BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Work is for slaves and overachievers

My money came from a very large Inheritance, So I don't have to be a slave and I'm certainly not an overachiever. I don't need the governments money, That's for deadbeats, Trailer trash, Lazy dopes and the mentally ill in disability. The overachievers can pay into that, And the slaves can have their wages cut by the government taking money from them. I use off shore accounts, So do a lot of the politicians in fact as disclosed in the Panama Papers. You know what drives me nuts, The losers who win the lottery and say they will go back to work. What a FN loser. You are telling me you have no interests, Desires, Hobbies, Life outside of work? Pathetic For me I don't even have enough time in a day to do everything I want to do, I can't imagine working and trying to have a life outside of work. But slaves get brainwashed in school to prepare them for the next 40 years of their lives for slave work, Than when they are old, Decrepit than they can retire with their meager pension. What a joke. I'm sitting in a shay lounge chair by the ocean on a white sand beach reiterating my points on this debate. Work is for slaves or overachievers and I'm neither. I'm fortunate enough to be financially sound so I don't have to be someone's slave, I don't need to police the roads, Or fight fires or more likely sit in some cubicle staring at a screen for 8 hours a day. People choose different careers because, Yes they need to eat and pay their bills and to survive, Which in turn sounds like slavery to me, With the exception of getting paid, Sure they get paid but it's never enough, People always complain about their salaries and not having enough to buy the things they need, Just enough to get by, Sounds like slavery to me. Then there are the overachievers who go out and make tons of money because they can't stop for a second to smell the roses, They need to keep working and working to move up for status and power, Real overachievers! I believe there is more to life then work. I'm not going to be someone's slave for minimum wage, Or someone's bitch to keep a job so I can pay the rent/mortgage or buy food. We will always have overachievers, Thousands are born everyday, They can go right ahead and keep overachieving in the work force and bossing the slaves around for their meager wage, Just enough to eat so you can keep working. No thanks that's not for me. I'm traveling, Getting a nice tan, Eating well in nice restaurants while the slave waiter and waitress serve me hoping I tip them well because their slave wage is barely paying the bills at home, And watching the overachiever manager running around like a chicken with it's head cut off trying to make sure all patrons are seated and everything is satisfactory. Life is great when you are free of slavery and not an overachiever, Not a care in the world, The world is only dark and grave for the slaves. I'm free from work and I could care less about it, I'm living the dream
Work is for slaves and overachievers

You are sitting under the umbrella that the government paid for, The drinks that food stamps bought you. I'm not saying that I wouldn't rather do any of those things. I am saying that sometimes you have to do things you don't want to to live a nice life. And you can have hobbies and different things outside of work, I don't understand that point. I would MUCH rather do all those things, But you talk about teenagers having an education and not wasting their time with different things, How is the government supposed to pay for the teenage labor camps that you suggest when they have to pay for people like you who think that everything should be given to them?
Work is for slaves and overachievers

I already made my money Work is for people who have no lives outside of it, No hobbies, No interests, No bigger dreams. Unfortunately most people need to eat and have shelter and all the other basic necessities of life so they have to be slaves to their jobs. How many people actually enjoy their jobs, 10%? Maybe, And those 10% are the overachievers. Are you seriously going to tell me you would rather get up early out of bed and go to work rather then spend a nice morning with your family, Maybe go for a nice drive, Play some sports, Travel, Pick up a new hobby, Maybe tinker around in your wood shop or work on an old car, Or just go hang out with friends, Maybe see a movie, Do some shopping, Or just sit back in the backyard and read a good book. Only overachievers go to work because they have nothing better in their lives, And can't spare a minute to sit back and actually enjoy their lives, Smell the fresh air, That's ok they are usually dead early, Just look at Steve Jobs, Serious overachiever, Where is he now? Ya Ya you are going to say how is society going to function without people working, I will let the overachievers worry about that, While I sit with my umbrella drink in Bora Bora
Work is for slaves and overachievers

For thousands of years work has always been performed by slaves or overachievers that just love to go to work because they have nothing else in their lives, No hobbies, No interests so work is the only thing they know. Work is a redundant task that your boss doesn't want to do so he has you do it for the rest of your life or until you find another job doing another redundant task. Slaves need to do it to eat and survive and overachievers do it because they have nothing else in their lives and without it they would not survive without boredom. (pathetic) I say work is just a waste of time, There are so many things in the world to do and see who has time for work, I want to travel more, Read good books, Visit family more, Hang with friends more, Let the slaves and overachievers run the economy
Rock music is the only right music

Do you know such singers as Adele? Did you listen to her songs? They have the meaning and moreover the background. Nearly everything which she sings is taken from her memory, from her own heart... And only she is singing like that. For me both rock and pop music have the meaning, but I cannot be divided between these two sides. Both this musical directions are great and I advice not only you but also many other rockers to think about how it is really silly to divide the music. Music is beautiful itself but everyone feels it differently.
Rock music is the only right music

Are you indeed sure in it? The more I watch pop singer's videos the more I am shocked by their inanity and similarity one to another! NeYO, Madonna, Lady GAGA, Justen Bieber, Selena Gomez... how many of them? Numerous and very often they plagiarize from each other. And their words... So stupid, empty... they are nothing. You said that you like rock music, so you must know Nickelback song about such singers "When we stand together". So how can you persuade me that I am wrong?
Debate.org (this website) should allow all years of birth from 13 years ago up to year zero

1) Just because people may or may not be familiar with their exact date of birth (which you cannot really make this argument if you are going to assume humans that can live for unknown lengths of time) does not mean that it is okay to discriminate against them. No more so than you could say that because blacks are less intelligent, they don't need to be allowed into school. 2) Pro has provided no reason to believe that his method would have a lower error. Since we are assuming (due to Pro's R1) that people can live for any indefinite length of time, we cannot say that a cutoff of 100 years will have an error of X and that a cutoff of 2013 years will have an error of Y without knowing at least vague stats about these undocumented age-defying demigods. While there are people that do live to over 100, I go back to what I said in R2 that there is no reason to set the date back past 1897 (the birth year of the oldest known living human). Once they are included to that year, there is no logical data for anything past that, it is all fairy tale. To reiterate, there is no reason to arbitrarily select the year 0. As said in my R2, the birth year on DDO does not limit whether you can participate or not. As said in R2 (and re-said in this round), there are no known humans that were born before 1897, and so little reason to go beyond that. Since Pro wants to assume the existence of demigods, there is no reason to stop at year 0 and exclude any demigods that were born before then. This proposal by my opponent does not solve any problem and only changes where the supposed "discrimination" occurs. Let us move into the final round with our summations of the debate. Thank you,
Debate.org (this website) should allow all years of birth from 13 years ago up to year zero

I will respond to this with two different issues that both need to be addressed. 1) The scripting is actually not very difficult at all. There are a number of ways to do this, you could have "AD" and "BC" be a simple switch that can be triggered to one or the other. Based on the switch, the math is extremely easy to put it. The coding for this is actually not very difficult, as there are already many switches that our profiles use, one more is not a big deal. Another way would be to get rid of "year" altogether and simple allow the user to type in their age and then have their birthday date be the day that the age is given a +1. That as well is not too hard. 2) This does not address the issue. Whether the limit is at year 0 or 1912, some people are being excluded in proper representation. So if some people are being excluded, it is better to exclude for no additional effort, rather than exclude for some additional effort.
Debate.org (this website) should allow all years of birth from 13 years ago up to year zero

So my opponent's only point is that people over 100 years old may use the site. This is easily addressed. First, the birth year does not matter and does not have any impact on whether someone can use the site or not. If a 104 year old wants to use DDO, they will not be stopped by this limit. Of course, should this really be an issue on purely ethical grounds, then there is no reason to go all the way back to year 0. The oldest living human is 115, born 1897 [1], so there is no reason to go any further. Now, Pro did account for this in their opening round, by suggesting that there may be some very very very old people that we simply don't know about. However, this does not in any way support going to year 0. The likelihood of someone being born in the year 114 AD still being alive is the same as the likelihood of someone being born in the year 114 BC still being alive. There is no reason to hate on one and not the other. So changing the year to 0 does not solve the problem, only changes the arbitrary year that the problem focuses around. Thank you, [1] http://todaynews.today.com...
Debate.org (this website) should allow all years of birth from 13 years ago up to year zero

Since this is a debate on a change of DDO, the BOP falls on the one suggesting the change. Also, given that any change will take time and effort of Juggle away from other potential changes, should the debate arguments result in a completely agnostic and neutral position, voters should vote CON. I will assume that this debate is being done in good faith and integrity and that all words are held to their common meaning in such context as the resolution. With that, I will allow my opponent the first word. Thank you,
Debate.org (this website) should allow all years of birth from 13 years ago up to year zero

Firstly someone could genuinely (off the record in some supernatural form) be very very old indeed but the main issue I have is that even though it's easily possible to make any positive number up to the age-of-14, year, available for selection they only allow people 100 or under to use DDO as beginner but this is DEFINITELY rude to anyone who begins using it at 101+.you cannot refute this by saying 'no one over 100 years uses the Internet' because that is an invalid assumption that is unfalsifiable and also unproveable.
infidels dont like muslims

Just because a person does not belong to a religion or does not believe in one, doesn't mean that they have to question, or to attack another's belief. Even so, that doesn't prove the fact that infidels do not like muslims. And for your argument.... If I were to assume your belief behind "banning" muslims, which is because most terrorists are muslims, then I would have to say that you are wrong. Many terrorists may be muslims, however, not all muslims are terrorists. [1] [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
The patriots are the greatest football team in NFL history

Well... only one argument was made in bonnieboy's post. This was that the Patriots are not a bunch of cheaters because they only cheated once. All definitions are from thefreedictionary.com Just to be clear, the definition of cheater is: v.tr. 1. To deceive by trickery; swindle: cheated customers by overcharging them for purchases. 2. To deprive by trickery; defraud: cheated them of their land. 3. To mislead; fool: illusions that cheat the eye. 4. To elude; escape: cheat death. v.intr. 1. To act dishonestly; practice fraud. 2. To violate rules deliberately, as in a game: was accused of cheating at cards. 3. Informal To be sexually unfaithful: cheat on a spouse. n. 1. An act of cheating; a fraud or swindle. 2. One who cheats; a swindler. It's nowhere stated that in order to be called a cheater, one must cheat multiple times. However, for clerical purposes, I'd like to concentrate on one definition: "An act of cheating; a fraud or swindle." To clarify further, I'll define a and an A - Used before nouns and noun phrases that denote a SINGLE but unspecified person or thing An - An is in fact a weakened form of one; both an and one come from Old English n "one. Both of these denote singular things. So therefore, to be a cheater, you only have to cheat once. Therefore, they are cheaters. This matters specifically because it makes their coach look alot less genious. Granted, he's probably a good coach... but the fact is, he cheated at least once. I'd also like to bring up the fact that this may not be the only time he cheated. This is just the only time he was caught. Anyway, my opponent dropped all arguments (even though he did have time), and therefore the arguments should be treated as conceded arguments. Thank you.
The patriots are the greatest football team in NFL history

Hello, my argument today is in favor for the patriots being the greatest football team in history. As everyone knows the patriotshave the best offense, and their entire starting offensive line is going to the pro bowl. Tom Brady is the best quaterbackplaying now, and can throw with procision and accuracy. Not only are they going to win the superbowl again, while being undefeated, but theyare going to surpass many other records. If anyone doesn't agree with this, you should go to hell
The patriots are the greatest football team in NFL history

Well, my opponent has made no attempt to respond to my points, nor counter my arguments... and that's exactly why I should win. Also, I'd like to reprimand the crude language my opponent uses. It makes for a less enjoyable experience for all those involved. There were a few arguments made in the comments, and while they shouldn't be voters, I'll respond. Cheating Argument: So you believe, that in order to be a cheater, one must cheat multiple times. Well... look at my previous argument. The word cheater indicates that to be a cheater, you must cheat only once. The Patriots did that, and therefore should be labeled as cheaters. Exactly how much did they cheat? Who knows? There is no possible way to find out the amount of teams they videotaped, because they weren't always caught. However, that is no a reason to just assume they'd only done it once. Only a handful of steroid users have been caught, so does that mean that nobody else uses steroids? Of course not! It's just there is not enough proof to indict others. Exact same situation here. Look to ANY of the teams I listed above (Bears, Packers, 49er's) and NONE of them have any blemishes on their records. So, for all the reasons presented before this post, and in this post, I believe I have won the debate.
there is proof that the bible is scientificly sound

Any honest scientist or mathematician would agree that in order to get accurate calculations one must have an accurate and fixed reference point, something we do not have in the I Kings text.Actually; it doesn't matter the size of the cubit because pi is dimensionless. The number of cubits can be used more accurately so we do 10 cubits times 3.1415.....=31.415 cubits as the diameter and that will work. Also even if it was off by just 0.00000001% it would still be an error and unacceptable in an infallible interpretation because if God says it then it MUST be exactly what he says.In answer to the second contradiction, First, linean classification was not available when Leviticus and Deuteronomy were written, nor did a specific scientific definition for what a bird was exist. The classification of animals was made by function and form. This can be seen in the definition of words used to describe animals in the Old Testament. For example, the word here that we render "fowl" comes from the Hebrew word, "owph" which means flying creatures, to include birds, winged insects, and any animal that owns a wing. It comes from a root word that means to cover or to fly.It doesn't matter that linean clasification didn't exist; if it was God telling them that, then there can be NO mistake; a bat MUST be a bird.In answer to the fourth query, I will quote directly from the bible, And God said, "Let there be light,"" and there was light. (Genesis 1:3) If you`ll notice the reference it comes BEFORE the plants (Genesis 1:12)This doesn't work as a solution because God didn't make objects that produced light on that day; if we take it to be metaphorical then it could mean the big bang but the light from the big bang died off long before plants were around.Finally, has the bible incorrectly ordered when man was created? The author of the SAB reads into these verses more than they are saying. The Hebrew does not have a past tense.A past tense isn't needed; according to the first creation narrative man was created on the sixth day after all the other animals but in the second narrative it states that god made other animals to be his "helper." The idea of man being created first in the second one is reinforced by God stating that Adam was alone. If the Earth is flourishing with animals then Adam should NOT have been alone.SOURCESSkeptics Annotated Bible
there is proof that the bible is scientificly sound

Miscalculation of pi: Then he made the molten sea; it was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high. A line of thirty cubits would encircle it completely.10 is the diameter so we multiply that by 3.141592653........, and we get 31.4159265...... if we divide the circumference by the diameter that God gave we get 30/10=3.00; WAIT 3 ISN'T PI!!!!!!!!GOD WAS WRONG?!!!!!!Bats: And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, and the vulture, and the kite after his kind; every raven after his kind; and the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, and the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, and the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. Bat's are not birds however the bible makes it pretty clear they are.All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest.Insects do NOT have four legs; they have six.Genesis 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. This is the third day.Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. This is the fourth day.Big problem; plants come before the sun; plants need the sun to make food so they can grow but plants flourish BEFORE the sun is created.Genesis 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. Two problems; no one in the bible ever went to America; there were and still are herbs and trees in America but since no one could go there they weren't given those herbs and trees. That goes directly against what God is saying. Then you have another problem; many plants have defense mechanisms that are harmful; think about it like this would you tell your children to go into the forest and eat any fruit you find even though there are posionous fruits in there? SEVEN DAYS OF CREATIONThe universe was not formed in seven days plus the order of events is wrong.Genesis (again)Man was created AFTER other animals--Genesis 1:25-27Man was created BEFORE other animals--Genesis 2:18-19WHICH IS IT?! DID YOU CREATE MAN BEFORE OR AFTER?!!!!A few examples of the hundreds to thousands of scientific and logical inaccuracies.
All humans ought to assume that the Christian God does not exist, based on lack of evidence.

Hello. I would like to argue for the statement making up the title of this debate. Con will argue against the statement. First round is for acceptance Second round is for opening arguments Third round is for rebuttals Fourth round is for further arguments/rebuttals Fifth round is for conclusions. The "Christian God", in this case, is the deity described in the holy book of Christianity, which is the Bible. No semantics or trolling, please.
The best is Religion not science

1. Religion- defining the cause of nature. So science is the "best religion, because it is the the most accurate. Science is the most accurate because it is based off real observations while other religions use unproved beliefs. So yes science is the best religion and I think that Christians and other religius people can agree that "science" is the best religion in that sense. Some other notes: 1. I'm actually not an atheist 2. I know Jesus exsisted because its not faith based, many atheists make the mistake of saying there is no Jesus 3. That question is completly irrelevant to topic
The best is Religion not science

My oppenent don't understand the origin of the word " RELIGION". [C12: via Old French from Latin religi!3; fear of the supernatural, piety, probably from religāre to tie up, from re- + ligāre to bind]Religion is to tie or bind again to a super Being which is God.One comment there said, that "science is not a religion" which is really correct.Many readers don't understand my proposition. The meaning of my proposition is this, in this world, Religion is the best compared to science. Not science is the best because there are lot of bad things created from science but i admit that there are also good. Sciencemakes humans lazy.tI make my proposition short. The best is Religion not Science.My oppenent, make sure that you read the whole statement of the online dictionary that you get your arguments. Religion is different from science.The argument of my opponent is weak and not knowledgeable of his arguments.