BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Advertisements

The levels of advertising are just too much these days. You can't walk down the street, ride a bus, watch television, surf the web, or read your email without seeing advertisements. People shouldn't have to have their lives attacked by a huge quantity of information they might not want. People can't just choose to ignore advertising because advertisers use a lot of methods to get their message across. Posters have attention grabbing words and/or pictures. Some adverts today are even being hidden in what seem like pieces of art or public information so people don't realise they are being marketed to. By targeting people’s unconscious thoughts, adverts are a form of brainwashing that take away people's freedoms to make choices. A lot of adverts do more than just advertising products. Some try to make people feel inferior if they don't have the product, or if they have something which the product would change. Perceptions of beauty and fashion in particular have been terribly distorted. Many young people have low-self esteem and lead unhealthy lifestyles because they feel they should be thinner and more attractive like the models they see in adverts. This leads to serious problems like eating-disorders and self-harm. Advertising gives the impression, especially to young kids that they can and should have everything they want. This makes people too interested in material things. People are becoming more selfish and obsessed with their possessions and losing their values of patience, hard work, moderation and the importance of non-material things like family and friends. This harms their relationships and their personal development, which has serious effects for society.
Flat Earth vs Globe Earth

Re. 1. GravityGravity is a theory. For thousands of years, people just accepted the fact that up was up, and down was down, until everyone starting believing that the Earth was a ball .Then, the obvious questions came up ie. Why don't people fall off the bottom of the ball? Newton then hypothesized that the Earth must act as a magnet. He theorized this simply on the fact that he witnessed an apple fall from a tree. If gravity is constant, and is the same everywhere, and the earth is spinning at 1,000 mph at the equator, but is barely moving at the pole, and gravity is countering the centrifugal force, why don't we weigh much less at the equator?Even then, I must ask, if you know what a ring magnet is. Assuming that the Earth acting as a giant magnet was the undeniable explanation, then you would have to claim that ring magnets don't exist. Re. 2. ProbabilityThis is not at all evidence for a globe, but it's an appeal to probability fallacy. Thanks for the arguments anyway, I await your responses to my claims.
Soccer is the best sport in the world

I'm sure this has been a debate that has gone on many times before but here it goes again. Is soccer the greatest sport in the world? I will be arguing that it is the greatest sport but whoever accepts this debate will be arguing that it is not. Debate setup: Round 1: Acceptance. If you would like to accept this debate then in the first round response just put an "I accept this challenge" and the debate will begin after that Rounds 2-4: The actual debate. These rounds will be the actual debate. Not much more to it than that. Let's start and good luck to my opponent.
Soccer is the best sport in the world

While I will concede that all you need to have to run is have shoes (sometimes you don't even need shoes). I still believe that soccer is the better sport than running. It depends on the aspects you're looking at. A distance runner to a soccer player in an endurance battle, the marathon runner will always win that race. In a sprint race, probably a soccer player. Same thing applies for short distance runners. In a sprint race then the short distance runner will win but in an endurance race, the soccer player will win. There is also a great deal of research that says running a full 90+ minute soccer game is the equivalent of running 6-13.5 miles. Now for a distance runner that may not seem too impressive but the type of physical activity and thinking about the next moves that will happen in the game is what adds difficulty to the sport. Soccer players range between walking, jogging, and sprinting. Research shows that 2/3 of the distance is done by walking or jogging. Which leaves the other 1/3 distance to be done by sprinting. It is during these high activity periods that soccer players' heart rates get up to 90% efficiency, a level that joggers never come close to reaching. Your sport also has no physical contact. (not saying that doesn't make it a sport I'm just saying it's easier to compete in a sport where you don't have to go in a one on one physical battle for an object.) But physical contact makes sports a lot harder. I know how it feels to be exhausted after running a marathon and a short sprint and a full 90 minute soccer game. At the end of the soccer game I felt worse. The reason why is because we change our momentum so much within 90 minutes, however in a marathon you stay at the same pace until you reach the finish line. Soccer is a combination of running, jogging, walking, kicking, getting hit by someone like you who's well prepared and have the same incentives that you have in mind. For the worst of all that, it's a mind killer. What I meant mind killer is? Are there anyone on Earth who can write a good prose while running simultaneously. The answer is definitely no, and soccer is just like that. You have an audience, game strategies to carry, partners to work with and opponents to read in mind, all that in short period. I really did enjoy this debate and I would like to thank Con for taking me on in this debate. To see his side of this debate go in the comments because he was busy with school and forgot to respond. Which is completely understandable. Anyways thanks again to Con and have a great rest of the day to anyone who's reading this debate
Minecraft is Better Than Ark

Alright. Since this is the last round, I'm going to lay it all out on the table. Here's some reasons to choose Minecraft over Ark: -Minecraft is fun because you have so much freedom. -Granted, there isn't a forced end, but you can install mods to allow different games to be played...all in the Minecraft world. -You can make your own games! Again, your imagination can run wild. If you can think it, and you know how Minecraft works, you can make just about anything. -It may be "blocky", but the chances of getting the same look twice (not biomes, just block placement). -There's so many secrets to find! You have dungeons, desert temples, ocean temples, jungle temples, abandoned mine shafts, and tons of other cool places to explore. So, the point remains, Minecraft no doubt has way more pros than Ark does. Go ahead. Get on your game system, buy both games or whatnot, and play them. You will quickly find out that I am correct, while my opponent is very, very wrong.
Minecraft is Better Than Ark

Ladies and gentlemen. Obviously my opponent does not understand the beauty of Minecraft. In Minecraft, there is an end goal! Ever heard of the End? Literally. That's where you defeat the Ender Dragon once you have built your armor, your weapons, and, if you want to survive, some enchantments on everything and some enchanted golden apples. After that, the end credits start rolling. Saying that you cannot tame and breed creatures in Minecraft is a bunch of bologna. Give some wolves bones, bam. You have dogs that will protect you. Tame ocelots, and bam. You get cats and less creepers. You can tame horses and donkeys, then ride them into the sunset. And, no offense, but how realistic do you want the breeding process to be?
Minecraft is Better Than Ark

Ark is much better than Minecraft just because of the fact of frekin Dinosaurs! Plus it's not a blocky mess. You have an end goal in Ark unlike Minecraft. You have to ascend by beating the three bosses then the Final boss. In Minecraft you just beat a dragon and a three headed freak. That's it. It's pretty boring. But in Ark you can tame and breed the creatures of Ark. But a more realistic way unlike Minecraft's "feed two animals and they glitch in each of their faces then poof, a baby!" Plus Frekin Dinosaurs!
Everyone smoking right now should QUIT IT.

I'm not the one attacking Con, but Con is the one attacking me. He disagrees with my facts and say they're my opinions. By doing that, he won't make me give up, but will make me try even more until the end of this challenge. If Con really understands the meaning of 'pleasant', he should know the meaning of how something is truly pleasant. Truly pleasant is when something affects your senses in the good way and affects your health in the good way. If something is truly pleasant, it can't be only pleasant for your senses and not your health. It has to be pleasant for your health AND your senses. Con constantly disagrees with me. Disagreeing with me will not be meaningless. No matter what it takes, I'm finishing this challenge.;)
Everyone smoking right now should QUIT IT.

"Con would say anything to convince people that smokers can keep smoking."Pro simply repeats her ad hominem attack against me."Yes, 'bad' and 'stupid' are subjective words, but if you say that smoking is bad and stupid, then that's completely different."I believe Pro is saying that even though the meaning of a word refers to a subjective judgement, the use of that word changes the meaning to something different? I ask Pro to please explain this because it makes no sense to me."Con is "defining" the meaning of pleasant?"I provided a link to an online dictionary to back up the definition. If Pro has a different definition and a source to back it up, I invite her to present it.Everything else Con says is just repeating what she has said before and that I have already provided arguments against."[Con]wants to ... convince the smokers to keep smoking"I don't see how Pro got this from my arguments. I do not believe anything in my arguments so far can be contrued as an attempt to convince smokers to continue smoking. If Pro believes otherwise, I hope she will point out exactly what I have said that makes her think that way.The resolution continues to stand negated.
Everyone smoking right now should QUIT IT.

Con would say anything to convince people that smokers can keep smoking. Yes, 'bad' and 'stupid' are subjective words, but if you say that smoking is bad and stupid, then that's completely different. Con is not understanding that what I'm saying is true. Con is "defining" the meaning of pleasant? Smoking IS a bad and stupid habit because some people smoking don't even realise how much risk they're in because they're adicted fast. Cigarettes are an adictive drug and now all the ads on TV tell everyone how bad they are and that everyone smoking should QUIT IT. It ruins people's lungs and the lungs of other people around them.Smoking is NOT truly pleasant for anyone, because it affects your health in the bad way. Is that the least bit pleasant anymore?! Seriously, it's not the flavour/taste that counts, but the way it affects your health. Further more, I DO NOT think that my arguments are subjective anymore, because it's Con that's being subjective. He is not understanding that he's being subjective about my "subjective arguments" himself. Just because he wants to prove me wrong and convince the smokers to keep smoking. He is NOT understanding that my arguments are true.
Everyone smoking right now should QUIT IT.

"-Firstly, doctors have proven that smoking takes time off your life."I agree with this and already agreed with this before when I said "The negative effects of smoking are well-known." It does not affect my argument. "-Secondly, doctors have proven that smoking also harms the people around the smokers."I will concede this. However it does not affect my argument."-Thirdly, it is not subjective that smoking is a bad and stupid habit, because as I said before, it not only harms the smoker, but the people around them, and it takes time off their lives every time they smoke."Bad and stupid are pretty much by definition subjective judgements. If Pro wishes to argue that they are in fact objective descriptions of something, I believe it is up to pro to provide objective definitions of these words because the way they are understood in general is subjective."the smokers do find that the flavour of the cigarettes are pleasant, but it affects your health in the bad way. Now is that the least bit pleasant anymore? You must know that it's not the taste that counts, but the way it affects your health."Con is simply trying to redefine the word "pleasant" such that it supports her case. Something is pleasant if it gives or affords pleasure or enjoyment.[1] There is nothing in this definition to suggest that having negative repercussions in the future would revoke something's pleasantness. However, even if Pro had a case here, it is still true that people can choose to do things that are unpleasant and it is not up to others to decide that they should not do it."I know, the smell of the cigarettes before they got lit on fire was pleasant, but the smell after they got lit on fire was not very pleasant."Pro is only stating her opinion. Many people would disagree. See my source in round 1."[Con] would say anything to convince everyone that I'm wrong"This is not true and is an ad hominem attack against me. While it is the case that I am attempting to prove that Pro is wrong, I would certainly not say anything in order to convince people of it. In particular, I would not say anything that I do not believe to be true.In round 2, Pro wrote: "I know that my arguments are subjective" and yet in round 3 she claims the opposite. Pro has contradicted herself from one round to the next.Pro has yet to offer any arguments against the fact that smokers are aware of the risks of smoking and choose to smoke anyway. They have weighed the positives against the negatives and made a decision. It is not up to Pro or anyone else to decide what these people should do.It is therefore not the case that everyone smoking right now should QUIT IT.[1]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;
Everyone smoking right now should QUIT IT.

Con had said that what I said about smoking was just subjective, but he didn't realise that it's really objective. -Firstly, doctors have proven that smoking takes time off your life.-Secondly, doctors have proven that smoking also harms the people around the smokers.-Thirdly, it is not subjective that smoking is a bad and stupid habit, because as I said before, it not only harms the smoker, but the people around them, and it takes time off their lives every time they smoke.-Another thing, Con said that it wasn't the least bit true that smoking isn't pleasant for anybody, but it's very true. Yes, the smokers do find that the flavour of the cigarettes are pleasant, but it affects your health in the bad way. Now is that the least bit pleasant anymore? You must know that it's not the taste that counts, but the way it affects your health. Con thought that I was just being subjective, but I'm not. My cousins smoke and my brother smokes. I know, the smell of the cigarettes before they got lit on fire was pleasant, but the smell after they got lit on fire was not very pleasant. Con would only say that my arguments are subjective because he would say anything to convince everyone that I'm wrong and that smokers shouldn't QUIT IT.
Everyone smoking right now should QUIT IT.

Pro says that "smoking harms people around the smokers." I already addressed this above and Pro offered no counterarguments. To reiterate my argument, smoking often does not harm people around them (in the case when there is no one around them) or it often only harms people who are aware of the dangers, have accepted the risk as rational adults, and could leave if they wanted to. If Pro wanted to argue that people should not smoke in certain situations in which people can be harmed unwillingly and do not have a reasonable ability to simply leave the situation, then I could agree with that, but that is not the resolution being debated.Pro says that "The cigarette's flavour might be pleasant for smokers, yes, but deep down, it affects your health in the bad way." As explained in my last argument, this is cost benefit analysis. A lot of decisions have both good and bad consequences. As rational beings, people can decide what risks they are willing to take for what benefit.Pro's anecdote proves absolutely nothing. First of all, I have never made the claim that people should smoke around children or others in a situation in which the person who is potentially harmed cannot just leave. Second, Pro provides no evidence that her father's smoking caused her brother's asthma. As a counter-anecdote, I also got asthma as a child. My parents did not smoke nor did my grandparents or anyone around me. Pro also seems to indicate that her brother got asthma because of one particular incident in which smoke got in her brother's face. While exposure to smoke over a period of time may contribute to developing asthma, it is medically ridiculous to claim that someone got asthma because of one time some smoke went in their face.Pro has failed to address anything I wrote in my argument and has simply presented an anecdote which not only does not prove anything at all but also is an example of a situation which my arguments did not condone. Even if I agree that one should not smoke around children (which I do) it does not affect my argument in the slightest.Pro has failed to provide any evidence or arguments that everyone smoking right now should QUIT IT.
Everyone smoking right now should QUIT IT.

I know that my arguments are subjective, but the truth is, smoking harms people around the smokers. The cigarette's flavour might be pleasant for smokers, yes, but deep down, it affects your health in the bad way, which makes it truly unpleasant. I will tell you a true story about a smoking situation. [My father used to smoke continuously each day and he couldn't stand a minute without it. Then, one day, he was smoking near my older brother, who was just 7 y/o at that time. The smoke went into his face and he was fanning it away with his hand. Not soon later, he had asthma and my dad decided to quit smoking forever. And he just did it, like that, not needing anything to help himself quit. From the time he made that decision on, he never smoked again IN HIS LIFE.] My brother had asthma because of my father smoking. You could also get ear infections, but luckily, my brother didn't get it. So, that's why I'm saying that everyone smoking should QUIT IT.
Everyone smoking right now should QUIT IT.

I will argue that it is not true that everyone smoking right now should QUIT IT.The negative effects of smoking are well-known. However, people have a right to weigh the risks for themselves and decide what risks they feel are acceptable. Every decision involves a risk. Driving a car involves a risk. Walking out of your house involves a risk. Staying in your house involves a risk. People have the ability to make their own decisions and should be allowed to do that.Pro asserts that smoking is "bad and stupid." These are subjective judgements that do not carry any weight. Pro presents no arguments that smoking itself is objectively bad or stupid.Pro asserts that "many people don't like to live to old age." If this is the case, Pro's argument that "life gets shorter every time you smoke" does not constitute a reason to quit for those people. This is true regardless of the fact that "when you start smoking, you can't end it as quickly" because these people presumably do not care to end it as their goal is to shorten their lives.Pro asserts that "Smoking won't just harm the person smoking, but it can also harm the people around them." While there is some evidence for this, it is often blown way out of proportion in the media. Even ignoring that, however, people who are smoking are often not smoking around other people or are smoking around other people who are around it by their own free will. In the case of the smoker who is smoking alone, there are no other people around to be harmed, and in the case of the smoker who is smoking only around other adults who are there by their own free will, the potential harm is part of that passive smoker's risk assessment just as much as smoking is part of the smoker's risk assessment.Lastly, Pro argues that "Smoking isn't pleasant for anyone." This is not the least bit true. There are many people who find smoking pleasant. [1]Because of the following facts1. People are rational beings who can weigh the risks and make their own decisions2. Smoking does not necessarily harm anyone who has not made the risk assessment and chosen to accept the risk3. People often find smoking to be pleasantit is not true that everyone smoking right now should QUIT IT.[1]http://www.smokingfeelsgood.com...;
Everyone smoking right now should QUIT IT.

I believe that everyone smoking have to QUIT IT, since it's a very bad and stupid habit. It could cause lung cancer and your life get's shorter every time you smoke. I know that many people don't like to live to old age, but when you start smoking, you can't end it as quickly. Some people might be able to quit quickly, but many can't. Smoking won't just harm the person smoking, but it can also harm the people around them, because when those people around the smokers breathe in the smoke, it ruins their lungs bit by bit. These people are called passive smokers, if you don't already know. Smoking isn't pleasant for anyone, so I suggest that if anyone is smoking, they should QUIT IT as soon as possible. Thank you, sweetbreeze.
The word athiest be updated within the dictonary. To Athiest the undecided until a later date.

First, you say that I'm calling an existence creator God. Since this is a question about God, let us turn to the bible. Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Does that not qualify God as an existence creator? If not, let us go further. Genesis 1:3 says, "Then God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light." This theme is repeated throughout Genesis 1. You ask if I am on a first name basis with our own existence creator. I am not, but I still have reason to call an existence creator God. So it is not by an error of my own, but nor is it because I am an "undecided atheist idiot" or because I am an "undecided religious idiot until a later date". You say that all atheists are undecided atheists, yet you have no evidence to back up that claim. As you are making it, the burden of proof falls on you. The next two lines of your argument rely on that one statement, so I will move past that. You are asking whether I am an ignorant undecided atheist or an arrogant undecided atheist? I am neither. I am simply defending the fact that the dictionary definition should not be changed. Most of your argument here is not addressing that.
The word athiest be updated within the dictonary. To Athiest the undecided until a later date.

So you are calling an existance creator God as well? Are you on a fisrt name basis with our own existance creator. Is that by error of your own or are you no more then an undeceided athiest idiot or an undeceided religous idiot until a later date? All Atheist's are undecided atheists. So this is the crux of being or staying an athiest. Right or wrong. So how can the undecided be any more then to lack belief of the likes of beliefs of a universe existence creator. So I will ask are you an ignorant undecieded athiest or are you an arrigant undeceided athiest or both at once. So what side of the fence are you on or are you a fence sitter. As I am neither. As I am a practicing christern of teachings of Jesus Christ the son of our own existance creator that has no name or if it has I do not know what it is. For Jesus Christ the son of our existance creator supposable said I am not good my father is good, For I hold the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Maybe he should have said I am not good for our own existance creator is good, For I only hold the keys to the doorway to kingdom of heaven. Peace be with you and all praise and glory belongs to our own existance creator.