BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
unknown

আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যাï¿½াউন্ট আছে এবং আমরা বিতর্ক করার চেষ্টা করছেন কি আমাদের স্প্যাম করার চেষ্টা করছে তিনি আমাকে তি72;&9l495; আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যাকাউন্ট আছে এবং আমরা বিতর্ক করার চেষ্টা করছেন কি আমাদের স্প্যাম করার চেষ্টা করছে তিনি আমাকে তিনি আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যাকাউন্ট আছে এবং আমরা বিতর্ক করার চেষ্টা করছেন কি আমাদের স্প্যাম করার চেষ্টা করছে তিনি আমাকে তিনি আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যাকাউন্ট আছে এবং আমরা বিতর্ক করার চেষ্টা করছেন কি আমাদের স্প্যাম করার চেষ্টা করছে তিনি আমাকে তিনি আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যাকাউন্ট আছে এবং আমরা বিতর্ক করার চেষ্টা করছেন কি আমাদের স্প্যাম করার চেষ্টা করছে তিনি আমাকে তিনি আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যাকাউন্ট আছে এবং আমরা বিতর্ক করার চেষ্টা করছেন কি আমাদের স্প্যাম করার চেষ্টা করছে তিনি আমাকে তিনি আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যাকাউন্ট আছে এবং আমরা বিতর্ক করার চেষ্টা করছেন কি আমাদের স্প্যাম করার চেষ্টা করছে তিনি আমাকে তিনি আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যাকাউন্ট আছে এবং আমরা বিতর্ক করার চেষ্টা করছেন কি আমাদের স্প্যাম করার চেষ্টা করছে তিনি আমাকে তিনি আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যাকাউন্ট আছে এবং আমরা বিতর্ক করার চেষ্টা করছেন কি আমাদের স্প্যাম করার চেষ্টা করছে তিনি আমাকে তিনি আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যাকাউন্ট আছে এবং আমরা বিতর্ক করার চেষ্টা করছেন কি আমাদের স্প্যাম করার চেষ্টা করছে তিনি আমাকে তিনি আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যাকাউন্ট আছে এবং আমরা বিতর্ক করার চেষ্টা করছেন কি আমাদের স্প্যাম করার চেষ্টা করছে তিনি আমাকে তিনি আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যাকাউন্ট আছে এবং আমরা বিতর্ক করার চেষ্টা করছেন কি আমাদের স্প্যাম করার চেষ্টা করছে তিনি আমাকে তিনি আমি মনে করি এই ব্যক্তির একটি একাধিক অ্যাকাউন্ট আছে &#
Whitebeard vs. Madara

Full Resolution – Whitebeard (Edward Newgate) would probably beat Madara Uchiha in a fight. As Pro, I affirm the resolution and will argue that it is more probable that Whitebeard would win in a fight against Madara Uchiha. Rules: 1. Both characters will be at full health and will have no injuries at the start of the fight. 2. Madara will not be in edo-tensei and will be in his most recent form as of now, and Whitebeard will be as we saw him at Marineford (all in accordance with rule number one). 3. The setting will be a limitless plain with several lakes near the area of the fight. 4. Both characters will start off approximately 25 meters from each other. 5. No outside assistance is allowed. The exception to this rule is Madara's shadow clones, but when using the limbo jutsu, he is only allowed one clone at a time. 6. Whitebeard will receive his bisento, and Madara will receive a limited amount of kunai as well as his gunbai. 7. Both characters will have all their abilities intact (in accordince with rule number 5). BOP – The burden of proof shall be equally shared.
Bathrooms

I OPPOSE!!!!! Middle of crowd: In some third world countries, deficating in public is niether proper nor improper form. They just do it because they have no established lavatories. Therefore, since you have not specified a country for which proper conduct should compared to, I negate that relieving yourself in public is socially acceptable behavior In the pants: infants do it all the time, and yet people accept it. Therefore, there are also cases where defication in ones pants is okay.
Bathrooms

And so our story concludes. In memory of King John II Jennifer moved to New York, and is now attending classes at NYU for computer graphics. Fred still lives with his mother. Hoosierpapi when on to fulfill his dream of becoming a chef in the regions finest Denny's. Phillip later married the waitress Stacy. They have two kids. FalseReality never quite got over his drug addiction, but is attending regular rehab in Massachusetts.
Empty apartments/homes and unused land should be subjected to a tax.

1) My opponent asks, "Why then is ALFA corporation only using 25 acres?" He could only think of two reasons for that but there are more, A)one being that ALFA is to inefficient to properly utilize that land, B) two being that ALFA's profit gain wouldn't be too minimal (such as $1) to warrant the effort to develop that land, and C) three being that ALFA doesn't want to utilize the land because it will make a larger profit by creating food shortages. The point of the tax isn't to help corporations get richer; it is to help the overall economy and society. If ALFA has to pay a tax on its unused land because it is to inefficient to develop on it then this tax will provide incentive for ALFA to either sell the land to someone who believes they can grow crops on it; or it will provide ALFA incentive to develop the land themselves instead of leaving it idle. Second the taxes gained from taxing idle land could be used for two things either reducing the deficit, or reducing taxes on other things. For the time being I postulate that the tax revenue made from taxing idle farm land be used to cut farm taxes, and that the tax revenue made from taxing empty apartments be used to cut apartment owners taxes. This means that corporations overall will not see an increase in their tax burden. The only corporations who will see an increase in their taxes are ones who refuse to use the land to produce goods. 2) It is cheaper to install "modern appliance" then to build a whole new apartment complex. A) The major reason the second apartment complex is made is because the owner of the first one has rent so high that the builder of the second one know he/she can build it and maintain a lower rent that is able to turn a profit. This is bad for the economy because it results in an overproduction of apartments meaning resources are wasted. B) My opponent argues that we shouldn't put a financial burden on apartment owners; but he is missing the point that in doing so we actually save the economy money. A tax on empty apartments gives incentive for the apartment owner to lower rent so that people move into those apartments; the only reason he would pay the taxes is either because he build a crappy apartment complex that no one wants to live in, or because he is to stubborn change business practices in order to increase the amount of renters. Both those things are bad for economy and society at large. C) The incentives also apply to new apartment builders. They will know that if they have empty apartments that they will be taxed, meaning they will have more incentives to build the proper amount of apartments that is required for the area. 3) As I mentioned before, the taxes on unused land and buildings provides incentives to use those buildings, and land. The economy is better off when land and buildings are used to produce goods. Food costs are a major financial strain on most Americans, and millions of Americans currently are jobless. Those Americans could be working growing crops in idle land; keeping that land and their labor idle doesn't help society.
Empty apartments/homes and unused land should be subjected to a tax.

1 - In the example of ALFA corporation, Pro assumes that it would be beneficial for the corporation to utilize the other 75 acres of land. To use those acres, ALFA would have to incur expenses such as planting, watering, pesticides, consulting, harvesting, processing, and distribution of final product. These expenses are only offset, resulting in profit, if there is sufficient demand for the product. If there isn't enough demand, ALFA will incur a loss by using those extra acres. Why then is ALFA corporation only using 25 acres? I can only think of two reasons: There isn't enough demand to justify planting more crops, or ALFA corporation doesn't have the capital to carry the expenses through harvest. In the first case, taxing ALFA corporation won't do any good, in fact the tax would hurt a corporation that is already running below capacity due to poor economic conditions. In the second case, taxing ALFA corporation would only contribute to their capital problems, making future expansion more difficult.2 - In the example of the two apartment complexes, there is obviously a reason for the second complex to have been built. Demand drives an economy, and the current demand trends in housing call for larger, open floor plans, modern appliances, modern fixtures, higher ceilings, and other such modern attributes to homes. Many people will choose to pay more to live in a newer, larger, modern apartment than a cheaper, older apartment. This demand is what causes new complexes to be built when others are still vacant. The only way to change the natural supply/demand process of the free market would be to take away the freedom and force people to move into existing complexes. Taxing the empty apartments would only hurt those who are trying to turn a profit in an area of housing where there is less demand. It would do nothing to incentivize people to consider housing that they don't desire.3 - Pro states that increasing taxes on unused land and apartments would somehow stimulate the economy, without giving any reasons as to how such taxes would increase demand. Without demand, there can be no profit.I assert that unused apartments, homes, and land should not be taxed, because doing so only adds additional financial burden in an economy with low demand and struggling balance sheets.
Empty apartments/homes and unused land should be subjected to a tax.

1) The sole reason for a tax on unused land is to help improve the economy by creating incentives to increase production, and reduce the amount of idle land. For example say corporation ALFA owns 100 acres of arable land, and say that the corporation only plants crops on 25 acres of that land. A as result we have 75 acres of land that could be used to increase production, provide jobs and feed people. Increasing those 3 things would help the economy. 2) The sole reason for a tax on empty homes/apartments is to improve the economy by creating incentives to reduce homelessness, foreclosures, rent costs, and to decrease overproduction of apartments/homes. For example there's an apartment complex down the street and only around 75% of the apartments are filled yet they just built another complex right next to the old one which only has half its apartments filled. All those empty apartments are currently going to waste, and it was a waste to build a new complex when there were enough empty apartments in the old one to accommodate the growing population. 3) A tax on unused land, empty apartments and homes makes it more expensive to have unused land, apartments and homes. Because of these extra costs the current owners of the unused land/apartments will either sell off the land to someone who's willing to use it, use the land, or pay extra taxes for their wasting of valuable land that could be used to increase employment, and production.
Resolved: Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) confirm common ancestry (evidence for evolution)

Resolution: Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) confirm common ancestry (which is evidence for evolution). Definition: "Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are retroviruses derived from ancient infections of germ cells in humans, mammals and other vertebrates; as such their proviruses are passed on to the next generation and now remain in the genome. Retroviruses are viruses that reverse-transcribe their RNA into DNA for integration into the host's genome."(1) Proposition 1. Humans and Chimpanzees share 16 K-Class ERVs and the only way this could happen is if there is a common ancestor. Humans and chimpanzees share some 16 K-Class ERVs with chimpanzees, the probability that a virus infected a human and a chimpanzee in the EXACT same location 16 times in a row is "1 in 2 x 10^138...." This is the roughly equivalent to the "chance that you have of being struck by lightning after just winning the Power ball, Pick 3, and Pick 4 lotteries while simultaneously throwing snake-eyes at craps, being dealt a 2-card blackjack, winning on black 13 in roulette, AND being dealt a royal flush in poker with no draws, all THREE TIMES IN A ROW," you and your friend randomly picking the same "molecule [of water] from all the world's oceans", being involved in a plane crash "at precisely 9:00am, exactly 24 hours before a comet strikes the Earth killing all life as we know it." (2) http://www.youtube.com... Proposition 2. 135 different vertebrates were sequenced for ERVs and the distribution of ERVs matches the hierarchical distribution expected if evolution is true (3). The 135 vertebrates sequenced include reptiles, birds and mammals (3). The fact that ERVs are inherited, they're shared between multiple species, and the improbability of a virus transcribing its RNA in the EXACT SAME location of the genome of different animals leads us to conclude that pretty much the only way multiple animals could have obtained those unique sequences in the DNA is if it shares a common ancestor. Proposition 3. The existence of common ancestors for multiple species of animals confirms that macro-evolution occurs. Proposition 1 and 2 show that humans and chimpanzees must have shared a common ancestor, and 135 vertebrates which were sequenced for ERVs also show that they must have had a common ancestor, all of this matches the hierarchical distribution of life which would be expected by evolution. I wish my opponent good luck, I hope you enjoy this debate, and thank you for accepting it! (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://www.mediafire.com... (3) http://jvi.asm.org...
Fashion is an invented social construct primarily used to reinforce elitism

Closing Statement I would like to point out to all voters that the affirmation has only Rebuttles all my arguments and failed to present any logical, and reasonable evidence for his side of the debate. I brought up many sufficient and logical points to support my argument that fashion is simply another industry like all the rest that supply and demand effects. It has nothing to do with social status. Since the affirmation failed to debate for his side effectively, only tried to keep turning the debate around from my logical points, and that my side is common sense I urge a vote in negation. Unlike my opponent I kept my arguments short, sweet, and to the point while my opponent dragged out long and dull arguments.
Fashion is an invented social construct primarily used to reinforce elitism

Again and again you are trying to go back to the argument that people buy for social status, yet I have debunked that again and again" did you, I only saw the words 'economic reasons' being repeated despite that fact that its a catchall phrase for all types of motivation, you'll need to provide more clarity than that I'm afraid. "The fact that many wealthy people don't partake in the fashion industry shows that fashion must not have anything to do with social status" - no it doesn't, it only proves you can be rich without having an interest in fashion, agreed, but also not relevant, my argument is that people use fashion to reinforce and advertise their social status, if you're rich you don't have to buy expensive clothes but if you're not rich you can't, I'm arguing that there are some who can afford designer clothes and buy them to display their higher social status. Your argument is a Propositional fallacy -- http://en.wikipedia.org... "People buy and sell and wear clothes cause it's a hobby they have" or "People get involved in fashion not for social status but for economic reasons or an interest in fashion" -- Yes this is true, but why is it an interest?, clothing for millennia was purely used for warmth, protection and a display of social status, why do people wear designer brand, do they provide greater warmth or protection from the elements? Its the same with cars, you want to go fast you buy an ariel atom, you want to show off your wealth you buy a Ferrari. "You have failed to provide reasonable evidence as why it has anything to do with social status" - have you seen anyone on the red carpet wearing a store bought dress? Do bankers wear off the rack suits? have you seen royalty wearing khaki's? Clothes have throughout history been a sign of social status I now hand you the burden of proof to show why things have changed. "just simply try to make my arguments irrelevant" -- that's debating, also they don't prove your points they're vague and full of fallacies.
Fashion is an invented social construct primarily used to reinforce elitism

1. Again and again you are trying to go back to the argument that people buy for social status, yet I have debunked that again and again. The fact that many wealthy people don't partake in the fashion industry shows that fashion must not have anything to do with social status. 2. Like I've stated three times, fashion is a hobby, a interest, just like sports are. People buy and sell and wear clothes cause it's a hobby they have. My good friend who's a girl is middle class yet wears extremely fancy clothes and such as she wants to go into clothing design cause it's an interest to her. People get involved in fashion not for social status but for economic reasons or an interest in fashion. You have failed to provide reasonable evidence as why it has anything to do with social status and just simply try to make my arguments irrelevant when they are extremely relevant since they prove my points.
Fashion is an invented social construct primarily used to reinforce elitism

Thank you for your response, here is my rebuttal; "they buy cause it's a interest that people take", yes but what is the defining reason for the interest, people have an interest sport for the excitement of watching their team win, but in fashion what other advantages other than a bonus to social status, and the additional attention and comments you could receive? "wealthy people all the time will wear trashy clothes cause they don't care about clothes", yes these are people who do not engage in the fashion industry, and thusly not relevant to the debate. "People buy clothes depending on their personalities and interests" - of course, but do the people who buy the latest designer brands do so because they have a 'Gucci' personality? Do some people buy expensive designer clothes because they are interested in fashion, I wouldn't say no but when spending thousands on a bag is someone really thinking I hope this helps them finance more interesting designs or are they thinking how much attention they'll get from wearing it? "which is why it's economical" - all decisions are economical, again this has no bearing, the debate is to discuss the reasons for these 'economical' decisions.
Fashion is an invented social construct primarily used to reinforce elitism

Thank you for replying, "it's just economics" True, but then everything is economics, economics is the study of behaviour of individuals and there actions, my argument is that the defining motivator for individuals to engage in the 'fashion industry' is one of obtaining and displaying a higher social status. Your statement that's it's due to supply and demand is not relevant to the debate(the question is; what is the primary social cause of the demand? http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.investopedia.com...
Fashion is an invented social construct primarily used to reinforce elitism

1. The reason for all these types of designer clothes that are high priced and such is that fact that the designer clothing industry is a industry. People go into this industry cause it's all they are interested in and then there are consumers who are as well. It's simple economic of supply and demand, their is a demand for high quality clothing from those into the design and a supply of those into making them. 2. It has nothing to do with elitism, as shown in my first point it's just economics.
Fashion is an invented social construct primarily used to reinforce elitism

New here but please feel free to challenge me if new yourself or experienced pro. I currently feel that the fashion industry is an invented social construct primarily used to reinforce elitism, and provides no benefit to society and infact is often a overall negative. To clarify 'fashion' I do not mean people dressing the way they want to, but more the industry;Catwalks, designer brands, magazines, the idea of 'trend' & 'trendiness'. I believe that for example 70's style clothing looks worse now than it did, but merely that the culture has changed and now its suggested its unattractive or not appropriate, though if worn well someone could easily wear a 70's style and look good(good being attractive to possible mates and comfortable with themselves) Mostly looking good is about finding a mate and gaining acceptance within your local community & peers, >>biologically we want to breed, an activity which is usually done naked >>if you're comfortable with your style your friends will except you however you dress (within reason eg; cleanliness, not garish) The fashion industry is about money, the reason trends and what's 'in' changes rapidly, is to sell more clothes. Expensive designers produce crazy, unwearable clothes because most sensible perfectly reasonable clothes have already been designed and crazy is a way to 'look' creative and advertise your main line of clothes which usually bear almost no resemblance to what you seen on 'high fashion' catwalks. The net negative of the fashion industry resides on its effect on women's confidence, creating an illusion most men care about how fashionable women are, when in fact most men are attracted to confidence and a sense of style that suggests shared values (or cleavage, cleavage tends to attract a lot of men however you dress). apologies for the essay!, fight me prove me wrong, or at least expand my opinion. Side note; first debate please PM me with anything you find wrong with the design/structure of this debate, I'd appreciate constructive criticism cheers.
Young earth creationism

This debate is on whether Young earth creationism, hereafter know as Yec, matches with the current scientific understanding of the universe and empirical evidence gathered to date. I leave it to my opponent to expand upon what (s)he understands to be Yec. This debate is 5 rounds, with an 8000 character limit and 72 hours to argue. My opponent shall lay out his/her case in the first round, then I will respond. The rules are as follows: -No plagiarism. Quotes are ok, but if they are going to be long then please try and just say it in your own words. -Swearing is allowed and encouraged (this is slightly in jest as I find it annoying when people purposely add a rule forbidding it). -No semantics, any questions as to definitions are to be issued through the comments section or a PM. If my opponent would like me to clarify anything I have said here then (s)he can PM me or post in the comments section. If (S)he would like me to amend the resolution then (s)he can do the same. I wish him/her luck, and hope that we are both able to provide a challenge for each other.
welfare for the poor

Hello, welcome to the site, thank you for starting this debate, and sorry if you don't like the twist I put on it, I would gladly debate it again from the other point of view, just send me a challenge with a more specific resolution. The PRO has offered a resolution that states the welfare should stay the same, although she admits that welfare is very important to the country, this is completely illogical because of several points which I will cover during my arguments. 1- Economy - The United States' economy is on the decline, with this happening the amount of poverty will almost undoubtedly increase, requiring a need for more funding towards welfare to help the poor. 2- Population - As the population increases so does the population of the impoverished, if welfare has the same budget today as it does in ten years when it may have to provide for twice as many people, it will fail.