BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
time to put the simpsons to bed

"One suspects the only reason they still make the show is because it still brings in plenty of viewers and makes plenty of money" That would suggest that it still gets high numbers of viewers, thus still a successful show. Any show whether real or animated has to change some to keep getting new ideas and keep the script fresh. I have noticed some changes in The Simpson's" but I still enjoy it. The characters personalities have not significantly changed. That is expect for possibly Ned Flanders. I have no idea how they had him marry Ms Krabappel, they were totally incompatible. The dynamic just did not work. I am not sure when they made Lisa a vegan, but that storyline is rather pointless, unless it is some attempt to push the one co-creators PETA membership agenda. I have not watched every episode and do not claim to be a Simpsons expert. I do however remember watching the first episode when it first came on and still enjoy the new episodes today. The fact that it still has a high viewer rate should be proof that plenty of people still enjoy it and that it should remain on.
time to put the simpsons to bed

The Simpsons has been on our screens since 1989 and has always been very popular. However the shows style today is barely recognisable from what is was 20 years old. The Simpsons hey day for me was between 1992-1999. The quality of the programme has been dropping steadily since the turn of the millennium is now noticeable even to the occasional Simpsons viewer. Its has transformed from its original format that made it one of the greatest ever shows to a show that appears to try to hard to be like family guy. Nearly all the most famous Simpsons episodes are from the 1990s and I struggle to think of any great episodes from 2000 onwards. Great storylines have made way for half assed episodes filled with poor and overdone gags. The show is unrecognisable for former hard core Simpsons fans. One suspects the only reason they still make the show is because it still brings in plenty of viewers and makes plenty of money. But to true Simpsons fans its now broken beyond repair. Its like watching a sick dog get sicker when it needs to be put to sleep. http://youtu.be... (notice how all the episodes in this video are from the 1990s) http://en.wikipedia.org...
time to put the simpsons to bed

That is all an opinion but I say again the ratings is the ultimate factor in whether a shows stays or goes. It may now appeal to different people than it once did, but viewership and a persons likes do often change after 25 years. South Park is pretty much the same as always, only at times more crude than before. I don't watch it due to a baby in the house and I prefer to not expose her to that language. I personally think The Family Guy has changed more than The Simpsons. It has been a while since I watched that as well, but I know they somehow killed off Brian. Stewie has also changed dramatically, he went from evil genius trying to kill Lois to some crazed super fan adoring anything about Hollywood. They might as well have killed him off as well since they all but ruined his character. It some funny lines but it is not that original as many episodes are so much alike that I think they just rewrote them as a new episode. I can understand Cleveland leaving as he never really added much to the show, mostly just a sidekick for Quagmire.
time to put the simpsons to bed

I feel that doing two crossover episodes in such a short space of time is the biggest indicator yet that the idea tank is empty. Of course Family guy and American Dad or rip offs of the Simpsons. If it wasn't for the Simpsons there would be no South Park either. But that doesn't automatically make the Simpsons a better show. South Park like the Simpsons has changed of the years but unlike the Simpsons it still feels like the same show. It still feels unique and it is still as good as it has ever been( in my opinion at least). Although the Simpsons came along first I feel that these days its definitely them trying to be like Family Guy and not the other way round. The Simpsons has lost its way. It lost its heart and sole some years ago and its now too late now to get it back.
The United States ought to guarantee universal healthcare for its citizens.

Definitions:UHC: tax funded, government-provided medical servicesought to: has a moral obligation toguarantee: provide a formal promiseUS: the governmentcitizens: persons residing in a country that have legal statusWe should look to the Constitution and respect people's rights.Our government was created by the people for the people and must respect the rights granted to us the citizens as stated in the Constitution. By not respecting what is stated, the government has no agency. The Constitution is the only government doctrine determining what a government does and how they can act. By not abiding to it, the government loses their moral agency.Contention 1. The government has no moral obligation to provide universal healthcare because it is not stated in our Constitution.Universal healthcare, or even the term healthcare, is never mentioned in the Constitution; therefore government created did not feel it necessary or that a government should be responsible for its citizens welfare.Kelley (http://www.atlassociety.org...) simply says the Supreme Court has not recognized a Constitutional basis for any welfare right including the right to medical care. He also says, "in our constitutional system, there is no requirement that the federal government provide healthcare." These movements would take the government beyond the original conception of its role.Contention 2: Universal healthcare is coercive and goes against our rights.Universal healthcare will interfere with freedom to religion and be coercive to hospitals. All hospitals will be forced to comply with the universla healthcare standard, even private religious hospitals. Under universal healthcare, they will be forced to provide services for all who go to their hospitals even if it goes against their religious views.Relating to religious rights, some people may use religions as a way to continue using expensive medicine or medical technologies.Fleck (Leonard M. Fleck, Ethics Professor, Michigan State University, 2009, Just Caring: Health Care Rationing and Democratic Deliberation, p. 346) talks of a Helga Wanglie. "She was 85 years old and left in a vent-dependent state. Her physician tried to tell them this care was not working and could not save her. The husband was committed to a right-to-life perspective and her life was sustained in this state for 14 months at a cost (in 1990) of $800,000. Can taxpayers claim that they should not be coerced into paying for her care since religious reasons were the cause of the demand? Can individuals claim on the basis of religious commitments, unlimited accesss to costly life-prolonging medical technologies at the expense of others?"
.999 repeating is equal to 1 in reality

i am pro that means that i argue that .999 repeated equals 1 not you. apparently you are not a debater or have never a debater in high school. cons stance on a matter means that they refute the pros stance meaning that you would try to disprove my theory of it equaling 1. i rest my case because i have clearly won. i was asking you if in the mathmatical system it says that .999 repeated equals 1 because you have given me no evidence saying that it doesn't but you said there are proofs saying it does which makes me the obvious victor considering you contradicted yourself with evidence which is worse than just being confused and accidently saying something wrong, which i did not do if you reread the question;)
.999 repeating is equal to 1 in reality

You clearly just contradicted yourself, in round 3 you said of course it equals one, and then in round four you're asking where does it say that it equals one in the mathematical system. So now i'm confused if u are arguing against me or with me (your grammar didn't help me understand either). And to answer your last post, there are mathematical proofs about it; look it up. You still haven't attempted or succeeded to prove me wrong that it doesn't equal 1 in reality, and for that reason have lost the debate my friend.
.999 repeating is equal to 1 in reality

No it is not absurd. I am not claiming that we should redo or change our math system. The people who made it are smart and right of including this system of repeating numbers. But they only did that because it would have raised to many questions and confusement of how infinite numbers can be used in our math system. I am merely saying that these ideas of infinity aren't correct in reality. Prove me wrong using logic, not our math system.
.999 repeating is equal to 1 in reality

I am not doubting this fact in our mathematical system, just in reality because i understand all of the proofs and i think that there are flaws in our system of math. First off .333 repeating doesn't equal 1/3 because it's just an estimate or place holder. So thats my take on the proof: .333 repeating equals 1/3 .666 repeating equals 2/3 .999 repeating equals 3/3 This proof does not work in reality because i don't even believe the first two statements. Pretty much what i am saying is that i don't think that concepts of infinity can exist in a world of mathematical fact
All students in Australia be given NEP's (Negotiated Education Plains)

Hello CCLaity, I look forward to a good debate with you. First of all, I'd like to congratulate you for overcoming disability and being able to succeed in school. For anyone, that is a great accomplishment. However, what I construed from your argument is that there would be legislation passed that mandates that EVERY student in Australia should be given an NEP. Of course, there may be many benefits that are associated with the NEP, but you are basically trying to replace the old "One size fits all" approach with a new "one size fits all" approach. One of the points you use for your argument is that "neurological science has proven time and time again that it is conclusive fact that ALL children learn in different ways". If that is true, wouldn't replacing one blanket approach with a new blanket approach not really negate the problem at hand? Just like in Australia, this was and still is a big issue in the United States, from No Child Left Behind to Common Core. What we can clearly see from these examples is that an attempt to standardize education usually produces lesser results than what we expect. I don't have an opinion on whether the NEP is good or not, but if we were to implement it, we should establish a NEP program within Australian schools but keep the status quo to ensure that students will have more options to choose from: NEP or traditional. School choice is a better alternative.
All students in Australia be given NEP's (Negotiated Education Plains)

As a child with asperger's syndrome who attended public schooling i got a first hand look at just how messed up the public schooling system in Australia really is, Now i'm not saying that i wasn't an intellectual at school...And i'm not saying that i was "ducks of the class" either, But what i am saying is that if it wasn't for my NEP school would have been a lot harder for me then it already was. I often find that the old "One size fits all" approach to the public education system has been taken and that what John may be able to learn, it is expected that Jim can learn it in the same way to. Neurological science has proven time and time again that it is conclusive fact that ALL children learn in different ways, the very degrees even more for children with ADHD or ADD...well really any autistic "disability". My argument is that EVERY student in Australia should be given an NEP, so that they can learn and develop the knowledge they are required to learn in their own individual ways thus unlocking the potential to achieve their maximum neurological ceiling.
Papacy Is Unbiblical

Simon wasn't given the authority of supreme jurisdiction over the church. The Bible is clear on this.Roman Catholicism teaches this: David = King of the KingdomShebna = key holder of the kingdom. - Isaiah 22:15-19Eliakim = Successor of Shebna. Steward/ Key holder of the Kingdom - Isaiah 22:20-25Jesus = The Rock himself - 1 Corinthians 10:4Simon =Steward/key holder of the kingdom: The Rock upon the church is built - Matthew. 16:15-19Analysis: Revelation 3:7 is clear that Jesus holds the key of David and not only he did hold it but he also did use it! In fact,Matthew 18:18 shows that the same authority Simon has is also possessed by all Christians.The Bible teaches this:David = king of the kingdom Christ = holds the key of David - Revelation 3:7 ( explicit) Simon = Peter - First to use the keys of the kingdom- Matthew 16:15-19 ( succession is impossible)All Christians = holders of the same keys of the kingdom - Matthew 18:18 Analysis:The Bible proposes a non-contradictory interpretation concerning the Peter-hood of Simon. All Christians have common authority but Simon alone is Peter or the first one to use the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Conclusion:The purpose of the keys of the kingdom of heaven is "to build the church"( Matthew 16:18). It has something to do with the Gospel because it is alone "the power of God himself for salvation to everyone who believes." ( Romans 1:16).In fact, Acts 14:27 speaks of "the door of faith opened for the Gentiles" which Paul and Barnabas has opened for them.
homosexuals going hell ? religion is a joke

first let me say something, i was born in a Muslim country and raised that way, and came to realize that same sex gender (gay or whatever they call it) exists so this Debate will be against Muslims and any other religion that bans gay people or think they are some kind of Aliens - why do some or ALL religions say or think gay people should be killed, we were created just like any other breathing person that way - gay people are doctors, captains, engineers, teachers in every country from every religion they are in all high places, what is the point in ignoring the subject when i am sure that the very same people who still wont see gay people as normal humans also have siblings who want same sex marriage, be it man or women, it is just a gender matter, where is the sin in loving another man, or women loving a women (i dare any to argue) go ask god why he made it that way oh wait, he didn't say, he remembered all the tiny details like don't have sex with women if you are not married or rape, don't drink beer, don't sing, don't draw, don't ..don't, don't... you get the point this may be a small fry compared to the corrupt happenings in the world right now but it is not so small to ignore anymore i would believe in religion if those people had rights, but this has giving me reason to doubt the authenticity of religion and the system it works on happy debate
Gay Marriage

ohh yeah didn't you know that being gay is actually helpless and it is part of the religious stuff and as I said if they're were not peeps in this worlds you wouldn't be here and those peeps who don't wish to have children. well it's their bussiness. The issue of homosexual behavior has had a lot of publicity of late. Homosexuals say that the slaves have been freed and women have been liberated, so gay rights are long overdue. Society does seem to be moving in that direction. Many homosexuals are “coming out” and openly declaring their homosexuality. In many parts of the western world, homosexual couples receive the same recognition as heterosexual couples with regard to social security benefits. Some church leaders are giving their blessing to homosexual relationships, homosexual church members and even homosexual ministers. here is a story for you.. : I feel so sad everytime I hear these sorts of questions and its upsetting how terrible religion is. Its the root cuase of all evil and I truely believe that. How bad is that- saying people mustn't be attracted to or have sex with the same gender. Homosexuals and bsexuals cant help being the way they are- its in you from the second your born and thats been prooved. thers nothing you can do to deny it. Honestly the ony way for you to ever feel as if what you're doing is ok is to stop readin the bible love. If you're gay and are still a christiian you're going to feel like you've sinned all the time. Why live a life like that. Free yourself and be who you want to be, dont listen to some book or some persons words. You cant help it so just enjoy it and love yourself for who you are.. here it says that it's okay to be gay right or wrong.. that means it's like god created men and women for nothing but to be gay and lesbian no he created all of for one purpose to worship him alone and gay stuff does have something to say about religion and it aint cool. good luck if your winning and IDC.
Gay Marriage

(Quick Rebuttal) There are plenty of reasons why someone would choose not to have children. A man and a women CAN have a child but thats still not a matter of purpose in life.. If you feel that it's the very purpose in life to get married and have kids than that's YOUR view. However I'm afraid that your not the only one on this planet. If you think that homosexuality is a sin and that's the word of g-d than congratulations.. However, I'm afraid that there are others who don't believe that homosexuality is a sin. There are people who don't believe in your g-d for that matter. It's called coexistence and acceptance, you can inform masses and your peers about factual arguments that revolve around critical thinking but you cant expect everyone to believe in what your saying much less indoctrinate themselves with religious dogma.. That being said.. "Also for many Homosexual Muslims the concept of getting married is unappealing. Having this feeling should not prevent you from considering to get married in the future. You will discover that marriage is more than simply fulfilling your sexual needs... Your wife will insha'Allah bring you peace, tranquility, joy, security, and many other feelings that every human being needs, irrelevant of their "sexual partners". Also, while Muslims are not allowed to lie, you should keep this feeling to yourself and not share it with her or your parents for many reasons... Be patient and make it a lifelong struggle for yourself... You will see how rewarding it is at the end... Remember, there is in this world many compulsive gamblers, alcoholics, adulterers, thieves, but many of them control it and refrain from doing it... If they aren't Muslims and have the will to do it, you are a Muslim and you have Allah on your side when you seek His Help. There is no way you will fail insha'Allah... it means that if god wills." Muslims can't lie?! Fear Allah, really?! I really don't wish this debate to be transformed into a religious debate.. Pointless.. Can we please get back to perhaps a more non-religious, reasonable argument? Or is there none? Sorry for the bashing but I feel I made it quite clear how the religious argument is a flawed one enough.. *Arguments extended* If con wishes to attack them..
Gay Marriage

I don't feel like there are really any definitions to be covered so I'll go right into my arguments. *ARGUMENTS* 1. The religious argument is a flawed one. Due to the practice of secularism amongst nations, the idea that federal law should cater to religious doctrine is somewhat of a bigoted view point. The way an evangelical christian views the world should not be indoctrinated to non-evangelical Christians lifestyles by force. The way a Hindu views the world should not be indoctrinated to non-Hindu's lifestyles. The way a Jewish person views the world should not be indoctrinated to non-Jewish people's lifestyles. So on and so forth.. 2. There simply would not be any harms out of letting homosexuals marry.. Virtually none.. Health, education, wealth, you name it, would really not be impacted negative or positively from the legalization of gay marriage. It really just comes down to whether you view homosexuals as lesser beings or not. I of course do not and feel great opposition to those who believe in discriminating and ostracizing minorities for the sake of merely disapproving of their lifestyles. 3. Many "compassionate conservatives" will say that civil unions are a good alternative to marriage for homosexuals because of its great "controversy". I find this proposal to ridiculous and I will explain why.. Hypothetically speaking, lets say I formed a religion known as the "shtookah" religion and I gained over 2 billion followers. In addition my followers believe that the word of me (their god) is final. Lets say one day I decided that people with name Roy can not get married. I tell my followers that it is a sin, its despicable ect ect. As a non-shtookah follower you would instantly protest and feel that what I decreed was absolutely stupid and should certainly not apply to those whom are not followers of the "shtookah" religion. Do you see the similarity here? *MY REBUTTAL* Con makes the generalization that gays are not allowed to get married virtually anywhere. This is simply not true. There are quite a few countries that have legalized gay marriage, such as: Canada, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Iceland and even South Africa. Fallowing cons generalization, he also claims: "if they do how are they going to have sons and daughters.". Suggesting that everyone who decides to get married plan on having children, which I'm afraid is not the case. Fallowing that claim, con ends with: "god didn't create create mem and women so that man can get married to a man he created them so man and women can worship and to get married so I am a con and gay marriage is soo not my type man." I have already explained how the religious argument is a flawed one and really do not feel I need to repeat myself. Something I really don't understand what con said about g-d creating a man and a women to worship him, which implies gay people can't worship..? Sources: [1] http://www.religioustolerance.org... [2] http://iowaindependent.com... [R] http://lesbianlife.about.com...
Gay Marriage

"that means it's like god created men and women for nothing but to be gay and lesbian" HOW?! In what way, shape, or form does your previous story (that isn't even cited..) conclude that? That story was about homosexuallity, in a sense that if your gay, its who you are. You were born that way, and you shouldn't run away from who you are just because you were brought up in a home that was "ultra-christian". Although the gay gene remains inconclusive, it is almost apperant that homosexuality is somthing one is born with. - Con has conceded the debate, has not attacked any of my arguments what so ever and has yet to make a critical rebuttal. - Arguments extended Gay Gene Sources: http://abcnews.go.com... http://www.time.com... http://www.newscientist.com... http://www.livescience.com...
Who is better One Direction or Taylor swift

1. The five members of One Direction are Harry Styles, Niall Horan, Louis Tomlinson, Liam Payne and Zayn Malik. Tweet 2. To hire One Direction out for one night, it would cost over "21,000! Tweet 3. Each member of One Direction applied as solo contestants on the UK X Factor, but failed to qualify for the Boys category. They were then put together as a group. Tweet 4. One Direction starred in a series of TV ads and events for Pok"mon Black and White. Tweet 5. Liam Payne Appeared on The UK"