BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Harrasing Celebrities

And Merry Christmas to you and your family. Yes this debate been fun. When I was mentioning product I know that what they sell is product, that is obvious, what I was referring to was making the celebrity product and that to me is wrong. With regards to their families being involved and stating its their choice is a fine line. How many times have we seen these people go on a date to a restaurant or take the kids out for a supper and get hounded by photographers to the point of forcing their way through just to get in an entrance. Not exactly a healthy environment for a child or a date and not a choice of privacy unless the decision is stay in hiding all the time which is not fair for anyone trying to enjoy a little freedom. Yes there are times when a celebrity uses the moment to show off their date - that's their choice I get that. I agree there are those that live for the lime light and enjoy the full out attention but it's not for everyone and this is where me argument lies. Some prefer to just use the special events such as premiers, awards, and charities to showcase their appearances. To me I respect that since I'm sure their planners are loaded with these events and why not just leave it at that? An extreme example of what I remember as privacy invasion was when a camera man took photos of Will and Kate at a private retreat in France, the cameraman had to hide in the trees, trespass, and use a telephoto lens to get the shot. What's next, satellite cameras??? extreme - yes, possible in the future - maybe. (Hopefully it would never come to that). In the end it just seems very strange that one would put so much interest in another fellow humans life because of the roll they play. Another example of strange to me was when Paul Walker passed away (Fast & Furious actor) it flooded the news like a plague but when a world Icon like Nelson Mandela passed away he didn't get near that kind of coverage, nor does the mass murders that happen in other countries. Its like we all have our priorities all mixed up (probably another debate). Anyway all the best, hope you and your family enjoy the holidays pending you get the time off.
Harrasing Celebrities

At the onset I must say I am enjoying this because you are very clear in your arguments. First of all A Merry Christmas to you. Now for the arguments. Yes you have guessed right, of course they owe their success to all those people who bought the CD,concert tickets etc and the paparazzi for highlighting them. Yes of course, if they are selling whatever they make then it is a product. Whether they want to have families or not and whether they want us to know about their families is their choice. If I was harassed I would definitely take a stance because I am not a celebrity. Why don't the celebrities ever do anything about it? They themselves want to remain in the limelight that is why. If the paparazzi wanted to know the most private moments of the celebrities then they would have to use means like hidden cameras etc. That does not happen. Today's celebrities mostly talk about themselves to remain in the limelight. You are right when you say that my rights to privacy will be revoked if I choose to be an actor or actress. If that did not happen I would not be a celebrity. Being a celebrity means being in the limelight and that cannot happen if they are private. I conclude that it is their choice to make themselves public people so here we are taking an interest in their lives.
Harrasing Celebrities

I'm guessing then people feel that if a person becomes successful to the point of being a celebrity, he or she owes to all those people who bought the CD, concert ticket, and or movie the right to privacy invasion. My purchase along with others in a combined effort have now made this person part of the so called top 10 of their industry and have now (like what they sell) have become nothing more than product. So of course they best not have families because I couldn't Imagine celebrity parents nor anyone for that matter involving children in the kind of circus life the paparazzi has instilled on them based on the public demand on wanting to know everything.. You say " as far as harassment is concerned that is a problem of the celebrity and not mine". I believe the harassment is everyone's problem, I'm sure if you were harassed you would do everything in your power to stop it which may also include getting the law involved. If you or myself were being harassed, i'm sure it could be very hurtful, even life changing and with that being said you don't think it should be our problem? It's everybody's problem, in the end these are rights we as citizens have fought for with out prejudice. I guess if you want to be an actor or actress and yet your not interested in having your privacy taken from you, you best reconsider your dream because if you become famous your rights will be revoked.
Harrasing Celebrities

The ,celebrities' as you call them are 'human beings that have done very well during there careers'. Bang on there but then what makes them celebrities and who makes them so. Their claim to fame lies in the fact that we have given them recognition. So if I am instrumental in somebody being special then sure I have a right to know how and what she/he is doing. They do not remain private people any longer. To what extent one wants to know is a personal call which varies. You need not ignore your news,weather,sports score etc just to look at all this. All of it is there so you take a look at what you want to. Knowing all kinds of things will only increase your knowledge and maybe have an effect on your common sense. As far as harassment is concerned that is a problem of the celebrity and not mine.
Harrasing Celebrities

So many magazines, TV shows and social media give us the inside of the daily lives of celebrities. Really???? I still don't understand the level of infatuation one has with celebrities. Why do people feel the ultimate need to invade these peoples lives? Like I have said before, their not gods or super hero's, they are human beings that have done very well during their careers. Some have families, a life outside the stardom. Why would you want to invade their privacy's, read their drama on twitter or if they had irregular bowel movement. This again I say is so weird that people make a living off of snooping around famous people just to satisfy the people with the fix on needing to know. I thought the right to privacy is a very important part of one's life ( is it not for you as a individual?). Do you feel celebrities owe you cause you bought a movie ticket, concert ticket, pushed your family or friends aside to catch an episode on TV, or plainly you have a shrine in your spare room? It's amazing when folks like myself would be looking through the news to keep up on sports scores, currency, world news, weather and this kind of stuff is always jumping out at you. Does it even matter what the stars think about the paparazzi invading their lives to serve you? Is it your dream to catch that person being human and making mistakes leaving you with the ability to judge them? Anyway I gotta stop, obviously I'm getting carried away with what would appears to be common sense to most of us. Any more than this would be considered a rant. Just a thought of trying to understand. Merry Christmas Mike
Harrasing Celebrities

It has been a wonderful experience participating in this debate. I will still differ on the point that celebrities are everyday people like us simply because they are termed as celebrities. When one wants to enjoy the glamour that comes with being labelled a celebrity one has to accept the fact that they cannot remain private. It may cause them to feel harassed at certain points but they have chosen this life for themselves. I would also like to repeat that every profession has its brighter and darker sides and this simply is the dark side of being a celebrity. Wishing you and your family a wonderful New Year.
Harrasing Celebrities

I shall finish up by saying my arguments have been posted in the previous rounds and in the end celebrities are everyday people like ourselves and should be treated as such. if they want to have the world watch their every move that's their choice but it should also be respected for those who want to live a private and harassment free live outside their jobs as we do. To me life is to short to worry about what a celebrity is doing on a daily basis when their are everyday more important things to worry about such as politics that affect our well being as a nation, family, friends, and environment. Not mention that I don't believe we should discriminate on who should and who should not have rights of freedom. We are a humans. thank you Mike
Most People on Welfare are Lazy

Before I post further arguments I would like to ask my opponent to use proper grammar. I cannot understand what my opponent posted in round one. It is important in debates to ensure your opponent knows what you're saying, otherwise how can he respond? It is obvious that my position is the harder to prove. There is undeniable proof that welfare helps many unfortunate people who suffer from both mental and physical disabilities. I do not wish to target them or pock ridicule at their suffering. Welfare exists for the people who are weak (for whatever reason) and cannot support themselves. They are not the target of my statement "Most People on Welfare are Lazy". Instead I target those who are on welfare and have no physical or mental disability that prevents them from working a basic job. What is a basic job? It's a job where you require no skills whatsoever. McDonalds is such a job as are other skill-less jobs such as services in cleaning, yard maintenance, construction (almost) and so on. A great argument that is used usually in these types of debates is the skills argument: "People on welfare can't get a job because they don't have the proper education or skills! " This is a valid point. However it can easily be disproved. Thousands of immigrants flooded western nations back in the 70's and 80's. They came without skills and with basic high school education. However they flourished. They got jobs in coffee shops, maid and restaurant cleaning services, and other "demeaning jobs". If a skill-less immigrant can do it then why can't a skill-less American? It is obvious that many don't want to work 40-60 hours a week at McDonald's. I do not mean to be unsympathetic- I would hate working there as well. However if you are in a position where the only thing you can offer a potential employer is your time and basic use of your feet and hands then that's what you've gotta do. Millions of others go to work in these places everyday. If you are fit, able, and mentally-sound you should be right there beside them.
Most People on Welfare are Lazy

Hello everyone. I hope this will be a stimulating discussion. It is my position that the majority of people on the government assistance program known as welfare are on it because they are lazy. This may seem an offensive position to take at first glance, however it is the most rational explanation for why so many people are on the welfare system. Let's look at reason why people go on welfare first. We can assume that they have either lost a job recently or have been kicked out of their house for some reason. For both cases the person has lost a means of support. They have no income coming in to buy food and pay for housing or have no one doing that for them. At this point some will turn to welfare and allow that system to pay for them. The reasonable person will ask: why do these people not get a job to support themselves? Why do they have to leech off of the system? A popular response is to say that there are no jobs available. That the person has tried to find work but has failed. This excuse is flawed. There is almost always a job available if one is willing to put aside pride. Places such as McDonalds and other fast food restaurant hire any time. They will also hire anyone. Many people protest suggesting fast food saying that Fast Food does not pay enough to maintain a comfortable lifestyle. However the solution to that problem is to change your lifestyle. If you can no longer afford a big screen television then don't buy it. Instead of eating out buy groceries at the local grocery store and make food. If people learn not to live beyond their means they will soon realize that a temporarily stop at McDonalds will not kill them. Going on welfare is nothing more then leeching the system while giving back nothing to society.
TOC Round 2: Murder is, in general, just.

Murder - the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought) (http://en.wikipedia.org...) In general - for the most part (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Just - acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) I thank my opponent for coming up with this topic for debating for the Tournament of Champions. As he will have five rounds to argue while I have four, he shall have the burden of proof. Good luck! Note that I will not be arguing that breaking the law is always bad, but rather that breaking the morals behind them is bad.
The Septuagint is more accurate and closer than the Masoretic text to the originals

1. My mistake, the article "Chappel Louis" is found in the 1948 edition of Encylopedia Britannica. 2. Just because the Masoretes took measures to prevent errors in the transmission of the text doesn't imply that they didn't draw from earlier manuscripts which gave references to Jesus being the Messiah. This is evidenced by the comparison of Scriptures quoted above. Con is incorrect in saying that Bible Archaeology.com is a completely non-scholarly source. The staff are qualified experts and come from various backgrounds, furthermore, James A. Sanders, a scholar, is involved in providing information on the Masoretic text in the article i gave. More information can be found here http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org... Con hasn't provided any evidence for how the LXX has Christian influences in it as well nor does he Gordon provides no evidence that the LXX is produced by Christians. My point in bringing up the concept of a "virgin" in Isa. 7:14 is to show the LXX's consistency with the M.T. I reaffirm my position in quoting scholar, Adam Clarke who writes this: "..A virgin was not called עלמה almah, because she was concealed by being kept at home in her father's house, which is not true; but, literally and physically, because as a woman she had not been uncovered - she had not known man..." This was taken from his commentary on the Bible of Isaiah 7 found here: http://www.sacred-texts.com... Herbert Wolf notes: "The "marriage" solution to the relationship between chs 7 and 8 clarifies two vigorously debated points about 7:14. One is the meaning of "almah. It must mean "virgin," as Ugaritic text 77 has proved by its parallelism of 'glmt and btlt, equivalents to Hebrew "young woman" and "virgin"" (1). It is then clear that the Septuagint's choice of using Parthenos which usually means virgin according to the Wiki article "Isaiah 7:14" is consistent with the Hebrew. Sources: 1. Wolf, Herbert Martin. "Solution to the Immanuel Prophecy in Isaiah 7:14-8:22." Journal of Biblical Literature 91:4 (1972): 449-456.
The Septuagint is more accurate and closer than the Masoretic text to the originals

I accept.Pro and I recently debated another topic http://www.debate.org... touched upon this topic. However, we did not get to debate it at length, so it's nice to have the chance now. Definitions:Septuagint, abbreviation Lxx, the earliest extant Greek translation of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew. (1)Masoretic text, (from Hebrew masoreth, “tradition”), traditional Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible, meticulously assembled and codified, and supplied with diacritical marks to enable correct pronunciation. (2)(1) http://www.britannica.com...(2) http://www.britannica.com...
Coaches should not be allowed to yell at their players

Good evening :) I thank you for a compelling, and insightful debate that has been a great learning experience for me. I hope to debate you again sometime this has been fun :). Time for round 4, how fun this will be. Okay on the high school and up side, we can agree totally my friend, being as how I am a former curler in high school, I did appreciate it after a while when coaches told me firmly I needed to correct myself in certain areas. A kid will know morals, as you said, right and wrong by high school, and a coach can have a bit more discretion here. Here is my next argument though, like you said coaches know their limit. However, with regards to what you said regarding age, coaches need to be careful when dealing with younger children, for instance. A coach should never yell at someone younger than high school age, and here's why. When a coach, or anyone yells at someone else for that matter, it hurts deeply emotionally, and mentally. In a younger child's case, let's even say 6th grade, they do not fully understand some concepts fully, and even some basic sports principles. They also are still, some of them anyway, are learning to socialize, or relate to authority figures. A coach yelling at them will severely damage these facilities, and their quest to negotiate the authority figures in their lives. Authority is something kids struggle with, I witnessed it a lot in my high school years as I sat in isolation, and even in elementary school when I wasn't as laid back as I am today. A coach yelling at a young student can really make things difficult, and will likely cause them to disrespect their coach even more. If a coach is supposed to be a father-figure of sorts, or even of course, the mentor in the room, why not take the player aside and talk to them one on one, firmly yes, but kindly first, tell them what is going on, say they have told them before, ask why they remain unchanging, and either work with them gently, or talk to their parents. Yelling at them is not the best way to do things in these cases. Therefore with this argument in mind, I respectfully rest my case for round 4. Again, thank you my friend for a wonderful debate that has taught me a lot already. I look forward to your content in this round.
Coaches should not be allowed to yell at their players

A coach knows their limit. If it's a child on a team, of course they won't tell at them with full force. But if they are in high school and up, God have mercy on them. By that age, you should know whats right or wrong. A coach wouldn't yell at a player for making a mistske. They would tell at the player for making the same mistake over and over. By mistake, I don't mean dropping the ball or missing a goal. I mean not paying attention and not trying your best. Like I said previously.
Coaches should not be allowed to yell at their players

Good evening. Sorry it took so long to post-back to college life. Anyways, I support most of your arguments here. My argument for this round however is simple again-its embarrassing for a coach to yell at their players. I do not personally feel a coach should do this because it embarrasses the player/s involved. I do not think you want to have the shame of being the one/s that your coach called out, or yelled at full force at practice. If there is a problem with one or more players the coach should take them aside privately and talk to them kindly, as a father-figure. Yes he should speak firmly, but kindly, not yelling at them in front of the entire team. It will be a lot less embarrassing, and a lot less bad memories of playing for that coach will remain with that player. Therefore, another reason why coaches should never yell at their players. Back to you, friend. Thanks for the debate so far!
Coaches should not be allowed to yell at their players

Yes, you are right. But the parents aren't always there. If the player slacked off all the time, they wouldn't get anywhere. Yes, its not their job to be their parents but it also is their role to take responsibility for the player. If the player gets hurt, coach does the job. 'player feeling down? Coach is right there to cheer them up. Parents are like fans, they aren't allowed on the field, or the sideline. And that's where the coach comes in. Coaches can't afford for the team to be brought down by one player. If they need to help, they will. Coaches aren't robots, they're humans humans like the parents. You practice how you play. And if you're not going to pay attention or do your best, you'll let your whole team down. Your turn my G.
Coaches should not be allowed to yell at their players

However, I am thankful to debate with you :). Now then, my opening argument is very simple, and I will keep it short since it is late at night here where I am as I write this. A coach is a coach, yes, it is their job to mentor, and as the name implies, coach their players, and teach them to hone their craft in the respective sport they are playing in. But, a coach is not one thing, and that is the job of parent. A coach is hired to teach, not assume the role of a parent. It is the job of parents, and parents alone, to yell at their children if they have done something wrong. This is not the place, or the right of a coach to do. In yelling at their players, coaches assume the right of a parent, something that they have no right to do. If a parent feels their child is in need of correction on a sport, then let them step in, and talk to their child, or yell at them if they see fit. But it is not wise, nor is it right, to let a coach assume this role. In summary, friend, coaches should not yell at their players for this first reason, they assume the role of a parent in doing so, which is not their right or their place. Thank you for the debate, friend. I yield the floor back over to you and look forward to your arguments :).
Coaches should not be allowed to yell at their players

As someone who's had coaches that yell a lot, I think they should. Good players are only formed with discipline. You may be thinking "Can't there be another way of disciplining the players?" And yes, there are, but at the same time, getting yelled at pushes the player to their limits and beyond. Reasons a student or player would be getting yelled at is lack of effort, not paying attention and etc. If they were to get yelled it, it would hit them and they'd be like "Oh, I think I need to try harder than what I am doing right now," it's just common sense. It pays off at the end because the coaches smile when they see the player they yelled at doing really good.
global warming is significantly man man made

there's no question that temperature and CO2 is correlated. you can see that in the links i provided, historically. here is that they are more than just correlated, but tied together http://www.skepticalscience.com... you can click on "advanced" for advanced explanations of the science. or you can read the simpler versiosn. it is pointless for me to repeat what it says. it gives an example of measuring the sun that gets refracted back to the earth from the CO2. and then it explains that there are ways to 'check your math' with alternative methods that pretty much then corroborate the findings. i could go on explaining it all, but that is unnecessary when you can read it yourself. con seems to eb conceding that a third of the warming is from the sun. my resolution can still stand though as all i said is that man made reaosns was significant. even if we accepted a study that said it was like two third of warming from the sun... it is still signficant from man, and that's all i resolved. even if you found a study to say otherise, the overwhelming consensus of studeis says that the sun is only a fraction of the warming cause, less than half.