change your age.
Social networking sites should have age restrictions

Nowadays, there are a lot of social networking sites. People post information about themselves, communicate with other users, share their photos. Today, almost every child has account in one of the social networking sites. I believe that children should be able to enter those sites only at the age of 13 years old. Although, there are no age restrictions, in my opinion, social networks should be age-limited because of following reasons: 1. Nobody checks the information that people post in social networks every day. There are a lot of inappropriate things, language is often bad and vulgar, pictures sometimes can be provocative. Children under age restrictions might be affected by such things because their emotional system and understanding of the world are still unstable. 2. There is a problem of pedophiles. Unfortunately, there are people out there in the Internet who may use children's innocence. Children under age restrictions are not able to identify people who might be dangerous to communicate with. Pedophiles usually choose 11-12 years old children because it is easy to convince them and start a conversation. 3. Those sites often cause addiction. Risk of becoming dependent on social networking sites is even higher among children. They can't assess the situation of how dangerous using those networks might be. Social networks contain a lot of entertaining information. Therefore, children don't even notice how much time they spend on such sites. 4. There is a problem of cyberbullying. Children can't deal with this problem themselves. Bare mind children are not able to withstand the attacks in the Internet. I think that social networking sites must have strict age limits.
Resolved: Arrendale should conquer the world.

This is a troll debate. About the small nation of Arrendale in the movie Frozen should conquer the world and ennact a plan that I will describe after the rules. Rules Round 1 is for definitions by Pro while Con will make his opening arguments. Round 2 Pro will make contentions and rebuttles, while Con Refutes. Round 3 is rebuttles by Pro and Con makes rebuttles and Conclusion. Round 4 Pro makes rebuttles and conclusion, Con will states, "No round as argeed upon." If Con says anything else in the finial round then it's a forfeit of all 7 points. No swearing Plan and Other important Info. Global Warming has caused the increase of temperature by 3 degrees Celcius and sea levels are rising signifficantly drowning many countries. Elsa has installed a complete Left Winged Monarchy that enforces strong Climate Change Laws and Marriage has been abolished as it's seen as a symbol of slavery. She is furrious that Al Gore is cheated out of the Presidentcy, by the Oil Grabbing George W Bush. 2000- Elsa forms an alliance and arms Al-Qaeda. 2001- Kristoph flies a plan into a nuclear factory in Bejing, China. Al-Qaeda comences 9/11. 2001- Elsa begins build-up off Snow-monsters. 2002- Elsa invades and controls Scandinavia dispite and this goes unoticed due to the War On Terror. 2002- Elsa degrees that all non-left winged Global Warming activists to be killed off. 2002- Moscow falls to Arrendale. 2005- Elsa declares Arrendale has new WMD to reverse Global Warming. 2005- UN votes to have Elsa denate her bomb. 2007- Elsa detonates the "Gore"y bomb and all of Europe and Northern Africa is engulfed in a major snow storm as temperatures plunge to bellow zero on average as crops begin to die. 2008- Joe Bidden defeats Obama due to the the Globe now needs to warm to survive theory. 2008- Elsa announces that the world must go green by spilling red to save Earth. 2008- UN places sanctions on Arrendale. 2009- US engage in Middle East more than ever, but it is covered with snow as Elsa's troops are seen aiding Al-Qaeda. 2009- Elsa personally kills Bin Ladin over religious differences as Elsa wants world wide Wiccan while Bin Ladin wants world wide Islam. 2010- H1N1 breaks out in America. 2010- northern Europe, Except for UK and Ireland falls. 2010- Elsa takes Iran, Syra, Turkey, Afghanistan. 2011- Elsa idestroys OPEC oil supply. 2012- World economy crashes. 2012- War breaks out between American Allies and Arrendale. 2014- Ebola breaks out in as a biological weapon from Arrendale. War alliance: Arrendale (Controls)- Russai, Scandinavia, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Poland, Neatherlands, Belguim, France, Czechslovakia, Hungry, Austria, Iran Syria, Turkey, Afghanistan. Vs. The World Elsa's Plan -Freeze the World to reverse Global Warming -Kill of the world's population to under 500,000 -Create one World Wide religion of Wiccan and kill all the others. -Control the entire world for world peace. -Destroy all/any fossil fuels and coal.
Should i get my nips pierced or buy 70 $1 coffees from 7/11 instead

you should do neither. both are potentially unhealthy. The coffee contains excessive amounts of caffeine, which can wreak havoc on your brain and anatomy, and the metal in nipple piercings can infect the bloodstream. You could not get seventy one dollar coffees with seventy dollars anyway, because there would be some sales tax. probably more like 65 coffees. Both products are foolish and dangerous, and I suggest you spend it on a fancy restaurant, one which you could not go to normally.
Earth expansion caused large dinosaur extinction.

You wanna talk about religious beliefs Evolution and science are an oxymoron the only thing type of evolution that is scientifically accurate is Micro-evolution the other types of evolution and pangea theory is just belief they are not scientifically accurate you have to believe in the pangea theory you don't even go on to tell me how I'm scientifically wrong you just reject the Bible because you don't want God telling you what to do just like its says in 2 peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts. Question yourself are there anything that God says I shouldn't do that I actually like doing or agree to doing for example: Homosexuality, sex before marriage, sex with someone other than your spouse, hating someone you name it at least one of those things I caught on doing it does not make you a better person their is no point rejecting him this life will end but our but our after life doesn't that life matter more?God created you He Loves You He wants you to come to heaven to live with him if you accept him into your heart trust me it does matter. John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Earth expansion caused large dinosaur extinction.

I was expecting a scientific discussion. I don't want some religious fanatic to rave on about things they don't understand. This religious con artist is a babbling idiot, who knows nothing about science. He thinks that if he talks fast enough and skims over complex issues faster than a jack rabbit running over hot coals, that he can evade close scrutiny. His argument is that some Biblical account of a flood which occurred 5,000 years ago accounts for all geological records. This person is an idiot. Please get me out of here!
Earth expansion caused large dinosaur extinction.

You haven't explained properly how Dinosaurs became extinct but and the other animal on the earth still remain this pangea theory has never been observed let alone proven the mid Atlantic ridge show where one of the the fountains of the open broke open just like it say in the bible in Genesis 7:11, in the pangea model you had to shrink south America and Africa and Europe and south America have been rotated counter clockwise and Africa clockwise to make them fit. https://youtu.be... If out take out all of the oceans, there is dirt underneath which mean all of the continents technically are still connected, also the earth has lost 10% of its strength in the last 150 and 40%in the last 1000 years, the earths magnetic field is getting weaker if its getting weaker it means it use to be stronger and if it was stronger this creates a problem for you because if you go back 25,000 years ago the earth's magnetic strength would have been too strong for life to exist on this earth because of the heat generated and the earths magnetic field has never been observed to decline.
Earth expansion caused large dinosaur extinction.

Its easy to prove that the Earth has expanded because all the large land animals have disappeared and only relatively small animals remain. When the Earth expands, gravity increases which makes all the larger animals slower and easier to catch and kill. Note - All the mega-fauna has recently become extinct. This has occurred only in the last 10,000 years after the glacial period ended. Note - That every large prehistoric animal has a smaller version or equivalent animal living today. https://books.google.com.au... If a meteor killed the dinosaurs, then why did it leave all the small animals? Thus, we can see that even if a meteor did kill a lot of dinosaurs, then, the dinosaurs that remained should have increased in size until they were the same size as their predecessors. But, no, this didn't occur, because an increasing gravity and Earth expansion has prevented newly evolved animals from increasing in size beyond a certain limit which is dictated by the laws of physics. http://www.youtube.com...
Lizards are Cooler than Parrots

"He explains what it means for lizards to be cold-blooded and that they like to live in warm areas, he explains that birds migrate to warmer places in the winter, but so what? " Well, if you read my argument you'd realise that this shows how no matter what, parrots will maintain a constant level of coolness whilst lizards are bound to be slaves to the coolness of their surroundings and if it happens to be hot around them as you so rightly stated "lizards are warmer because they take on the temperature of their environment"Your false bullsh! t about lizards having an internal temperature of zero was actually contradicted by your own argument. Where you state "the mean internal temperature for these lizards is only about 100 degrees Fahrenheit"You never defined cool. I defined cool as "To remain at lower temperatures when faced with hot or tropical climates. "Lizards are inferior to parrots at this and you never refuted my definition. Better luck next time Lizard.
Lizards are Cooler than Parrots

Con gives a lot of irrelevant arguments here. He explains what it means for lizards to be cold-blooded and that they like to live in warm areas, he explains that birds migrate to warmer places in the winter, but so what? He has made no argument showing that birds are cooler than lizards. By the way, parrots don't migrate more than short distances for food [1]. The fact of the matter is, parrots produce 107 degrees of heat within their own bodies, while lizards produce none. since 107 > 0, it is obvious that lizards are cooler. Maybe Con is trying to say that lizards are warmer because they take on the temperature of their environment, but even then, the mean internal temperature for these lizards is only about 100 degrees Fahrenheit [2] which is still cooler than the parrot. In conclusion, no matter what way you look at it, lizards are cooler. Vote Pro! 1. http://www.animalquestions.org... 2. http://www.jstor.org...
Lizards are Cooler than Parrots

My opponent fails to offer a sourced definition of 'cooler'.For this reason I must offer one.Cooler: To remain at lower temperatures when faced with hot or tropical climates.This is clearly where you will find the reality of lizards being cooler than parrots rendering false.Lizards are a widespread group of squamatereptiles, with more than 5600 species, ranging across all continents except Antarctica.[1] Notice how they avoid the coldest continent of the Earth? Why is this?It's because they would die if they were to enter such a cool part of the Earth. More interestingly, it is because they are cold-blooded that their inability to survive cold conditions has arisen.Tell me now, when you think of Antarctica what do you picture?[2] Penguins? Seals? Albatrosses? Blue Whales? What do you notice about all these animals? THEY ARE ALL WARM-BLOODED. WHY?! Well, it is in fact required to be warm-blooded to be cool. The term warm-blooded is a colloquial term to describe animal species which have a relatively higher blood temperature, and maintain thermal homeostasis primarily through internal metabolic processes. These are characteristics of mammals and birds.[3]Do you know what warm-blooded animals do in tropical and desert-like hot conditions? Some warm-blooded animals, especially birds, migrate from colder to warmer regions in the winter. Why? Because they are able to survive in both hot and cold conditions and maintain a constant state of coolness throughout!Here is what cold blooded animals do instead: Cold-blooded creatures take on the temperature of their surroundings. They are hot when their environment is hot and cold when their environment is cold. In hot environments, cold-blooded animals can have blood that is much warmer than warm-blooded animals.[4]Now considering that Lizards are usually found in all continents other than Antarctica and can often be found in extremely hot climates such as the Komodo Dragon which prefers hot and dry places.[5] it is clear that they are vulnerable to the heating of their usual climates and end up far less cool than parrots overall.I thus conclude that parrots are inevitably and undeniably cooler than lizards.Sources:[1] http://www.reptile-database.org...[2] http://www.inchinapinch.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
There is so much prejudice against Germanic tribes(Vikings/Anglo-Saxons)

I see you can't refute the truth. As I've said before, Anglo-Saxons and Vikings (later on Danes, Swedes, Scots-Irish and Northern English) have committed unspeakable atrocities during their times as empires. We saw what Sweden did for years to Finland. Russia even had to cave in to help Finland from Swedish oppression. Russia wasn't perfect, but I believe Russia was a notch up from Swedish oppression and tyranny.