BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
FOR Branded Oxycodone + Hydrocodone @ MEDISUPPIES. COM || Pay by PayPal

Buy oxycodone online without prescription @ www. Medisuppies. Com which is drug or medication that reduces pain and prescribed because of their effective pain-relieving properties from injuries, Cancer, Arthritis and other detrimental conditions. Oxycodone supplies in Texas @ www. Medisuppies. Com , A morphine-like drug also referred to as opioids, Acts in the brain and deviates how our body responds and senses pain. Taken just as given by the doctor, Opioids can aid minimizing pain effectively. At www. Medisuppies. Com , You find different range of drugs to reduce pain or ache. We always made delivery within stipulated time. We are serving people for decades. We have years of experience in doing online business in Pharmacy. Our experience makes us stand ahead of anyone out in the market. We maintained quality and consistency which helps us to shine in our arena of pharma industry. Provided drugs are no doubt free from any adulteration. We are certified pharmaceutical product provider who always strive for customer satisfaction by our timely services. You also get fully description user manual or medication guide so that you wonâ€™t find it difficult to use. There are thousands of medications and drugs to get rid from moderate to severe pain. Buy Hydrocodone www. Medisuppies. Com is one of the best narcotic drugs that is used to get relieve from any pain or ache. High-quality and effective hydrocodone supplies in Texas @ www. Medisuppies. Com can be provided by US pharmacy your trusted and reliable online store for any kind of medication and drugs. www. Medisuppies. Com offer range of medicines that too in very cheap rates. Buying medicine from any store offline can cost you more but having your needed medication online can not only save you time but also saves you time. In todayâ€™s fast pace world, Many people donâ€™t have time to visit doctor or prescribed medicines for their illness, So, Considering that we bring our range of medication options which you will get here i. E. @ www. Medisuppies. Com an online store for all kind medication and drug. Buy hydrocodone online without prescription @ www. Medisuppies. Com is not suitable for children who are below age of six or for pregnant ladies due to the risk of side effects that it possesses. You can buy Hydrocodone online @ www. Medisuppies. Com to treat moderate to severe pain. This medication is not suitable for children who are less than six years of age due to the risk of side effects that it possesses such as slow or shallow breathing. Buy Branded Oxycodone, Hydrocodone, And Percocet @ www. Medisuppies. ComBuy Oxycodone, Zanax, Hydrocodone, Percocet, Soma & many More With Great Discounts & Deals On Offer, No Rx Needed, 100% FDA APPROVED. FREE FED EX OVERNIGHT. VISA/MASTER COD PAYPAL ACCEPTED. ALL PAYMENTS ARE PAYABLE IN UNITED STATES ONLY NO OVERSEAS PAYMENT.
Capitalism is great

People who aren't grateful should be taken to a country where people aren't as well off as us, stripped of their possessions and forced to live off whatever they can scrape together. Then we'll see whether they still think that society doesn't look after people. In the end, it's people who have changed. People have got lazier and more languid. They feel society owes them, and that is what is truly wrong with this country. This ungrateful attitude.
Capitalism is great

In a socialist society, if you work hard and "play by the rules" can will still be rewarded. That is a too common myth about socialism. One of the biggest faults of a 100% free market is that they claim that people will naturally buy whatever the best value product is, but this is not the case, they will buy whatever they THINK is the best value, regardless to if it really is. This means that companies only need to convince people that they have a better deal, by lying about the quality and price of their own products and their competitors. Without a government regulation of true in advertising, this can lead to extremely dangerous results (tobacco companies telling people that cigarettes are perfectly safe and not addicting), drugs that all claim to be side-effect free. There are many aspects where certain regulations are needed, in that the free market is not perfect, and so needs guidance. In leaving the free market completely free, these few imperfections cause great issues and serious problems.
Capitalism is great

My opponent has neglected to define some terms, so I will, to ensure that we are debating the same thing, and not different things under the same word. Capitalism - "an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the free market" Free Market - "Any market in which trade is unregulated; an economic system free from government intervention." Greater - "of major significance or importance." This one has many definitions, ranging from size to quality. However, I feel, that for this debate, we should simply be talking about the quality of its output compared to other systems. Capitalism advocates that government gets in the way of the free market. Which, by definition, is true. However, I will be debating whether the free market is all that wonderful, and as such, capitalism itself. In the failings of the free market, I can gladly point to our current situation. Th collapse of the housing market, due to poor regulations that did not adequately regulate the market, thus allowing this to happen. I can also point to the dot.com bubble, which grew and popped because it was a new market which did not have proper regulations. We also have the recession of the 80's and the early 90's, from deregulation of the government from Reagan and Bush Sr. It is also worth pointing out that poor regulations =/= any regulation. If a regulation fails to do what it intended, that only means that that particular regulation was faulty, and not the entire notion of regulations. So we ought simply scratch that regulation and try a different model for it (unless you are a free-market capitalist, who believes in no regulations). We can see that even in the "high life of the past 10 years" that only the rich have been benefiting. Everyone else has seen their income drop, in respect to inflation.[1] If this type of growth is want capitalism considers "great" and the "high life" then it is rather pathetic. We saw much better growth, and more even growth under Clinton, and other more liberal presidents. We also see that democrats have a better track record when it comes to growing the economy, and republicans only show that they can grow the debt.[2] We can also see that democrats and their liberal policies have a better history of growing the revenue compared to spending, which republicans and their conservative policies have a better history of growing spending and not revenue. [3] I will yield for now and allow my opponent to post his arguments that capitalism is so great. [1] http://www.epi.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://cedarcomm.com...
Capitalism is great

Capitalism has its problems but it's the best economic system. Our society runs fine, no extremes people can do what they want within fundemental laws, it's all good. We are basically fairly free. Economics for me is all about the greater good, with capitalism a few get screwed so evryone can enjoy prosperity, free markets rule!! I basically agree with the current system we have, banks stimulate economic growth, it was thanks to the bank that we were living the high life the past 10 years. The banks have to pay there interest to their customers, that requires risk and this time it's gone tits up but it's better than left wing politics where it's sh*t all the time! Capitalism delivers a better quality of life, cheaper goods better wages, people are richer nowadays overall, and we've had capitalist for the past ever so that argument doesn't work. THere are less poor people now than 100, 200 or even 50 years ago! (Ed)
Capitalism is great

"People who aren't grateful should be taken to a country where people aren't as well off as us, stripped of their possessions and forced to live off whatever they can scrape together. Then we'll see whether they still think that society doesn't look after people." "every one of us has a debt to society." "with capitalism a few get screwed so evryone can enjoy prosperity." "this time it's gone tits up but it's better than left wing politics..." Capitalism isn't really all that great. It has some good features about it, and it has some poor features about it. All in all, we should only take the good, and leave the bad behind, so a partial capitalistic system is better and so a solid capitalistic system is not great.
The government should subsidize prostitution

First of all I would like to point out that my opponent did not address my points or even present an argument at all. Instead, Con did little more than post a couple links to some sources.Both of the links posted were written by authors that took it as a premise that prostitution is morally wrong and constitutes sexual abuse without attempting to argue for these.Most of the problems pointed out in the first source were due to prostitution not being legal enough rather than having been legalized. For example, the article points out that "Legal parlours tend to be expensive, capital intensive buildings, allowing for the monopolisation of the industry by more wealthy owners." If indeed this is the case in Australia, that stems from the Australian law requiring prostitution to be done in a building especially designated and zoned for that purpose. If prostitutes were allowed to run their business out of their homes, this problem would be completely eliminated.The second source likewise took the problems that are created by incomplete legalization and assumed that these would increase if complete legalization were implemented.I agree with my opponent that it is somewhat like the problem of homelessness. The homeless, for example, spend a lot of their time looking for places to sleep and find it very difficult to progress in their lives until that problem is solved. I do not suggest that the government simply give these people houses any more than I suggest that the government give people wives/husbands. However, providing safe places to sleep for a night to homeless people does sound reasonable to me and is more analogous to the issue of prostitution. It temporarily resolves the problem until a more permanent solution can be found.In light of the fact that my opponent failed to offer any arguments, the resolution stands affirmed.
The government should subsidize prostitution

As I understand, what you have expressed in your arguments are some very fundamental misconceptions about prostitution. Please consider studying the following sources: One a case study of what were the consequences of legalizing sex in Australia and another about popular misconceptions about prostitution. http://www.catwinternational.org... http://www.prostitutionresearch.com... Most of your arguments are a result of a myopic view of prostitution, as a tool to enhance the so called socio-economic balance of society. There is a larger need to think about its moral and ethical implications. It is a little similar to the problem of homelessness. We can follow your approach and freely distribute/allocate homes to those who lead a nomadic life. But what about its moral implications? What about those who strive day and night to own a dream home? Prostitution is not a technical issue. It has everything to do with everyone so we cannot take an objective approach and measure its benefits in terms of economy or growth.
The government should subsidize prostitution

I will be arguing that prostitution is good for society. So much so in fact that the government should subsidize prostitution in order to encourage it and lower the cost to customers.Encourages Innovation and ProgressPeople spend a lot of their time attempting to find someone to have sex with. If sex were readily available from prostitutes cheaply and legally, this time could be spent doing a variety of other things such as advancing one's education and career. The proliferation of prostitution would push progress forward as people would have more time to research, invent, study, and engage in other activities that are beneficial to society instead of searching out sex partners.Reduce DepressionPeople who engage in sex regularly are less prone to depression than those who do it infrequently or not at all. people who have depression are also less likely to be able to find someone with whom to engage in sex because of the symptoms of depression. It's a vicious cycle. If sex were readily available for depression sufferers and sufferers of other mental illnesses who are prone to depression because of their other ailments, the rate of depression would drop which would be in society's best interests.Reduce Sexual AssaultIf sex were readily available, there would be little incentive for anyone to rape someone. When faced with the difficulty and risk of raping a person vs the ease of simply walking into a brothel and ordering up sex the way you like it, the choice is clear. It may not eliminate rape but would certainly reduce it substantially.Reduce UnemploymentProstitution has a low barrier to entry and tons of demand. Entrepeneurial women who find themselves in need of money could start up a prostitution business almost overnight and be getting customers.Prostitute SafetyFor many prostitutes in areas where it is currently illegal, it is a dangerous profession. This is because there are no systems in place to protect prostitutes because they fear going to the police. Prostitutes are beaten or assaulted and have little recourse. Furthermore this drives many of them to work under pimps who offer protection and cut into their profits as well as human rights. Furthermore human trafficing would no longer be profitable as legal prostitues put the trafficing rings out of businessFor all of these reasons, prostitution is good fo society and the government should embark on a campaign to encourage it and subsidize it.
Animal Welfare is Superior to Animal Rights.

>I accept both definitions offered by my opponent. >My opponent's argument is basically an evaluation of humans versus other animals. He makes the claim that "[other animals] are not sapient beings (rational organisms). " He goes on to say that not being rational, they do not deserve participation in the "moral community. " My opponent has not given clarification as to what this "moral community" is, but I believe he is referring to humanity. >My argument and my refutation of my opponent's argument are essentially the same: other animals ARE equal to humans. My opponent has made the claim that other animals are not mentally rational. I disagree. As you see the videos I have left, the animals ARE rational, thus my opponent's arguments are null. I'll leave it at that for now as I have nothing else to refute. >I would like to observe that my opponent has a burden of proof to not only prove that animal welfare is superior to animal cruelty, but to prove it in all cases. >I wish my opponent luck in his response. . http://www.youtube.com... . http://www.youtube.com...
Animal Welfare is Superior to Animal Rights.

[Definition - Animal Welfare] 1. The viewpoint that it is morally acceptable for humans to use nonhuman animals for food, in animal research, as clothing, and in entertainment, so long as unnecessary suffering is avoided. http://en.wikipedia.org... [Definition - Animal Rights] 1. The idea that the most basic interests of animals should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of human beings. Animals should no longer be regarded as property, or used as food, clothing, research subjects, or entertainment, but should instead be viewed as legal persons and members of the moral community. http://en.wikipedia.org... ====Arguments===== Animal welfare and animal rights are on par when it comes to toning down the suffering and pain in farms, entertainment industries, etc. There is a crucial difference though - animal rights takes it all the way. They want NO animal products, NO animal entertainment, NO pets, and NO animal testing. Animal welfare advocates support giving animals comfort and escape from unnecessary pain, but they will still be involved with animal testing, etc. I argue that while an animal can feel pain (which is why unneccessary pain is undeserved), they are not sapient beings (rational organisms). Because they are not rational, they are not involved in the moral community, and thus should NOT be included on the same moral platform as humans. =====Conclusion===== Humans > Animals. This is all I will say so far, I will await my opponents response.
Solve the riddle 5

Okay, interesting riddle. So let's see. This is all really about how two people could be looking at the opposite sides of the world, yet still be looking at each other. Now, this normally wouldn't work, so my first thought would be that they were on some point where east and west are technically the same. This makes me think of poles. So let's say you were on the north pole. Wherever you look, that would be south. But that wouldn't work. Oh, wait, I got an idea.__________________________________ For some reason this thing cut off the part after I got the idea. Anyway, I think I know how to solve it. THe guy looking at west would need to stand by the east side of the ship, and the guy looking at east would stand at the west side of the ship. Thus, they are still looking at the opposite sides of the world, but over each other's shoulders! I think I got it :P
Solve the riddle 5

I'll post a riddle in this round. Con gets one guess. I reveal the answer in round two. If Con gets it, he gets all points. If he doesn't, I get all points. Riddle: The captain of a ship was telling this interesting story: "We traveled the sea far and wide. At one time, two of my sailors were standing on opposite sides of the ship. One was looking west and the other one east. And at the same time, they could see each other clearly." How can that be possible?
Ban on Moshing

In this debate, we will be talking about the ban on moshing. Not too long ago, Warped Tour banned moshing and now because I'm exteremly curious, I would like to debate with someone who is in favor of the ban on moshing just so I can PWN them. Here's How the Schedule will work1. My Opponent will accept in round one and not make any introducition and points in round one2. In Round two, Introduction and points will be addressed by both parties3. In Round 3-4 is rebuddling the other side4. in round 5, it's the closing arguments
Ban on Moshing

I urge voters to forget Round 3 and Round 4, and to judge the debate based on the full rounds of argumentation completed by both me and my opponent.Kinds of Mosh PitMy opponent attempts to qualify differences in types of mosh pits. However, they are unpredictable. The potential of the type of mosh pit seems really hard to predict. If it is involving a really heavy band, or a well known band, the odds are extremely high at that the event will turn chaotic sooner rather than later."I would like to see what concert that was. I would also like to see some footage of people violently waving their limbs around." - ProI am not sure which concert the picture was from. However, I provided a video of people violently waving there limbs around. Those kids were weak, so there was a low chance of injury. However, there are serious mosh pits where people do that and get injured. Also, there are very heavy bands on the warped tour. "You also say that there are situations where people don't want to get involved in the mosh pit. I find this illogical because people who are in the mosh pit want to wave their limbs around. They want to get into contact of others and yeah it sucks when someone's gets roughed up but people who is in the pit want to mosh. " - ProIt is not illogical. I have been to a show where everyone is getting hyped, but not moshing. Then, the band will play a song that everyone knows, or mosh to often, then people will start moshing without a chance to escape. People who do not want to be involved might get trampled. Girls get trampled."As sucky as it is that Jamie Craig got hurt in the mosh pit badly and you go on further in your debate to point out people have died. Yes it does suck that those people have died but that group is a small minority." - Pro"That group is a small minority"? Tell that to their families. Mosh Pitting is useless. You can dance without mosh pitting violently, and you get let anger out with the risk of hurting other people."Choosing a punching bag over a mosh pit sound interesting and more durable however what if your not in to sports, what if your not into working out? What if you want to just mosh and that's it?" - ProWhat if I'm not into consensual sex? What if I just want to rape? It doesn't matter what you want. If you are a risk to others, you should not do it "Also if you are concerned about people getting hurt, There are safety tips in order to have a safe mosh. Hope you enjoy!"Nobody is going to go to a concert with knee pads and elbow pads. The above was not a serious response. ConclusionMy opponent had the burden of proof to demonstrate that the Warped Tour should not have banned Mosh Pitting. All his arguments failed; the resolution has been affirmed.http://www.youtube.com...
Ban on Moshing

I would first of all would like to apoligize to my opponent for not responding over the past couple of rounds. It was rude of me to not respond to any of his arguments. I was in fact extreemly tired but that doesn't give me the exucese to almost abandon the debate. If it's alright with my opponent and assumeing that this debate might be continued, I would like to continue it. Regarding my first poimt, I would like to mention that it really depends on what kind of mosh pit you are in. Assuming that my Rational Thinker has actually been into a mosh pit, he should know that there's small, large and regualar size. First off, I must ask where did you find the first photo? I would like to see what concert that was. I would also like to see some footage of people violently waving their limbs around. It would be very much apperiated. You also say that the example I brought up is a red herring. That really depends on the metal concert. I mean if were talking Slayer then I understand (not understand as in I agree but understand as I see why you would take a position) but if were at a Asking Alexandria concert then that's a totally different story.You also say that there are situations where people don't want to get involved in the mosh pit. I find this illogical because people who are in the mosh pit want to wave their limbs around. They want to get into contact of others and yeah it sucks when someones gets roughed up but people who is in the pit want to mosh. They clearly want to be in the mosh pit. As sucky as it is that Jamie Craig got hurt in the mosh pit badly and you go on further in your debate to point out people have died. Yes it does suck that those people have died but that group is a small minority.Choosing a punching bag over a mosh pit sound interesting and more durabl however what if your not in to sports, what if your not into working out? What if you want to just mosh and that's it?Also if you are concerned about people getting hurt, There are saftey tips in order to have a safe mosh. Hope you enjoy! http://www.youtube.com...