BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
citizen charter : is it beneficial in india to curb corruption

Corruption in India, is a virus , a leech to the Indian society. One that does more harm to the general public than any good. In India, corruption is not hidden, like a painter that clearly portrays his artwork, in the Indian culture its open for the public to observe. I do not believe that the Citizen's Charter bill will be of any use but perhaps just minor bump on the road. Definition : Citizens Charter Bill : seeks to confer on every citizen the right to time-bound delivery of specified goods and services and to provide a mechanism for grievance redressal. The Bill makes it mandatory for every public authority to publish a Citizen"s Charter within six months of the commencement of the Act, failing which the official concerned would face action, including a fine of up to Rs. 50,000 from his salary and disciplinary proceedings. - from Wikipedia or in simpler words : The charter also seeks to make it mandatory for government officials to acknowledge complaints from the public within two days of receipt - from Times of India There are many ways a corrupt politician or officer can avoid these complaints and investigations; the simple key thing one can do is pay them off, put them on your payroll. Money can spoil or enhance, ruin or bring glory too. With a simple transactions you can get a way with anything. Evident in many Bollywood ( indian ) movies. "(Corruption )This will only hurt the country and there will be no benefit" - Times of India
Debate.org Should Abolish Open Voting in Favor of Judge "Select Winner" Voting

Max - 10,000 words 72 hours to post response 6 months to vote, Judges have plenty of time Rules & Definitions The rules and definitions will be open to debate themselves. For the sake of organization, they should be flowed under the subheading of Theory or Framework. Pro prefers if judge and any voters flow and determine winner via tabula rasa. Desired Format Rd - 1: Acceptance Rd - 2: Opening Constructives Rd - 3-4: Constructives & Rebuttals Rd 5: Rebuttals only, no new evidence please.
Debate.org Should Abolish Open Voting in Favor of Judge "Select Winner" Voting

I got busy so I am going to give an outline of my arguments and flesh them out with extensions and evidence citations in rd. 3. I beg my audience and my opponent for their indulges. - Harms 1. Open Voting is susceptible to varying forms of corruption a. Voting blocs b. Shadow Accounts c. Biased non-debater voters who "vote bomb" 2. The Winner of a Debate Matters a. Winner should reflect superior argumentation, analysis, and better use of evidence b. When a weaker debater "wins" through corrupt means it demeans the rigor of debate by giving debaters an incentive to cut corners by finding corrupt ways to win 3. Open Voting Allows Weak Debaters to Achieve a High Ranking and ELO score which.... a. Makes it difficult to debate the best debaters because it's easy to inflate an ELO score through corrupt means b. Encourages debaters to go for quantity over quality debates INHERENCY The judge select winner option is welcome, but most still choose the default of open voting. Open voting is entirely illegitimate and problematic so it shouldn't even be available. It will always be in the interest of corrupt debate instigators to create weak debates and use "open voting." Choosing a judge, or ideally an odd-number panel of judges, is best because the challenger must approve the judges nominated before accepting insuring that both sides respect the expertise and impartiality of the presiding judge(s). PLAN: Debate.org should abolish open voting and only allow judge "select winner" voting. SOLVENCY: It would be easier. Many debaters already pride themselves for being objective "tabula rasa" judges. Debaters would probably take pride in being good judges and try to build good reputations online for being objective and neutral judges. Debate.org = More Educational for All Users Advantage 1: Ranking would be more accurate and meaningful Advantage 2: Debaters would be encouraged to have the best debates possible, and to not cut corners, thus increasing the overall education of debate. Advantage 3: Having a pool of good judges who have the option to approve or disapprove a debate might help the website curate better by encouraging the best debates and discouraging trolls and circular debates about that have no real clash.
Should communism be given another chance?...

Communism is seen as an evil, selfish way of controlling a nation. Most democratic or republican nations think this because of what the leaders of communist nations have done. Stalin did what he did because that was his temperament, not because his nation was communist. The faults of communist nations are because of the temperament of the people at that time and because of corrupt leaders. This is an open vote. I have an enthusiasm for debating and chose this topic partially because I agree with it and partially because I think my opponent, whoever it may be, can come up with some really convincing argument. To whom it may concern, Good luck.
Should communism be given another chance?...

I accept the challenge. Communism isn't seen as evil, communism IS evil. All thinking people (not just democrats and republicans) think this not just based on the 100 million that have died and suffered under communist regimes, but based on the nature of the ideology itself. Stalin and Mao were evil dictators yes, but the biggest killers in their countries wasn't because they had a bad temperament, but because collectivist policies and economic planning (the basis of communism) led to the starvation and death of millions.
You are not my God

d(o__o)b signifies I won because my opponent didn't refute any points I made. He has propose that I am his God by drawing my attention to this debate (d(o__O)b is our code) thus I win this debate. If anyone else could have taken it then I am not his God, yet I accepted it because no one else did. I also said he couldn't bring this issue back up. Anyway... He has dropped my points about me being a mud puddle that can type. He has also dropped my grammar corrections that I caught as a sin. In debate silent is consent, thus because ReganFan didn't refute any of Con's points he has agreed I am his God. I win. For reasons above I have proven to be ReganFan's God so vote con. Thank you for such an entertaining debate, I'll be sure to grant you immortality when we meet again.
You are not my God

Fine. .. I am ReganFan's god because I am a mud puddle, he worships it no doubt. Mud puddles can type. Take an example: Sand can move and thus type because they can form to become Sandman, which is the sand dude/person from Spiderman 3, similarly mud puddles make me into a humanoid and as a humanoid I can type because I have fingers. And I am typing on a waterproof keyboard:) Therefore I am a mud puddle and I am ReganFan's god. The resolution remains negated. And he also dropped my point about translating "d(o__O)b" twice and cannot bring it back up. Thus I am his god.
You are not my God

I will like to redefine the resolution. Clarification: both sides are saying you're not my God. Meaning Pro isn't Con's god, vise versa. I will prove ReganFan isn't my God. I don't believe in a god, yet,therefore ReganFan cannot be my god. If ReganFan was a god he would be flawless, yet his record 2 wins -12 losses ...,therefore ReganFan isn't my god and cannot be a god. Now for his point: "you are "tying" as a mud puddle cannot"- What? His god is a mud puddle yet his profile says Christian. God cannot be a mud puddle, he is a living spirit. If he continues to say his God is a mud puddle then he 1. Is a Christian hypocrite; 2. insanely worships mud puddles. Mud puddles is not an established religion thus it's invalid. He has also dropped all my points I made thus count those for voting points. He cannot bring it back up, silence is consent. Therefore for reasoned above the resolution stays negated. Vote Con. Thanks
You are not my God

As Con I'll prove I am ReganFan's God. Reason 1: Because no one understands "d(o__O)b" I'll translate what he means. It means, "I forfeit and you're my God." And because I haven't lost a single debate I am his God. Reason 2: I'm the guy who looks for sin. In this case the "you are not my God" are should be singular thus it's "is." I caught that sin. otherwise... Definition: you-voter are not-are not my-ReganFan God-idol. Con: you may be Reganfan's idol if you won any of his debates.
Agnostic-Atheism is the most logical position on religion.

Thanks for accepting! I will start this off by showing why the other positions are illogical, then show why Agnostic-Atheism is logical. Gnostic-Theism This is the position that God exists, or they are 100% positive he does. This is impossible because you can't prove a God exists, much less any specific God. The most they can do is believe the beginning of the universe or life is inadequately explained by science. But in no way does that prove the existence of a God. An example of this logic would be "You can't prove unicorns don't exist, therefore unicorns exist." That is illogical, as just because you can't disprove Thing A, doesn't prove Thing B exists. Gnostic-Atheism This is the belief that God doesn't exist, and you are 100% certain of this. This is illogical because it is impossible to disprove the existence of a God. We have all heard the Christian line, "Well, you can't disprove God", which is correct. It is impossible to disprove anything. So to be 100% positive anything doesn't exist is illogical, as it is possible for anything to exist. Agnostic-Theism This is the position that God exists, but you are not certain of it. This suffers the same problems as Gnostic-Theism, as you would still be believing in something without evidence. To be short, there is no evidence for God, so it is illogical to believe in him. Now to prove Agnostic-Atheism This is the position that God doesn't exist, but you aren't sure, you you aren't claiming you know if God exists or not. To put it in another way, this answers 2 questions: What you believe in and what you claim. I don't believe in God, so I'm an atheist, but I don't claim to know whether or not God exists, so I'm an agnostic. This is logical, as you are not believing in something without evidence, but you are not saying whether that something does or does not exist. Nothing is impossible, so it is possible for a God to exist. Because of that, I don't claim to know if a God doesn't exist. It is equally illogical to believe in something that has no evidence to prove its' existence as it is to be certain something doesn't exist. I believe I have made my case. Good luck!
Agnostic-Atheism is the most logical position on religion.

Full resolution: The position of Agnostic-Atheism is more logical then the positions of Agnostic-Theism, Gnostic-Atheism, and Gnostic-Theism.Rules:1) Forfeiting without letting opponent know is a 7 point loss.2) Breaking the structure is a conduct loss.3) No trolling, kritkiks, semantics, and so on.4) Be respectful5) Cite sourcesStructure:Round 1: Acceptance and say what religion or belief state you are.Round 2: Arguments - No rebuttalsRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Counter-Arguments - No new argumentsRound 5: Conclusion - No new argumentsGood luck!
Hate Crimes

Natural isn't always good.So yes, hate is natural. However, it is natural in the same way as deadly hemlock. It exists on it's own but can kill you.Most people agree that death isn't good, nor is pain. Both come out of what is "Natural".https://www.ars.usda.gov...Russians are not superior to another.Russians were poor as heck even, before the tsar was overthrown. People starved in masses and were forgotten to history.Racism can lead to longterm health issues for a population.https://www.npr.org...What you are arguing for, of hate not being bad, would prove my point if true.Because if hate isn't wrong, then harsher sentencing would be based entirely.
Hate Crimes

The opposite of hate is love, not lust. http://www.thesaurus.com...Love is a strong and active choice to put someone else before yourself. Lust is a desire for a person, and often only sexually.Lust is disrespectful. Love is the greatest honor.The constitution never mentions lust. https://constitutioncenter.org...However, it does mention due process. Which is not so easily achieved if law takes the form of revenge, rather than justice and rehabilitation.
should middle school students date boys at age 11

I will not tell whether or not I'm playing devil's advocate (Taking defense of what you disagree with); It's undecided. I just disagree with your reasoning.Rebuttals"girls like boys in young age they need to experience the boy problems that will come soon"Well, you surely will never experience them if you never get a relationship. So, how are those above 13 yrs. of age distinctive from children in terms of experience that THEY can have relationships?
Science Fiction Cannot Be Literature

This is something I've seen flying around for a while: science fiction is given a bad name in literature. It's been carried to extremes, with some authors refusing to admit that their books are science fiction at all. I am not arguing that all science fiction is literature, any more than all realism is literature, but that the terms 'science fiction' and 'literature' aren't mutually exclusive. Literature is defined as: 1. Writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of a permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, romance, history, biography, essays, etc. ; bellies letters By the Macquarie Dictionary.
Science Fiction Cannot Be Literature

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for continuing this debate, despite the prior misunderstanding of who was arguing what. The fact that she has continues arguing a point she had not initially thought she would have to argue shows great character. I will keep this brief as I know my opponent has to depart shortly. --- A few definitions I think we are missing here. First: classic Classical (literature): a body of literature regarded as great or lasting, esp that of ancient Greece or Rome (1) This is just a quick definition from an online dictionary, but I think that it sufficiently serves our purposes here. The 'classics' that we are familiar with are all from before our time (or before mine, anyway), but it seems a but of a stretch to say that nothing written today will ever be considered a classic. As a text is defined as classic when it has proven to withstand the sands of time, it is hard to determine at the time of writing what is and isn't classic. "Science fiction is a make up story. It is not real". Is any fiction truly real? By definition, no. All fictive works, whether they are set in a modern, historical, or futuristic setting, are essentially made up. However, I will grant that there is more creativity required to write science fiction that realism. "Literature for example written by Shakespear, is classic, and has literature value". I would like to take a moment to note that I discussed Shakespeare in my previous argument, but as my opponent seems determined that it is the perfect example of what literature should be, I shall explore it further here. "although it is a story, it shows human nature, love and hatred, etc." Precisely. Shakespeare's plays are considered literature not beause he told 'true stories', but because the stories that he wrote offered insight into humanity's very core (2). Take, for example, Shakespeare's last play: The Tempest. The Tempest featured a wizard, a witch, a tree spirit, and a demon, and yet managed to explore significant themes, including colonialism, religion, and the nature of theatre (3)(4). While this is not a direct argument for science fiction, as the Tempest is most certainly not science fiction the way we would use the term today, it does prove that something does not have to be 'realistic' on order to be literary or a classic. As such, there is no reason to rule our science fiction using this excuse. --- (1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (2) http://www.shakespeare-online.com... (3) http://www.penguinclassics.co.uk... (4) http://www.studymode.com...
God exists

My first argument is going to be focused on the idea of the teleological argument, that is, the world is too designed to have been brought about on its own. 1) We all have gone outside and smelled the fresh air, gazed on the seemingly endless horizon, and laid in the soft and comforting grass sometime in our lives. (if you haven't I highly suggest so, it cures cancer). I am sure, being on debate.org, that we have all considered how the world has been put into place and designed to run perfectly without defects. My answer is that you, me, and the rest of the universe was created by a higher deity, God. 2) My first example will be about the position of the earth. I learned this, in fact, in 7th grade. My teacher showed us that the earth is placed in the perfect position so that it isn't too hot or too cold, regardless of the time of year. Even in the hottest places in the middle of summer on earth will never be over the temperature for live to thrive. If the earth were any closer then this figure would be dramatically changed, to the point of being fatal. In addition, if the earth were any farther away from the sun then we would all freeze in the coldest times of year. Even where the earth is in the universe points to a great designer. 3) My next point is that somewhere in the world there is a particular insect (the name escapes me at the moment) that has the ability to project from its abdomen a pyro-based chemical that is used against its predators. First of all, coolest bug in the world. Second of all, assuming that my opponent or anyone reading this is a follower of evolution, this would be physically impossible to accomplish through evolution. If evolution claims that the world is billions of years old and if this bug started developing maybe a few thousand years ago, then it would make sense that it had to evolve to acquire this ability. If you research this bug, which I suggest it is very interesting, you will find that its anatomical structure is so precise, radical, and important to its survival that it would've evolved correctly the VERY FIRST time for it to have worked correctly. If it had made a mistake it would either not work or even blow up. If every bug did this, then it wouldn't be able to pass its findings to its children, then all of its children would blow up, then their children would blow up, until you have no more " fire bugs". 4) My argument is simply stating that if we live in a world of design, there must be a designer.
God exists

I have been challenged to this debate and I accept Both of us share the BOP and the person that presents the best case for why a God does or does not exist will win. My adversary shall start his round with contentions. Meaning his R1 he shall go straight into his case In his last round he shall type "no round as agreed upon" Failure to type this in the last round shall result in a full 7 point loss due to him having an extra round. Lets begin. I pass it over to my adversary to start his case.
God exists

At this point there is nothing to refute sadly. My adversary has used the bible as a source which is not a credible source in this type of debate. He would first have to show that it is accurate. In addition to this he says"Something coming from nothing is what God is about"He accidentally conceded by premise that something can come from nothing or without a cause, which negates the fact that we need a God. There is no need for a God if the universe could cause itself or does not need a cause in order for it to exist. I am going to offer one brief contentionBible is not a source.The only rebuttals he used were form the bible. If the bible is proven wrong he loses this debate. I am just going to touch on this slightly with the age of the earth.When we look at timelines for the earth according to the bible it is roughly 6 thousand years old [1]. Now how do we know this is false. I could do an entire debate off of this but will keep it short(a) carbon datingThrough dating and other forms of measurement we can see that some of the rocks on earth are shown to be nearly 3 billion years old [2]. In addition to this we can use half life and other various methods to tell the earth is more than 6 thousand years old. If the earth is older than 6,500 years the bible is false unless you are taking a epoc stance on the days in which God created the earth but when reading this literally and not subjectively it is 6,500 years old. Even in the Greek and Hebrew versions of the bible almost all text points to this being a literally seven days no matter how you play semantics with it. (b) dendrochronologyThis is(dendron = tree, chronos = time, logos = word = the science of): The science that uses tree rings dated to their exact year of formation to analyze temporal and spatial patterns of processes in the physical and cultural sciences. [3]Basically this is measuring a trees rings to see how the tree is. More in depth but that is the short version. Just some younger trees have been discovered to be 8,000 years old with others being 11,000 years. This is the younger ones and the dates of some trees go back even further than that. For the purpose of this debate 8,000 is sufficient though. [4]ConclusionThere is no need for a God. My adversary also conceded the point something could come from nothing negating the need for a GodI also refuted the fact the bible is accurate[1] http://bridavis.chickenfactory.net...[2] http://www.talkorigins.org...[3] http://web.utk.edu...[4] http://waynesword.palomar.edu...