BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
BCS Should be Abolished

"In 2007, pursuant to a legally-binding contract, all 119 FBS universities chose the BCS as its sanctioned selecting organization." (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Colleges are currently legally bound to use BCS. It would be illegal to abolish it. Removing polls from BCS would be good. However, that is different from abolishing it. Abolish - Destroyed (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) I think that it should be edited, but not abolished.
BCS Should be Abolished

A playoff system is best suited for the NCAA football championship. There is almost always a surprise team in one of the BCS games, and there are frequently upsets. There can be a team who does not make it to the championship game who is truly the best team. If the BCS took the polls out of its formula, it would be more likely to get it right. Writers have biases and those biases show strongly in the polls. If we are to leave something held so high in society to the BCS, we should get rid of it.
Keifer Sutherland is the new Chuck Norris

You claim to be a jack bauer fan but don't even know the facts. In season 2 he was tortured to death. You obviously don't really love him because you would know that he died and then they revived him. And then another time he faked his death, which Chuck Norris would never have to do because he never reaches that point with his foes. And multiple times jack bauer uses steyer aug weapons and bombs to kill his enemies. Where Chuck Norris never gets caught by his enemies, jack seems to be always in the hands of them just barely getting out in some unrealistic Hollywood way. Once again I note that Keifer is not a household name or recognizable by the majority of the population. Chuck Norris has proven his ability by years of acting and butt kicking. Keifer is not the new Chuck and there will never be a man like Chuck. You are blinded by the cool explosions and drama of a 24 episodes lame beeping sound like a bomb is going off every time they return from a commercial. Chuck Norris paved the way for wanna be bad asses like Jack Bauer. You simply cannot out argue me in who is the bigger badass because Chuck essentially created the badass drama and his resume speaks for itself.
Keifer Sutherland is the new Chuck Norris

Jack Bauer has never died in any of the seasons, nor he uses any high tech gadgets. All Jack Bauer ever uses is a hand gun, and a cell phone. The rest of the time Jack basically improvs like McGeiver. Sure Chuck Norris has apeared in Dodge Ball and did a funny line or 2, but if you have ever seen Keifer in his other roles? He is one funny person, take for example in the "Lost Boys", his role has so much humor in it. And that role was a major role, compared to Norris's 2 liner
Keifer Sutherland is the new Chuck Norris

The Pro says that Keith Sutherland is the new Chuck Norris. I do not agree. Chuck Norris is the one and only badass to ever be on TV. He revolutionized the mid day television world by given people a glimpse of a heroic badass that we all could depend on after a long day of school. Texas Walker Ranger showed that a dude could kick the crap out of fools in jeans and a cowboy hat, maintaining the respectable and classy image that is Chuck Norris. Jack Bauer needs amazing gadgets and weapons to despise his foes. While jack takes 24 hours, chuck takes 30 minutes to destroy his enemies. I feel that if Keith Sutherland's face was presented to a citizen on the street, the majority will not register who he is. However Norris being around as long as he has been, makes him a household name that everyone can relate too. A kind sheriff that doesn't need to throw his weapon and badge around to prove he is a badass. Where Jack Bauer has died multiple times in his series, Chuck has never died in his series or his movies. Also, Chuck is by far the better actor by his multiple films and people beg him for guest appearance (ie Dodge Ball where the fate of the average joes lay on the decision of chuck Norris-even a badass can be totally humorous where as Keith cannot). And the reason he is the biggest badass is because people create awesome jokes about Norris's indestructibility (ie chuck norris's tears cure cancer). May I also add that he is in many workout videos and commercials forever maintaining his badass image along with a crisp cut beard that women love and men desire. Need I say more?
That the United States of America is a secular nation, and should be kept that way. Religion=Poison.

In recent years there has been a call by many politicians and leading figures in the public eye to make the United States of America a Christian Nation, "Like the forefathers built." Not only is this statement a lie, it is a complete misinterpretations of what the forefathers had intentioned for this country. The mere notion that the United States is/was ever a purely Christian nation is lunacy itself. Also, the notion that the nation as a whole would be better off being a Christian nation, especially lead by evangelicals, is again lunacy based just off their actions and comments. As of recent activity, they were protesting soldiers funerals because "gays" are the cause of war and death. Thusly I state that the mere notion of religion and government are not only impossible to combine (with a positive outcome) but they are entirely incompatible. Religion when combined with public policy, is a poison, and will not end well for the country. This argument is not about a person's individual beliefs as I believe that any man/woman can believe whatever they want, however it is an argument about how Religion MUST at all costs be kept out of politics; especially politics that effect a nation such as ours, which is so diverse.
Star Trek 2 is better than Star Trek 1

"OUT OF THIS WORLD" "The starting of a new story line for more Star Trek movies" say a reviewer on Metacritic. "Paced at warp speed with spectacular action sequences rendered brilliantly and with a cast so expert that all the familiar characters are instantly identifiable." says Ray Bennett "A burst of pure filmmaking exhilaration that manages to pay homage to the classic 1960s TV series and still boldly go where no man, William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy included, has gone before." says Peter Travers There is my final argument made with quotes
Star Trek 2 is better than Star Trek 1

"Star Trek: The Motion Picture is the first film in the Star Trek series, the most successful series in movie history. After all, the fact that a movie series can hold the public's interest for 21 years (and nine films) and that the whole Star Trek concept is alive and well after over 30 years says something about the genius of Gene Roddenberry, Star Trek's creator." says a user on IMDB "The films special effects are top-notch even today. The original effects are still as convincing as ever and they really do sell the films story. The space dock sequence in particular is a marvelous piece of special effects work and is the final shot of the Enterprise in the film as it goes into warp speed. The wormhole sequence is impressive also and the new CGI additions help out immensely. Indeed the whole V-Ger journey sequence is one of the most impressive special effects pieces ever to be put on film. The new CGI pieces add new shots to the film including an awe-inspiring reveal of the V-Ger craft." says another IMDB user. "There is not much action such as in Star Trek II, but the movie is very cerebral and is really entertaining." said another IMDB user . "Youthful, fast-paced, thrilling, funny and fueled by an adventurous spirit." says Greg Maki on Rotten Tomatoes.
Star Trek 2 is better than Star Trek 1

thank you fro acceptingumm i dont think star trek 1 is original i think the series are, occording to IMDB (Internet movie data base) the rating for star trek 1 is 6.2/10 have a look for yourself http://www.imdb.com...; and the rating for star trek 2 is 7.7/10 http://www.imdb.com...; i mean star trek 2 has more action, story and it doesent drag also there is a enemy that is human! thank you
social media is bad

https://www.care2.com... You copy and pasted your entire argument directly from this site. If you can't even bother to write as single shred of your own thoughts then don't bother debating. Here's a fun statistic I pulled from this article here: http://www.paradiseinhomecare.com... Two thirds of all senior citizens have been victimized or targeted by online scammers. They are an especially vulnerable target because, as you pointed out, they feel isolated. Couple that isolation and there lack of internet know how and you've just exposed grandma to a plethora of social media evils. Not to mention the growing concern of social media addiction as mentioned in this BBC article: http://www.bbc.com... So you think it's a good thing to expose Elderly people to an addictive product that potentially ruins the lives of those who use it just so they can superficially feel a little less lonely for a while. Yes, it's superficial since it's all a facade of people wearing masks anyway, especially so with the anonymous nature of the internet. With your line of reasoning we should just give the elderly cocaine or some other drug. Drugs will make them feel less isolated too and can make them feel so self-competent they'll think they can fly! Of course that's a ridiculous idea, but we don't go around claiming cocaine is good either. The problem with the study you show is that it doesn't consider the negative side effects. And there are negative side effects. A person can go around helping people 99% of the time but as soon as they kill one person, guess what? They are a bad person. Social media has resulted in the ruin of countless of peoples lives. Social media can help people, sure, but at the end of the day its essentially a crazed sociopath looking to get its kicks at the expense of others. Your goal was to show that social media isn't bad. But you even admit there are negative impacts of social media. You wanted to say that social media is good, but the argument you copied and pasted only showed balance. You have failed in both regards. You have failed to show that Social media is dominantly good. And, more importantly, you have failed to show that social media is not bad.
social media is bad

You can"t swing an iPhone without hitting a dozen studies about how social media is making us depressed, killing our relationships and depriving us of sleep. But it"s not ALL bad news. Sure, there"s no doubt that researchers have found some significant downsides to thinking in 140-character quips and holding a little rectangle a foot from our faces for 90 percent of our waking hours. But there"s more to social media than an endless parade of Instagram-induced FOMO. And when it comes to health and happiness, some of the negative impacts of social media are actually balanced out by some awesome benefits. Check them out below"and don"t forget to share this article, obviously: Social media helps the elderly feel less isolated. Ever feel alone in the middle of a crowded Facebook thread? For many of us, social media can sometimes make us feel lonely and isolated. But for the elderly, a Facebook account can have the opposite effect. A UK project looked at the impact that having a computer would have on a group of participants aged 60-95 years old"and the effects were fantastic. Those trained on using a computer experienced heightened feelings of self-competence, participated more in social activity, had improved cognitive capacity and showed a better sense of personal identity. "People who are socially isolated or who experience loneliness are more vulnerable to disease and decline," explained Dr. Thomas Morton, the project lead. "For these reasons finding ways to support people"s social connections is a really important goal. This study shows how technology can be a useful tool for enabling social connections, and that supporting older people in our community to use technology effectively can have important benefits for their health and well-being."
social media is bad

No Rebuttal? Also, I fail to see how anything you have said proves anything about whether social media is good. You've essentially said that most people put on a mask when they interact with others. By itself your argument is neither profound, humorous, nor, most importantly, relevant. Your argument is irrelevant. The entire premise of this argument is vague. Social media is bad? In what way? how about this: Prove to me there isn't one shred of what any person might be considered bad in social media. In other words, If there is any aspect of social media that is bad or that can be used for bad you lose. The most you could have hoped for in the beginning of this debate is to say that Social media is in of itself intrinsically neutral since only conscious beings can act in way contrary to morality much like how a gun only commits an act of wrongdoing if the person operating it does. But no, you have not chosen to say that social media is neutral, you have chosen to say it is good. So I say: If there is any aspect of social media that is bad or that can be used for bad you lose. Is bullying bad? Is sexual solicitation of a minor bad? Is misleading people and taking their personal data for nefarious purposes bad? Is racism bad? Is posting some idiot comment and then getting fired for it bad? Because Social media enables all of these things to take place. And in the case of misleading and manipulative data mining, the creators of social media are directly responsible for this since they intentionally created many of the social media platforms with this as one of their purposes. Even if social media has some good points there are plenty of bad points that can be ascribed to it. Social media is bad.
social media is bad

If you were to connect, in real life, with as many folks as you can connect with through the Internet, the outcome would be disastrous. Being a person means wearing a mask. Even the word is derived from the Etruscan word "phersu", which means mask. Real life interactions require you to wear different masks. You can"t interact or connect with other human beings, in real life, without wearing some sort of mask. I"m talking about us, normal people. Of course, there are leaders in this world who are able to be themselves, absolutely transparent and sincere, almost all of the time, regardless of who they are talking with.
social media is bad

First I shall begin clarifying that not only is social media bad, it is "BAD TO THE BONE" bbbbbad bad to the bone. I shall begin my argument by quoting Geroge Thorogood's lyrics to his song bad to the bone to establish the grounds as to why social media is bad to the bone. On the day I was born The nurses all gathered 'round And they gazed in wide wonder At the joy they had found The head nurse spoke up And she said leave this one alone She could tell right away That I was bad to the bone Bad to the bone Bad to the bone B-B-B-B-Bad B-B-B-B-Bad B-B-B-B-Bad Bad to the bone I broke a thousand hearts Before I met you I'll break a thousand more, baby Before I am through I wanna be yours pretty baby Yours and yours alone I'm here to tell ya honey That I'm bad to the bone Bad to the bone B-B-B-Bad B-B-B-Bad B-B-B-Bad Bad to the bone I make a rich woman beg I'll make a good woman steal I'll make an old woman blush And make a young girl squeal I wanna be yours pretty baby Yours and yours alone I'm here to tell ya honey That I'm bad to the bone B-B-B-B-Bad B-B-B-B-Bad B-B-B-B-Bad Bad to the bone Now when I walk the streets Kings and Queens step aside Every woman I meet They all stay satisfied I wanna tell ya pretty baby Well ya see I make my own I'm here to tell ya honey That I'm bad to the bone Bad to the bone B-B-B-B-Bad B-B-B-Bad B-B-B-Bad (Hoo) bad to the bone Nurses can attest the wonder and joys of social media and if they want to keep their careers without incident they leave social media alone. The heart breaks recorded and caused by social media surely number in the thousands and there will be more. Many find out someone is cheating on them through social media. Or they get broken up with through social media. Social Media even broke many people's hearts when they found out Mark Zuckerburg lied to them and was misusing personal information. Such betrayal! All manner of women from varying socioeconomic backgrounds and age groups have begged squealed and blushed due to social media. And yet the stick around, because they are satisfied. Kings and queens, more like political and social leaders. And yes, they step aside to social media, they know the power and influence social media has. Social media is bad to the bone.
Societies impact on enviroment

Keen observation in my lack of clarity found myself a bit confused as well. Supposed I was just focused to much on the actual issue instead of position lol. But if I had to really choose , at this current time It may still be "Con" but I still love the humans in the end though. Thanks for seeing past that and calling it out ! Before Debate Definitions: (quick google) so"ci"e"ty səG2;sīədē/ noun 1. the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community. "drugs, crime, and other dangers to society" synonyms:the community, the (general) public, the people, the population; More 2. an organization or club formed for a particular purpose or activity. "the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals" synonyms:association, club, group, circle, fellowship, guild, lodge, fraternity, brotherhood, sisterhood, sorority, league, union, alliance "a local history society" So yes lol ! Environment : Yes ! But as we progress, much more precise definition of these words will be required by default. Otherwise I agree to your terms. Your Questions: 1- "Do you wish to debate the Moral, Religious, or materialistic aspect of the topic. Or all three?" ------------ Great question ! I already like were this is going !! So to keep things relevant to our present moment we can start off with..... 1st. Materialistic 2nd.Moral 3rd. Religious This seems like a nice progression. 2- "Are you Christian, and what culture do you come from?" ----------- Nope not a Christian , at this point I follow no known religion. I've spent some time in many of them , mostly family related or self study though. Mother was Christian father studied Islam ,needless to say they were unable to coexist for some odd reason. I just landed somewhere in the middle. Really just a American boy from Missouri I guess . LET'S ROCK !! Understanding the fundamentals of modern society and it's inner workings leaves the most logical of thinkers puzzled. The current "modern" society with each of it's moving parts makes it difficult to speak from only 1 personal perspective without equating for every possible factor . Which is what we are attempting . For me it helps to simply follow the breadcrumbs. Fun way of thinking of this is Captain America vs Iron man !! Or Caveman Vs Modern Man Were I am the caveman and you the modern . Fair ? It is not hard to see the impact we have had on our world when looking through the eyes of our ancestors. Advancements in science and technology has transformed the landscape and made life much more comfortable for us all. Urban sprawl , Interstate freeways and major metropolis can been seen for many as a testament to human ingenuity. It has taken hundreds of years for humans to force their will upon this planet and shape her to our image. Cars ,Homes, The internet may not have been possible without modern society, but there is still cause and effect that has largely gone noticed . If I am a caveman in today's world or heck Native American even . I can firmly stand behind modern society is not in the interest of the greater good. But I believe there is hope.
Societies impact on enviroment

Though I have had some minor confusion about what opinion you were taking, I am assuming you are taking the Position of: "No, modern society is not worth what we did to the environment". In this case, I would be glad to debate you. As the burden of proving his/her point is on Pro, I will give him the privilege of going first. Before we start the debate, I would like to put out some definitions: Society: The environment and social structure made by Humans, and for the benefit of humans. Environment: The environment and social structure naturally occurring in a biome or species. I would also like these two questions answered: 1- Do you wish to debate the Moral, Religious, or materialistic aspect of the topic. Or all three? 2- Are you Christian, and what culture do you come from?
Brexit

Anti-Brexit had the facts, Brexit had the rhetoric. Irrational fear of immigration and losing autonomy. Britain clearly needs migrants considering it's own workers don't want to work the dirty jobs such as farming so migrants need to do it for them. [1]Let's Look at the facts. Britain's Membership in the EU costs around 6.3 Billion pounds or 0.3% of britains GDP. So for the leave side to be economically superior leaving would not be able to affect the UK by more than 0.3%. But considering the UK makes 13% of it's GDP from selling commodties to the EU this seems unlikely. [2] The problem with this is that economists predict that the UK could lose up to 6% of It's GDP from leaving the EU which is much greatet than 0.3% [3] This isn't even including additional costs for tarrifs that would amount to close of the cost for eu membership after free trade deals are abolished along with eu membership. [4]Also, Britain has complete control of their immigration policy so leaving would do almost nothing when it comes to immigration policy. Not to mention that 70% of Britain's population increase came from immigration. Limiting immigration radically could have some pernicious effects. [5]Clealry from this information, Brexit would have accomplished nothing in immigration and would hurt the UK economy in the long run. Your emotional appeal will not get you far.Sources:http://www.express.co.uk...;[1]http://www.ons.gov.uk...;[2] http://country.eiu.com...;[3] http://www.bbc.com...;[4]http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk...;[5]
Brexit

The great Britain has to be separated from the European union , the people of England are facing lot of troubles like migration from other countries in search of jobs and this leads to rise in the unemployment level because of which the quality of living is being diminished day by day , they cannot afford for their children's education, health, and daily living . Not everyone is rich enough to spend their lives just by sitting at home without working. Though the new industries might face some difficulties in establishing but it would be good for the people of England as they can find employment, and now we have to make new trading with other countries , this increases the enployment,.