BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should Obama pay for his own vacations

As president Barack Obama Took his family On an African vacation. This vacation cost taxpayers 100 million dollars. With our economy in the tank And unemployment at an all time high. The Obamas Stuck the American public With the cost for there extravagant vacations. At a time when most Americans Can afford a vacation Barack charges his to the people. The government doesn't fun my vacation And I don't feel as a taxpayer I should be required to fund the Obama's vacations.
Mental Health and Crime are related

Mental health is an extremely vast term for the psychological disorders 1 in 4 people have. The disorders range from depression to schizophrenia but the stigma behind crime being induced by these mental health problems is not true. Research consistently shows there is no evidence that people who have mental issues are more violent, In fact studies have shown that those with mental health problems are more often the victims of violence, Not perpetrators. People who commit crimes who have a background of mental disorders should be held accountable for their actions, Having these problems are no excuse and don"t link back to the crimes committed.
Mental Health and Crime are related

It is not fair to assume all criminals have a mental health issue but there is often a strong connection, Between the two. Research was conducted by The Criminology Research Council, Which showed that 13. 5 % of male and 20% of all female prisoners, Have spent time in a rehab hospitals for mental illness. Less one percent of adults are admitted into a mental hospital yearly, In the general population. Rates of mental health illness in particular depression is 3 to 5 times higher in offenders.
3rd Party URL Shorteners are Untrustworthy, Unreliable, and Thus Should not be used for DDO Debates.

1. Definition of a good source on DDOThis is what DDO asks voters before having them give a source vote:"Which debater, on balance, proved their argument with sufficient quantity and appropriate interpretation of evidence?[1]"A. Quantity: Making your sources into tinyURLs in no way affects the quantity of sources you have.B. Appropriate Interpretation: Making your sources into tiny URLs obviously has no sway over how the debater himself interprets the source when presenting his case.But never does DDO ask, "Which debater didn't change their sources into tinyURLs," therefore there is no reason not to use TinyURLs in a debate on debate.org.2. Potential InfectionMy opponent contends that TinyURLs are frequently used to infect computers.And maybe that's true, but in a full five round debate on debate.org with legitimate arguments? Call me crazy, but if someone wanted to infect a computer with link shorteners, I don't think they'd put forth the effort to construct an entire debate to do so. On the contrary, if a debate was full of, "Win a free iPad!" or "Look at my titties!" followed by a link shortener, it would be obvious what they were attempting. That said, my opponent's contention implies that every debater who's using TinyURLs on this site is going around saying "Look at my titties."Which they're not[2].3. "Tinyurl ... makes a source unreliable by obfuscating where your source is from."Well maybe if the voter, I don't know, clicked on the link? As I've established, people making thorough debates on this site are most likely not spreading cyberherpies. That said, If a voter is doing is job, why wouldn't he just click on the link to see how the information was interpreted?And then he goes on to say,"It is the same reason it is shunned in academia"False. It's shunned in academia because it doesn't allow the professor or teacher who is reading the paper to know specifically where the writer got the information.And here's the beautiful thing:Debate.org is not academia.Here, you can click on the source to see where they go, which, on debate.org, is for the most part, if not always, perfectly safe(See contention 2). Conclusion:-Hiding where the source is from at first glance doesn't matter because here one can just click the link.-People who are using TinyURLs to infect computers would not be making large, legitimate debates.-The source vote criteria does not include mention of the use of URL shorteners. Therefore:TinyURLs should not sway a source vote, which as I establised in Round One is what my opponent is trying to prove seeing as he didn't object.Sources:[1] http://www.debate.org...;(on help button by sources vote)[2] http://www.debate.org...;(a debate that used TinyURLs, none of which were malicious)
3rd Party URL Shorteners are Untrustworthy, Unreliable, and Thus Should not be used for DDO Debates.

Third party URL shorteners are a blight upon the Internets already blighted landscape. Up until Twitters 140 character limit became an issue most people had no need to even attempt to use shorteners. However, Twitters adoption of its own URL shortener shows why 3rd party shorteners are inherently untrustworthy. "Having a link shortener protects users from malicious sites that engage in spreading malware, phishing attacks, and other harmful activity. "[1] In other words, the 3rd party shorteners were untrustworthy. Basic monitoring and maintenance of links to ensure malicious intent stayed off was not feasible under 3rd party shorteners. The obfuscation that shorteners provide is little more than a method to remove the ability of the user to check a link by hovering over it. Was this "source" some malicious executable that they were too dim to check, or is it a masterpiece from the Journal of Medicine? With a URL shortener you can't be sure until you click the link, and by then it is too late to stop the infection. Because of the trust some people have in shortened URLs it's no wonder spammers moved over to using them to trick users, and bypass spam filters[2]. Given that even 3rd party government URL shorteners have been used to send malicious links trusting any of them is asking to get burned[3]. Tinyurl is untrustworthy, and makes a source unreliable by obfuscating where your source is from. It is the same reason it is shunned in academia, and with individuals who are aware of safe browsing habits. If you use them anywhere don't be surprised if the reliability is questioned. [1] . http://support.twitter.com... [2] . http://www.certmag.com... [3] . http://www.pcworld.com...
3rd Party URL Shorteners are Untrustworthy, Unreliable, and Thus Should not be used for DDO Debates.

I accept. If I am unable to provide an argument for a round, I ask that my opponent not provide anyargument either, seeing as I have to be outta here on Monday. This debate was issued because I countered a sources point that my opponent assigned to a debate because "Pro used tinyURLs". I will be arguing that while tinyURLs are not reliable for formal research papers, they are perfectly acceptable to use on debate. org.
3rd Party URL Shorteners are Untrustworthy, Unreliable, and Thus Should not be used for DDO Debates.

The debate should be concluded by Sunday since my opponent has business to attend to by Monday. Third party URL shorteners will be defined as URL shorteners that provide a service for shortening URLs outside of their domain to be used outside of their domain. An example would be tinyurl, or bitly. Second party URL shorteners will be defined as URL shorteners that shorten URLs outside of their domain, but are primarily intended to be used on their domain. An example would be twitter. First party URL shorteners would be defined as URL shorteners that shorten URLs only for their domain. An example would be youtube in regards to their use of the youtu. be shortener. The Burden of Proof is mine to show that tinyurl, and its ilk, are untrustworthy, unreliable, and therefore should not be used for DDO debates.
3rd Party URL Shorteners are Untrustworthy, Unreliable, and Thus Should not be used for DDO Debates.

This will be the last round; I request that my opponent post nothing more than "This round doesn't count" in Round 4. "Even if the link appeared to be legitimate to your friend there is a good chance the site is a fake used for phishing, or to explain browser/plugin vulnerabilities."Rebutting this entire paragraph, what my opponent still is not understanding is that if someone is making a large, legitimate debate on this site, they're not going to post a link to a phishing site.In a real debate here, a tinyURL is in no way "obviously a trap" as my opponent puts it (see my source in R2 to a debate with all tinyURLs, none of which are phishing."Believing that your friends and family wouldn't send you a malicious link because they know better is allows them to spread, and debaters are no more or less likely to make common mistakes." First of all, I don't know anyone who would send a malicious link to their family, but forgive me if I don't know what my opponent is trying to contend with this.How could a debater make a common mistake like posting a malicious link to their argument?Watch what I mean. I'll post a link to Facebook.http://facebook.com...Now I'll make it a tiny url.http://tinyurl.com...It's still Facebook, whether It's a tinuURL or not. If anyone was to fall victim to a malicious site, it would be the person searching for sources, not the person evaluating them."Does this affect the quantity of the sources? Yes, because a link you shouldn't click is as good as absent, and a source you should not open cannot have its interpretation verified."I feel like if I say "wow", that'll dock me points. I'll say the basic thesis again:If someone wanted to ruin people's computers with a bad link, they wouldn't waste time making an enormous debate to go with it.Say someone cited Facebook in a tinyURL again. Once again, it's still Facebook."Obfuscation is the act of hiding information, and by Cons own words'it doesn't allow the professor or teacher who is reading the paper to know specifically where the writer got the information'." I completely understood what my opponent was saying. And on a website rather than a paper, the information's source cannot be hidden, because unlike on a paper, on debate.org you can click to see where it's from (and no, it's not automatically malicious because it's tiny).And so, my opponent could not answer the simple question:Why not?Once again, I ask that my opponent post no more than "This round doesn't count" in the next round.
3rd Party URL Shorteners are Untrustworthy, Unreliable, and Thus Should not be used for DDO Debates.

Lets say a friend sends you a link to one of their favorite news sites, but when you read the link you notice that there is a common misspelling the the URL. If you have safe browsing habits you'll never click the link. Even if the link appeared to be legitimate to your friend there is a good chance the site is a fake used for phishing, or to explain browser/plugin vulnerabilities. Clicking on the link is the last thing you should ever do. If your friend had used a URL shortener you'll never know that the URL is obviously a trap, and thus you should never click on it because you can never know. My opponent is under the mistaken assumption that hacked web sites are only Spam related, and easily spotted under visual inspection. He is also under the mistaken impression the just visiting a link to verify isn't dangerous, but given the number of Zero Day exploits, like the ones found in the Java Browser Plugin[1], that is a naive assumption. Anyone can make a mistake, and find themselves on a malicious web page. Believing that your friends and family wouldn't send you a malicious link because they know better is allows them to spread, and debaters are no more or less likely to make common mistakes. Does this affect the quantity of the sources? Yes, because a link you shouldn't click is as good as absent, and a source you should not open cannot have its interpretation verified. My opponent has also made a false accusation. It may have been that my opponent is unfamiliar with the word obfuscation. Obfuscation is the act of hiding information, and by Cons own words "it doesn't allow the professor or teacher who is reading the paper to know specifically where the writer got the information". In other words it hides where the information is from. I also did not say that tinyurls shouldn't be used because of the Academic position, but that the reason for not using them happens to be the same. I await my opponent's response. [1]. http://arstechnica.com...
Oveprotective (not to be confused with strict) fathers (regards to daughters) are wimps

"some overprotective wimp who will kill another man just for being next to his daughter" "These are all cases where this has happened" Voters, I encourage you all to read the articles that Adam posted. Can you tell me if anyone of them fits the aforementioned scenario? Also, I am not sure about the case in Germany, but in the United States, anyone accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty, so its hardly fair to say that all of these people did the things they were accused of. If the fathers were Feminists, they would let their daughters have free will over their lives, not be influenced by their father's old-fashioned views. Also, I would like for you to consider this scenario. A girl invites her boyfriend to her house to meet her father. The father stands up and shoot him in the face with a shotgun. Now, would you, and anyone who you have ever heard of in your entire life consider this to be wimpy. Are people who just straight up murder people whenever they want wimpy? I would like you to consider reading some of the following pages about feminism. Do ANY of the beliefs listed on these pages equate with what Adam is saying? You also never explained how a overprotective father would be a bisexual. I fail to understand what logic lead you to this. I ask that the voters take note of Adam's conduct in both the debate and in the comments section. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.feminist.com... http://www.feminist.org...
Oveprotective (not to be confused with strict) fathers (regards to daughters) are wimps

Problem is, your entire argument is based off of your own opinion. If you begin to present some actual facts, you might change some minds. However, you have no factual evidence. Also, the videos which you posted are hardly evidence. If you watch them, most of them are clearly intended to be humorous, or at least the titles are.Actually unless they say "comedy" or "entertainment," they're clearly not meant to be funny. The first video though was a mistake. It was clearly for an entertainment purpose, being it's tagged with entertainment. As I am sure all of the voters know, http://onlineslangdictionary.com...;(or Urban Dictionary, ect) are not valid sources for words. Actual words will be in dictionaries that are recognized normally, such as Miriam-Webster or Oxford Dictionary of English, neither of which contain the word "Mangina"You attempt to refute my talking about it being hard to find a case where someone killed another man just for being next to his daughter. Obviously, I was correct, as your response was a bunch of irrelevant videos.I apologize for not having given this earlier. These are all cases where this has happened:http://www.nbcnews.com...http://www.cbsnews.com...http://www.youtube.com...(go to 14:28 in the vid)http://scaredmonkeys.com...http://www.nydailynews.com...All of these are overprotective wimps committing these crimes.Apparently, my opponent believes that feminists advocate women being told what to do by men. Voters, I know you are all smart enough to know that is not the case.http://www.avoiceformen.com...While "manginas" are one name for them, "white knights" are another. These are feminists who will defend women, even if they're man-hating.As for your remarks saying that feminism makes women follow man's commands, that's never what I said. It's not the whole story. The case of fathers not wanting their daughters to procreate is not a case of women wanting to date other men. These fathers bow down to their wives and take all forms of nonsense from them. All of the cases of overprotective fathers of this magnitude come with wives who are strongly feminist.If it weren't for feminism we wouldn't hear of this.I have already proven that overprotective fathers (who are not be confused with good fathers wanting to lay down rules for their daughter) are wimps.
Oveprotective (not to be confused with strict) fathers (regards to daughters) are wimps

Problem is, your entire argument is based off of your own opinion. If you begin to present some actual facts, you might change some minds. However, you have no factual evidence. Also, the videos which you posted are hardly evidence. If you watch them, most of them are clearly intended to be humorous, or at least the titles are. As I am sure all of the voters know, http://onlineslangdictionary.com... (or Urban Dictionary, ect) are not valid sources for words. Actual words will be in dictionaries that are recognized normally, such as Miriam-Webster or Oxford Dictionary of English, neither of which contain the word "Mangina" You attempt to refute my talking about it being hard to find a case where someone killed another man just for being next to his daughter. Obviously, I was correct, as your response was a bunch of irrelevant videos. Apparently, my opponent believes that feminists advocate women being told what to do by men. Voters, I know you are all smart enough to know that is not the case. Back to you Adam.
Oveprotective (not to be confused with strict) fathers (regards to daughters) are wimps

I will be arguing that Fathers who are overprotective of their daughters are not "Wimps", "Manginas" (Not a word), "Bisexuals" or "Spineless"."Mangina" is a word.http://onlineslangdictionary.com...A mangina is a man who will side with feminists and man-haters, and is ashamed of his masculinity. He will talk about how other men are horrible, much like feminists do.There are few cases of this-"some overprotective wimp who will kill another man just for being next to his daughter"In fact, I think you would be hard pressed to find any case matching that description and if you did, I doubt anyone except you would describe it as "wimpy".http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...None of these videos have the category "comedy" or "entertainment" on them so this is pretty serious.They're not true men who want the best for their daughters and want to set rules. These are guys who are just looking to kill other men.Also, feminism advocates that women can stand up for them selves, but you apparently believe that feminism advocates that men prevent their children from reproducing. Wouldn't that be oppression of women by men? And wouldn't this be directly at odds with feminist doctrine.Actually it wouldn't. Isn't the one thing that feminists call rape sex? Most major feminists do that. http://www.youtube.com...;While the nature of this video is meant to be satirical, the video clips are real. Feminists do these things.Now, for these wimpy fathers, yes, pre-maritial sex is indeed immoral. I 100% agree. However, that's what loving punishments are for. You don't threaten your daughter's boyfriend with violence. Do you ever hear of fathers doing that to their son's girlfriends? No, you don't. If my son breaks the rule of premaritial sex, you can bet I'm going to punish him, severely. However, I will not let some mangina punk touch my son. I mean, aside from breaking a rule, what did this young man do to hurt the young lady? The only thing he's guilty of is breaking my rules and having a good time with her. No young man should have to go through this nonsense. This is feminist garbage. Likewise, a good father punishes the daughter who did this, not the boyfriend who had a good time. There's no reason to hate him, because he didn't do anything bad. The only thing he did was have a good time. It's not a crime. It's not a moral thing, but he didn't harm the girl.So no, I absolutely believe these types are wimps. A real man would not partake in this behavior. I understand being jealous of your wife. That's different. But your daughter?
Oveprotective (not to be confused with strict) fathers (regards to daughters) are wimps

wimp informal noun a weak and cowardly or unadventurous person. I will be arguing that Fathers who are overprotective of their daughters are not "Wimps", "Manginas" (Not a word), "Bisexuals" or "Spineless". There are few cases of this- "some overprotective wimp who will kill another man just for being next to his daughter" In fact, I think you would be hard pressed to find any case matching that description and if you did, I doubt anyone except you would describe it as "wimpy". Also, feminism advocates that women can stand up for them selves, but you apparently believe that feminism advocates that men prevent their children from reproducing. Wouldn't that be oppression of women by men? And wouldn't this be directly at odds with feminist doctrine.
Oveprotective (not to be confused with strict) fathers (regards to daughters) are wimps

I will argue that most overprotective daughters are spineless wimps, who are influenced by feminism, or are bisexuals. These kinda fathers hate the idea of a young man reproducing with their daughters. They've actually said it.Most of these men are manginas in reality. I mean what do they want these boys to do? Not procreate at all? Most of these types justify it by saying, "I was once a boy, so I'm just protecting my daughter from boys."There is a line between a father who disapproves of his daughter partaking in premaritial sex, because it's immoral, as opposed to some overprotective wimp who will kill another man just for being next to his daughter.
Should Schools Have Better Security

well let me start this off right. 1. schools already require a mandatory officer. some schools with worse neighborhoods and increased gang affiliations ex: Chicago do have more security and metal detectors and extra personnel. 2. i can tell you that at my school i have a retired green beret who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and would have no problem absolutely handing our asses to us. 3. most cops are also armed and loaded to take down any such threat (please increase word count)
Should Schools Have Better Security

So, i'm thinking that schools should have better security. Reason why: well i think it would be a lot more safe and parents would suggest that school for parents looking for a school for there children. It will also prevent bullying and in case of a emergency there will be more people to help out. Lets say there is a man or 2 wanting to come in a school and steal computers raid classrooms etc. There should be a security guard or someone to watch the school for a little while to keep it safe
Should Schools Have Better Security

Alright so did you know that i actually said that the officers in schools are police and sometimes military trained. They carry fully loaded handguns, which can kill, and they also carry a variety of non lethal weapons, such as batons, pepper spray, tasers guns and handheld tasers. at my school we have a pa system at the front door that must be opened by someone in the front desk. all doors that lead from inside to out are locked at all times and don't even have a handle on the outside.