BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Motorbike riders should not be allowed to filter through traffic (UK laws)

Whilst I agree with your statements above in particularly the statement regarding drivers not using their turn signals. I would argue that it is the responsibility of all people using the highway to ensure they do not place themselves in danger whether they be in a car,on a bike, on foot or on a pedal bike. Of course you are correct that this is an obvious danger and this is a risk we riders must deal with whenever we filter. A good rider will always be scanning traffic looking for danger, a biker will be much more aware of their surroundings than most car drivers. If they are not, chances are without the security of a robust chassis and bodywork to protect them, they probably won't be riding for long. A rider will negate this risk by scanning the traffic for the obvious signs of an unsafe merger or possible hazards. These signs are predominantly cars coming closer to the side of the lane, the slight turn of the drivers head whilst looking for opportunities and gaps. It is the riders responsibility to predict when a pedestrians might pop out from in between the car and the bus and ride accordingly. A bike rider should always consider the worst and ride accordingly. We call this defensive riding. Whether the worst is a car not indicating or a lapse in a pedestrians road safety skills. . http://www.bikesafer.com... Although a rider should do his utmost to mitigate risks and make his presence known whilst filtering, for example riding with hi-visibility clothing, using lights at all times, and revving his/her engine. (to note this may seem like an antisocial biker showing off their exhaust and ego but it is purely to raise awareness, (for the most part anyway) most people instinctively recognise this noise and in doing so identify a possible hazard. ) It remains the duty of all road users and pedestrians to follow the rules of the road and drive considerately and lawfully. For example using turn signals.
Motorbike riders should not be allowed to filter through traffic (UK laws)

I am against this statement. (Con) "Filtering is one of the real benefits of riding a bike and a reason so many of us commute to and from work. I am a motorcycle rider of 8 plus years.. I take much pride and enjoyment in being able to filter through traffic. I find this can be a incredibly fun and useful endeavour however I understand it is inherently dangerous especially for new riders. I see minimal impact on other road users with the exception of the occasional boy racer. ( These however can occupy various forms of vehicle.) I respect riders who can filter safely and effectively and have a strong disdain for riders who cannot control their bike whilst filtering, or who filter indiscriminately with no consideration for others. I believe that this technique should be taught on the basic CBT. (Compulsory Basic Training) I believe that some car drivers can be rather biased to this activity. Filtering can speed up traffic flow. http://www.bikesafe.co.uk...
The Vietnam War was a good idea.

CommunismUhm... I believe my opponent is wrong here but lets prove that with first off to state that a) South Vietnam was a capitalist democracy. http://www.jstor.org... b) Northern Vietnam was communist http://geography.about.com... if you want to look at the facts of history so can easily see here that Con is wrong on most of history's most logical facts. Secondly we did not fail as the US did indeed prevent communism from spreading to much outside of Indochina in southwest Asia. As you can see from my last source that the US prevented communism from spreading into Cambodia, Burma, and even Indonesia. What do you call that? You can call it a success. Secondly communism is bad for the average citizen, just look at North Korea and see how they have massive malnutition. http://www.nytimes.com... you can see that the US has done the world a favor and prevented communism and world hunger from spreading into Southest Asia. So with that you can see that our mission in Vietnam was a success and with that I urge you for a Pro vote.
The Vietnam War was a good idea.

O.k. I am terribly sorry I forfeited the other round, I just completely forgot about it! Anyway, I lost my time for my points, so I'll just rebuttal your points first, and try to work my points into my rebuttal. Okay, I don't understand how half a country can be wiped off the face of the earth. North Vietnam and South Vietnam actually had a very good plan for settling their differences. They were going to vote. They were going to vote for a leader. Very democratic, right? And the leader, be it more capitalist or communist, would rule Vietnam. Of course, the U.S. intervened and hijacked the election, and put Diem in charge of South Vietnam, Minh became the leader of North Vietnam. And, during the Vietnam War, it turns out that a lot of South Vietnamers actually WANTED communism (so who knows how the election would have turned out had we not stuck our noses in their business) because a lot of South Vietnamers helped the Northerners. We wanted to force a tiny country halfway across the world to become capitalist, and ultimately we failed. And ultimately, because we wanted to stick our noses in their perfectly sane election, 5.475 million people were killed, 4 million of those were civillians, and we lost billions of dollars. Who knows? Maybe if we kept to ourselves and didn't try to countrol Vietnam, maybe they would be a prosperous and happy country, and maybe those 5.475 million would still be alive today. http://www.vn-agentorange.org... http://www.statisticbrain.com...
The Vietnam War was a good idea.

I will now post my opinion on why I believe that the war in Vietnam was a good idea.CommunismThe Us interveened in Vietnam to prevent South Vietnam from being wiped off the face of the Earth and the fact that the US was trying to stop the spread of communism. Though the US failed in this attempt it was still a good idea for the US to interveen to prevent South Vietnam from being wiped off the face of the Earth. The spread of communism was also halted from speading elsewhere in Southern Asia where the only other nations there to turn to communism where Laos and Camboia. So the US actually succeeded by preventing communism from spreading to Burma and Thialand.
The Vietnam War was a good idea.

You will be arguing that the Vietnam War was a good idea, and I will be arguing that it was a terrible idea, and that we never should have done it. Sources, I'm not that strict on sources, if you want to call me out on something I say and you may ask for a source and I will give one to you, and the same goes with you. Don't feel obliged to put on a source unless I ask it of you, you can just relax.
Should acts of terror be published

So I'm doing a debate with my school and the model is that this house would not publish acts of terror, I am a proposing this model and personally I feel that by publishing acts of terror it is causing an unnecessary uproar and panic in society, I also feel like it is shining a light on terrorism and creating the reaction within society that terrorism is intended to do, I belive that if acts of terrorism were not published that there would be less acts of terrorism.
morality=survival+truth

Lies all depends on how you use your words, lies and manipulation benefits this world quite well. If you have ever watched the movie Down and Out in Beverly Hills, you'll see a great example of this homeless man lying to these rich people to better help the family, if the truth of are government ever comes out a Revolutionary War would happen, lies and manipulation benefits us in are irrational behavior as society. Most of the time people use lies and manipulation to benefit themselves, however so people use it to protect others, a very little example is when a person takes the blame for you.
morality=survival+truth

Oi mate I'll be going against you. First how's "survival truth.. as balance is a higher level then truth" here to help understand your point of view, when it comes to morality it doesn't play in the lives of survival, morality is an evolutionary development that helps us cooperate with other individuals like yourself. You may argue well that helps us survive the, you would be right.........if this was the 143 A.D, yet still even in that time people fought, because of moralities they had, because it differentiates from their morality, people had to increase their acceptance, and put aside what little understanding they had, however that didn't happen so easy instead it went in a way you oppress or submit to are understanding. Nowadays we have, order, law, leaders, politicians, Democrat, Congress, etc. We are a species who sees each other as the biggest threat, with the order, law, human rights, those are the moralities we gave to the government officials in the land that runs through with this system, some people don't follow them others do, however if people who dare not to follow we do a few things, find loop holes to fit their morality in their, protest against the government and demand their order, do illegal actions under cover without the Authority's knowing, these moralities cause people to die not the Morals itself but the loop holes that no one takes action against, the moralities that the government gives just keep the people in check, however that doesn't stop the government from doing things behind the wall, morality hasn't kept us alive not even the truth if anything lies and manipulation is what have kept us alive.
Discipulus_Didicit has on at least one occasion received coal from science

I never said I don't know anything. I said I don't know if aliens are real. I contend that you, vi_spex, use assumptions in your everyday life based on your past experiences. Using your coffee cup example, how do you know that anything is hot? How do you know excessive heat causes pain? Because you have experienced heat in the past. How do you know that when you press certain buttons on your keyboard letters will appear on the screen? You base this on having pressed buttons before and having that as a result. If someone who had never seen a computer before was given a computer without being taught how to use it they would not know to press buttons to make letters appear on the screen. What difference is there between you and them that would make you know how to use a keyboard, other than your past experience? If you do not trust your past experience to determine the most likely future results of your present actions then you will not type a response to this debate because you don't really know that typing will produce a message which then appears on my screen. Therefore if you say anything in round 5, you are admitting you are wrong.
Discipulus_Didicit has on at least one occasion received coal from science

If you see a bowl of fruit on a table in front of you, it is justified to believe that there is a bowl of fruit on a table in front of you. You don't have to imagine anything. To answer your extended question: I do not know if aliens are real or not, based on not having any evidence either way. Science is based on observation. Observation is your experience of now, which you seem to be in favor of.
Discipulus_Didicit has on at least one occasion received coal from science

belief is false, imaginary im not claiming that what you can believe cant be true, im claiming whatever you believe is false, imaginary any justified belief goes to a claim i have to imagine, imagination is false belief=be lie, as i dont know is true 1 extended question that destroy science unarguably: science cant prove aliens are not true based on lack of evidence, so does that mean that aliens are true or false to a science believer? and based on what? i can get scientific information from books, tv online, and call them facts, so accepting science is allowing my self to be programmed, while my experience of now is real, true
Blue pill or Red pill

"Simply go to an Agent and ask him to reset your memories or alter yourself in order to stop even risk of knowing the truth. " Well, For one, In order to ask an agent to block you from the truth, You would need to know the truth in the first place. You would need to know the truth because the agents appear to just be humans to the captive people. "I consider being happy the ultimate goal for humans" No offense intended, But from a different perspective, That argument sounds very dystopian and creepy. You would sacrifice knowledge for bliss? Also, If happiness was the ultimate goal for humans, Why did Galileo search in the stars? Why do we have rovers on other planets? Why did the Americans fight for freedom? Happiness Is good of course, But the truth is always more important. The truth may be brutal, It may be sad. But when you know it, And know you could still be in a position where you didn't know it, You will look back at that position, Then forward to the present. Looking to the present, You will feel grateful that you learned the truth in the past. Sometimes, Those who take the blue pill aren't 100% safe from the truth anyway. I'd rather jump into a pool than be thrown in at the same time as everyone else. I have every reason to blame cypher's weak soul. There were 6-8 (I can't remember) people inside of the ship that weren't captive to the matrix. Out of them all, Only one truly regretted taking the red pill. Some of them may have regretted letting cypher kill them, If they had time, But nobody else went back so far on taking the red pill. That means, The only way the red pill would be at fault for presenting itself in a 50/50 choice would be if it wasn't a choice. Cypher chose wrong, But Neo and the others chose right by taking the red pill. To conclude, I won. My opponent wrongly believes that the truth is suboptimal to happiness. Thank you for the debate
Blue pill or Red pill

My opponent's argument can basically be summed up in a few points. 1) Agreed with me that Morpheus did lie. 2) Blames Cypher's weak soul instead of disregarding the awful deal that is the red pill. 3) Disregards the apparent benefits of the blue pill which I will state in this Round. 1P:This disregards what Neo was and is. One person capable of using such a power. Con makes it seem like everyone can be like him when there could only be one neo which is clearly represented in the movie. Everyone else fights for their life with tools while relying on one person to save them. This is a movie and the director had Neo win but what if he didn't? That was not assured so basically the red pill is only the truth without any insurance that it would give comfort or make you happy. I consider being happy the ultimate goal for humans and the red pill doesn't guarantee that but the blue pill does. Con might say what if you know the world is a matrix? Simply go to an Agent and ask him to reset your memories or alter yourself in order to stop even risk of knowing the truth. 2P:You don't know that since the movie does not tackle his backstory. I would say it is more true that in his mind the world that the truth brought would be better than the Matrix and I am sure Morpheus did not tell him about that world either instead allowed him to think about the wonders of the truth without knocking him down a peg to understand how awful it was. 3P:The cause relied on one individual. If Morpheus never found the one there would be no one saving Zion and eventually humanity outside the Matrix would be all dead. Blue pill is comfort, Security and bliss. Red pill does not offer that and I consider happiness more important than the truth. The blue pill is reliable because look at how many people are happy in the Matrix. If Neo keeps learning about the truth simply change that part of him that makes him know. The A. I are capable of doing that. To conclude I won. Happiness is better than the truth.
Blue pill or Red pill

My opponent's argument can basically be summed up in a few points. 1. ) Morpheus lied. 2. ) Cypher couldnt handle the pressure the red pill gave him. 3. ) There is no point in finding the truth if it has no reward or betterment. For one, Morpheus did lie, But not in the most important way. He gave neo the option very clearly. Neo knew when he took the red pill that he would learn the whole truth and that he might not like it. But, Even though the real world had become disappointing, It granted power in the fantasy. It granted the ability to see past the lie and gain control. After all, Didn't Neo win in the end of the trilogy? Would you rather have a common life with a bit of Deja vu? Or would you instead want to have superpowers and "Know Kung Fu" at the large cost of reality as you know it changing? I would. Next, Cypher was a weak soul. He had peen present for way too long and wanted to return to the world where he had peace. Yes, He regretted choosing the red pill. Yes, He successfully killed two friends of Neo's. But is that the fault of the red pill? For lack of a better analogy, Cypher was a sheep. He wanted to conform to the standards of living. But, He was also a curious person. He wanted to dip his toes into the pool of knowledge, But he didn't like what he saw. Unfortunately, It was a pool of liquid mirror, And it dragged him into the deep end. He broke because he was not fully committed to the cause. Finally, The reward for finding the truth is knowing the truth! My opponent presented reasons why the red pill is bad, But he did not present reasons the blue pill was good. Mainly because there were none. Even though they presented the option to erase Neo's memory if he took the blue pill, That memory eraser is not reliable, As he remembered the tracker that agent smith put inside him. The amount of regret that would come from taking the blue pill would be astronomical.
Blue pill or Red pill

Hey thanks for taking this debate and for making it about Matrix. Didn't know if the person would know what the Matrix is so I left it open. When Neo took the Red Pill he did not realise what was at stake with the consumption of the pill. Morpheus I think purposefully lied to him in order for him to accept the pill because the world he was offering was much worse than the one he was in. The real world was filled with awful food, Awful living conditions and in constant alert over something more powerful. The only glimpse of hope was that Morpheus can find the one to set people free. Morpheus was wrong and the Oracle knew. That didn't stop Neo from beating the Agents in Matrix 1 (lets not talk about the other two) but when we look at that fight it was awful. Neo beat 3 people in a world filled with Agents and in the real world they were just torn apart by sentinels. The truth comes at a cost and the movie does show that. That cost is not worth learning the truth. Cypher was the person who ratted out the crew. He does not believe in Morpheus but was guided by him that the truth would be more meaningful than the world in the matrix. Turns out Cypher was mislead and wanted to go back in. So much so that he was willing to sacrifice his life in order to get it. I think if we would ask him what if the Agents would simply kill him after giving them Morpheus he would still go through with it because deep down he knew what the truth was really like. Awful and a step down from the Matrix. Even though he acknowledges the meat to be a figment of his imagination he would much rather live in his mind then the awful world that was left after A. I took control. That really goes to show truth has its limits and if it does not suit the betterment of mankind then there is no point in searching for it. Which is why scientists are assigned a morality to their experiments in order to make sure awful experiments are not committed and the ends don't justify the means.
Blue pill or Red pill

That was fast. . . Alright, Here we go. I would take the red pill with the knowledge that after Neo took it, His "reality" was discovered to be an illusion, Yet he could still manage to re-enter that illusion and even learn to control it. That is more of an illusion than anything. The only true cost for the freedom of basically being god would be your paradigm shifting without a clutch and knowing you may never be very comfortable again. I also like knowing the full truth, And even though I personally keep secrets and lie, I want to know everything directly. Even if the freedom is desperate, It is still freedom! There are too many examples of freedom in danger compared to captive in safety. A few examples: Everything, Everything. The maze runner. The hunger games. Divergent. Ender's game. Fahrenheit 451. Even the 70 year old book: 1984. In all of those, The characters choose dangerous freedom and rebellion in order to make the world bend to their will instead of vice versa. Maybe it is only me, Because I don't want to simply give in and follow the normal without questioning it first. Basically though, Blue=happy sheep Red= fighting spirits -Debaticus
Blue pill or Red pill

I made it 2k characters so that there isn't too much said. I take the side of the blue pill. If you want to start in Round 1 go ahead but if you want me to start then I will give my argument in Round 2. Blue Pill: A life of luxurious security, Tranquil happiness, And the blissful ignorance of illusion Red Pill: A life of harsh knowledge, Desperate freedom, And the brutal truths of reality
Opinion on hunting

Good questions. And there is only a two drive between us and the nearest store. Yes we chose to live out there and it's awesome. And finally we don't want to eat a lot of cattle because they are our source of money and each less cattle is less money, we eat some of the crops but we can't live off of vegetables forever. Back to the store, would you like to drive two hours once or twice every week to get food when there are so many elk and deer on your property that you can't even go two miles with out running into a small herd of elk or deer. Also deer and elk eat our crops and hay. I mean we use almost every part of the animal and we don't waist it. I am against poaching and killing for fun but in my situation hunting is a important part of my life, I like living off the land it's awesome and the mountains are awesome. You put up a really good defense. Thanks.
Opinion on hunting

like Frankthebob said hunting is cruel if your killing for fun which is true, you should not hunt for fun and leave the animal body lying there, you have to take it and use the meat and fur from it and show respect and thank it for giving its life for us. One thing that is incorrect that he said is that hunting is not necessary for my families survival it is in a way. The nearest grocery store is about a two hour drive and the way we obtain food is through our cattle, crops, and hunting.
Opinion on hunting

Hunting is bad. Before I get into hunting for survival, I would like to talk about hunting for fun. Why someone would kill a animal just because it's fun is outrageous. It makes me want to headbutt a nail. It is unacceptable to kill a living thing just because you find it enjoyable. It serves no purpose. You are causing harm to another living thing and not even making use of the animal. In short, the animal dies for no reason what so ever because it's fun for you. *clap* *clap* go you. Man, you're sure good at that game you can't lose. Now I would like to get into your situation, hunting to survive. It's justifiable, but unnecessary in the 21st century. Chances are you are not hunting to survive, but hunting because that's how you prefer to get your food. There are already 100s of cows that have been killed just for you, why do you need to kill animals around you. I get you probably want to live a simple life and I don't want to take that away from you, but we have a this technological convenience today. Cheap, instant meals.