BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Heterophobic aid organisations should lose their charitable status

Yuletide Greetings! So, theLwerd is back? Many a long day have I dreamed of exacting my revenge for the previous defeat I suffered at her hands and now I have my chance! So, with no further ado, let's cut to the chase: A few years ago, a man was injured in a car accident just outside a remote and forgotten village in America called New Jersey and the consultant on duty at the local hospital, a certain Dr. House, fished an organ donor card out of his wallet. "How kind, how thoughtful" he said to his colleague, Dr. Cuddy, as he unplugged the life support machine and reached for his scalpel "his tonsils could save the life that new patient in the intensive care unit, what's his name again?" "Nelson Mandela" she replied, "but we can't perform a tonsils transplant using this guy because he has scrawled ‘whites only' across his donors card." Sounds like an unlikely story? Well, in fact it's based on an actual event. People can be charitable with money, organs, time, or whatever, and for all sorts of causes, regardless of generally accepted morals and ethics. But the question is - should the state recognise and support them all by registering them as charities? For example, you can raise money for cancer research by going trekking in Peru. http://www.mariecurie.org.uk... What happens here is, you go around all your friends and family and ask them to sponsor your trip. Once the airfares, accommodation, etc. has been paid for, anything left will go to Marie Curie, which is a registered charity. What is actually happening here, of course, is that your friends and relatives are paying for you to go on vacation in the knowledge that anything left over will go to a good cause. As it happens, this gave me a good idea and I asked my friends and family to donate money to charity by sponsoring me to go on a pub-crawl. I explained that after I had paid for the drinks for me and the lads, I would put the change in the charity box behind the bar. However, their responses were not generous. Even though I explained it was for the lifeboats, they refused to hand over any cash and said they would prefer to give to a registered charity instead. The point is, only certain good causes deserve to be registered charities. Many people give to Hamas because of the good work they do for oppressed people in Palestine. However, it is not a registered charity because some of the money is spent on weapons. Also, bigoted, racist thugs donate money to the British National Party to fund the nefarious activities of their fascist boot-boys in deprived inner-city areas but it is not a registered charity because it openly discriminates against foreigners. So, while people should be free to give to heterophobic organisations such as GMFA, the Government should not legitimise their discriminatory policies by registering them as a charity. Thank you.
Heterophobic aid organisations should lose their charitable status

Brian! We meet again... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Suppose your best mate was an airy-fairy bloke who got duped into marrying an arsefaced wench named Mary. Feeling sorry for the lad, you and your chums decided to throw him one hell of a bachelor party for which you wished to hire only the very best and most beautiful exotic dancers. When calling the agency from which they would derive, you specified that this was a bachelor party for your heterosexual pal and wished for entertainers who were extremely sexy and incredibly talented individuals. The manager responded with "Alright, then" and told you he'd be sending his very best strippers, Jamie and Pat. Imagine your surprise (and horror) when Jamie and Pat showed up and began removing their shirts and knickers only to reveal two sets of hairy, lumpy balls, and enough chest and pubic hair to weave a large fur carpet. Jesus bloody Christ -- the agency had sent two MEN to dance at this bachelor party, though the name of the agency you hired them from was called Girls Girls Girls. In an outcry of "False advertising!" none of your friends hesitated to pick up the phone and complain to the deranged manager. The logic behind their complaint, you see, is that they intended to hire FEMALE strippers and thus male strippers would simply not suffice to their liking. Applying this theory to charities, sure it may seem unreasonable that charities pick and choose who to help. However let us not forget that the basis of any charitable organization, in addition to volunteer work, is MONEY. People choose to donate to certain causes based on a particular premise. For instance, animal lovers donate to charities aimed at protecting wildlife or even PETA. Some feel it is important to contribute to the poor and homeless, while others think it's imperative to remember struggling families and children in other parts of the world. Whose right is it to apply OTHER'S money to suit your own needs? Those who donated to the GMFA organization did so with the intention of helping homosexuals who had contracted the virus. Perhaps they had done so because they themselves are gay and feel that their bretheran are continuously ignored or harassed in society. Maybe some feel that a lack of sex education regarding homosexual conduct is what contributes to such a large quantity of gay men contracting the disease. Perhaps they have lost a lover, friend or family member who was gay and who could not seek assistance BECAUSE of their orientation. Or maybe they simply wanted to help fund the cause. Similarly, if I donated to specifically help children in Darfur, I might be a little irked to learn that my money was actually being sent to help a family in Wisconsin. Sure charity is charity, but regardless, it is one's right to donate to a specific cause with a certain premise. Morally, the charity must do everything in their power to protect and fulfill that expectation.
Heterophobic aid organisations should lose their charitable status

Imagine you are in a restaurant and you order cream of mushroom soup for starters, but when it arrives it turns out to be utterly tasteless so you send it back to the kitchen. Now, the reason your soup lacks flavour is that the restaurant has run out of salt. However, the chef, not wanting to disappoint a valuable customer, decides to improvise, and masturbates into your soup in order to add a salty flavour. The only trouble is, the chef has AIDS, which you subsequently contract as a result of consuming the semen-enriched soup. But you don't despair. You have heard of a charity that helps victims of AIDS called GMFA and you go to see them. http://www.gmfa.org.uk... Unfortunately, all your hopes are dashed when they tell you that they are biased against normal men and explain that before they can help you, they need to see your gay ID (keys to a Jeep Wrangler, membership card from the Cristiano Ronaldo Fan Club, receipt for a caffe latte from Starbucks, etc.) At this point, you are forced to admit that you are straight and on hearing this, the GMFA counsellor spits in your face and says: "Your sort make me sick to the pit of my stomach. What with your kissing girls and watching motor racing on TV. As far as I'm concerned, if you are straight you deserve to die of AIDS. Now get out of here, you disgusting piece of heterosexual filth." In my opinion, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong and aid organisations such as GMFA should be have their status as registered charities revoked. Thank you.
love marrige is good than parents happiness

I did not misinterpret your topic. You clearly state "love marriage is good than parents happiness" with you being Con. This means, your implying that the parents happiness is more important than you as an individual being happy romantically.I'm having a tough time understanding your argument here due to grammar errors, but I'll do my best here.Con says "you should love in a romantic way but the point is that if you doing this before marriage and against the will of your parents than it is wrong.."How is loving someone against your parents will? You can't control who you love. You can't control your emotions. Again, like I said before, love has no limits nor boundaries. You shouldn't sacrifice your happiness and future for your parents own rules/ boundaries and so on.2-as my well known opponent said they live lily as grandparents. I agree this but this point Is quite misleading with main topic. Parents will become will become happy only when this marriage would be with their wish.
love marrige is good than parents happiness

I am sorry to say but pro has totally misinterpreted the message . I think you have not gine through the topic . Let me tell you that love maarige against the will of parents happiness is the topic. 1-you should love in a romantic way but the point is that if you doing this before marriage and against the will of your parents than it is wrong.. 2-as my well known opponent said they live lily as grandparents. I agree this but this point Is quite misleading with main topic. Parents will become will become happy only when this marriage would be with their wish. I am sorry to say but all the arguements you posted were of a maariage in which both families are happy which should be. Only point I want to raise is simply that we should have marriage with one whom iur parents also accepts with happiness and not that in which only we are happy. So my friend I think now the topic is more clear to you. Waiting for your arguement
love marrige is good than parents happiness

Thank you Con for your argument. From Con's argument we know that Con is implying that: A) Con thinks you should'nt love someone in a romantic way. B) Loving someone romantically means you have betrayed your parents. C) You should only love your parents. First off, Con says "The definition of love is all complete but when you associate this love wid marrige it becomes some what different" As provided by the definition, love is a feeling of deep affection for someone. There are no restrictions on love or boundried. Nobody made arule that you should only love your parents. This is your opinion, not a fact. Con then says "Parents who give birth to you , look after you day and night and what they receive a betray!!." How is becoming an adult and getting married to someone you love a act of betryal? I mean, your parents had to have sex and love eachother to make a baby, even you. No love=no sex= no kids. Then Con says "I dnt understand how a child can forget a love of 20 years in front of 20 days so silly thing" Again, this is based on opinion. Its not a fact that a child forgets their parents. So, are you telling me, you're going to be living with your parents until you die? You don't want to get married, nor have any kids because you think loving somebody beside your parents is a betrayal and sin? Con states "Parents are left behind to cry for the rest of life over such a child really ridiculous thing." Many parents want their children to grow up, get married and have children so that the parents may be grandparents. Many parents are happy for their children. Honestly, if i ever have kids, I want them to grow up, and get married and have children. I'd be compleatly happy with that. How is that bad?
love marrige is good than parents happiness

Yes well said by you . The definition of love is all complete but when you associate this love wid marrige it becomes some what different. Parents who give birth to you , look after you day and night and what they receive a betray!!. Is that for this day they give birth to us. A big NO. Its just a simple thing for a boy or girl to fall in love and get married but for parents itz rather a big deal for their reputation . The society kills them by their crticisim. I dnt understand how a child can forget a love of 20 years in front of 20 days so silly thing. Parents are left behind to cry for the rest of life over such a child really ridiculous thing. Friends its time to think over this issue as tommorow when you are going to become parents than what if you are unhappy and your children get maaried. Its quite easy to talk about this issue but in reality its a very complex issue.
love marrige is good than parents happiness

Thank you Con for starting this debate! I look forward to a enticing and challenging debate! :D I will use this round for acceptance, and definitions. *Love-an intense feeling of deep affection. *Marriage-the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship. *Good-to be desired or approved of. *Parents- a father or mother *Happiness-is a mental or emotional state of well-being defined by positive or pleasant emotions ranging from contentment to intense joy. All definitions from Google definitions. I await my opponents argument!
electoral college should be abolished.

I don"t understand the land money thing, But uh. . YOU ARE A DUMBASSSSSSSSS It was built undemocraticly by DESIGN. You idiot. Let me show you: John Quincy Adams - "The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, Democracy was the most unstable, Fluctuating and short-lived. " Samuel Adams - ". . . It does not require a majority to prevail, But rather an irate tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people"s minds. . . " Benjamin Rush - "A simple democracy. . . Is one of the greatest evils. " Noah Webster - ". . . Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is most tyrannical government on Earth. " Now you see. It was made that way by design.
The principle of empirical verifiability by David Hume is flawed.

The principle of empirical verifiability by David Hume is flawed for several reasons. First, Hume's theory of language seems to exclude large amounts of data that is otherwise considered to be meaningful. For example, the existential claim that false vacuum exists (unified forces vacuum) would be meaningless under Hume's theory of language. In a more familiar setting, if I claimed that there was a rabbit in what appeared to be a rabbit hole, my claim would be meaningless until I verified my claim. To speak more broadly, any existential claim that had not been verified up to this point would be meaningless. This clearly is a major flaw with Hume's theory because it blocks both fringe scientific theory and everyday existential claims from having meaning. Second, Hume's verification theory blocks claims that everyday language users consider to be endowed with meaning. To speak more accurately, Hume's verification theory blocks claims that everyday language users themselves endow with meaning. For example, most English speakers in the United States endow words like love, hate, liberty, justice, with meaning, even though they are meaningless terms according to Hume's theory. In other words, it cannot be confirmed empirically that justice exists outside of individual and collective consciousnesses, even though most language users conceptually understand justice as something that exists outside of their own consciousness. Since Hume's theory fails to address the use of these terms and the meaning that language users endow with them, Hume's theory is a flawed theory of the meaning of language. Finally, from the above analysis, it can be claimed that Hume's theory inaccurately would claim that terms like God, Satan, and soul are meaningless. Since language users typically endow such concepts with meaning, i. e. they have definitions and one can use the terms correctly or incorrectly according to convention, and since Hume's theory excludes them as meaningful, then Hume's theory has made a mistake, and, therefore, is flawed.
Respect from teachers.

DefinitionsRespect- Due regard for the feelings, wishes, or rights of others:Teacher-One who imparts knowledge or instructs (someone) as to how to do something (especially in school)Opening StatementTeachers shouldn't have to be respectful in a classroom to be a good teacher.Proof/StatementsTeachers shouldn't have to be respectful to successfully complete the function of a teacher. The function of a teacher is to educate students upon the matter in which they are teaching (their subject). To do this successfully, a teacher doesn't have to consider the student's feelings, wishes or rights of others. A teacher just needs to impart knowledge from teacher to student. They could simply go to the front of the class, draw a diagram, explain it, and leave(under the assumption, the diagram is an effective diagram). No respect was shown, yet the student left with a greater understanding of the subject.I believe what you are referring to is disrespect. However, disrespect and not showing respect are different. Here is a website which shows this much more clearly. http://www.vocabulary.com... A teacher may be a good teacher without being respectful as well as not being DISrespectful. Final StatementA teacher can do their job adequately without showing respect.Rebuttals "It says in the bible Matthew 7:12So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets"Unless debating about religious doctrine, the bible is almost never acceptable (in professional debates) as a legitimate reason to avoid or condone an act."I sit in class mindin mine and my partners own business. A teacher will walk up too you and start yelling at you because she thinks your off topic which you weren't."Your own experiences are almost never acceptable as evidence as there is quite a bit of bias in them." People don't understand us students don't even have the right to speak in a class and ask help from a fellow student. It is disrespectful they say when they won't step up and teach the class when you don't teach then what's the point in giving kids something they don't know and expect them to know it if you don't teach!"Not teaching is different than not respecting. Not teaching (in some regards) is disrespect, and your debate is for respect, not against disrespect. I believe your entire argument was just personal experiences and bashing disrespect. You are allowing your own beliefs and experiences control your ability to debate and the result is a complaint, not a well constructed argument. Let me remind you, this is not a website for complaining. Please take your problems elsewhere.Sources http://www.vocabulary.com...http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...;
Respect from teachers.

Many kids in this generation suffer from depression or have family problems. When they go to school they expect respect and kind behavior. It says in the bible Matthew 7:12 "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. Well in school students don't get the respect from the teachers they want. Yes, students do disrespect teachers but people that don't disrespect them get no respect from teachers. I sit in class mindin mine and my partners own business. A teacher will walk up too you and start yelling at you because she thinks your off topic which you weren't. People don't understand us students don't even have the right to speak in a class and ask help from a fellow student. It is disrespectful they say when they won't step up and teach the class when you don't teach then what's the point in giving kids something they don't know and expect them to know it if you don't teach! What bothers me is that teachers get away with calling kids stupid when they try their best to get the work done.
Football (Ray Rice)

Yeah, sorry officer. I may have stabbed my fiancee with a knife but I was angry? He did in fact punch her on purpose, so that falls short. There may have been some hitting on her side, but he's a professional athlete that is paid to hit or be hit by muscular, grown men. There is an obvious power difference between the two. I have hit someone before, but this does not justify my actions or Rice's. I think that's pretty easy to comprehend.If I'm a football player and I am paid partially to remain in physical condition, then I don't punch someone with enough power to knock them unconscious.
Football (Ray Rice)

He Didn't Mean To Knock Her Unconscious, He Was Only Angry and Punched Her Out of Anger. He Dragged Her Out of The Elevator Of Course, What Was He Supposed To Do? Leave Her There? Main Thing is He Got Angry and Punched His Then Fiancee, Knocking Her Unconscious, But Not On Purpose. Adding To This Matter of Fact, She Had Done Something First, He Didn't Just Punch Her First. We Sometimes Get Angry and Do The Same Thing, Haven't You Ever Hit Somebody? You May Not Have Knocked Them Unconscious, But Who Knows When You Might?
Football (Ray Rice)

I assume the topic of the debate is about the domestic abuse situation involving Ray Rice, and you are defending him? While we all get angry and some have or continue to take this anger out in a physical mannor. However, this does not excuse his actions, nor do they really apply. How the majority has or does act does not make the action okay. Your defense does not apply to Ray Rice's actions, for he not only punched her, but he knocked her unconscious and dragged her unconscious body from the elevator. How often do you find yourself doing either of these acts?
Feminism is not an ideology of equality

"You completely missed the point of the first paragraph." [sarcasm]Wow, what a clear explanation.[/sarcasm] "And what's to stop me from turning around that argument? I can just say MRA's are for equality between men and women." This debate is not about MRA's. Stop going off on tangents. "Not to mention the terminology flaw: if its equality for everyone, then calling it feminism seems a rather misleading idea." Agreed, but that doesn't change the definition. "I'm elaborating on the debate." No, you're distracting from it. "Also: that's nonsense. How many feminists do you hear screaming about how domestic violence against men is just as common as it is against women, if not more so? Or how many feminists do you see out in the streets protesting that the education system is massively skewed in favour of girls? Or, at least, how many do you see that DO NOT preface it by saying that it's a part of 'the patriarchy'?" I never said that I agree with the methods of movements that CALL THEMSELVES "feminist". Any philosophy which is not of equality between genders is by definition not feminist, regardless of what they call themselves.
Feminism is not an ideology of equality

You completely missed the point of the first paragraph.And what's to stop me from turning around that argument? I can just say MRA's are for equality between men and women. But that's a self-defeating claim, because that's like having two soccer teams wearing identical jerseys, trying to score on the same goal, yet they think they are competing against one another and butting heads. Not to mention the terminology flaw: if its equality for everyone, then calling it feminism seems a rather misleading idea.I'm elaborating on the debate.That's a quote I heard that I enjoy bringing up because its rather appropriate. I never claimed it was from a dictionary. Also: that's nonsense. How many feminists do you hear screaming about how domestic violence against men is just as common as it is against women, if not more so? Or how many feminists do you see out in the streets protesting that the education system is massively skewed in favour of girls? Or, at least, how many do you see that DO NOT preface it by saying that it's a part of 'the patriarchy'?