BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
natural beauty is better then the make up

Yeah, those pictures look much better with make up, rather than without. But all those Hollywood stars were using make up before, consequently as I said in round 1, the skin tone changes, quality of the skin decreases and ultimately wrinkles appear, that is why they look so unpleasantly. Also, due to the degradation of property of the skin and because of their position in society, nowadays they HAVE TO apply make up to do not look ugly in front of the camera. The tip for you, if you will not apply the make up form the begining, your skin tone will never look like those superstars'. And you said that your future wife WILL wear make up, but there can be an accident, that you can marry the one beautiful, gorgeous girl, but after the marriage, when she will be tired of applying the make up, you will see the natural, real in other words, beauty and will be shocked such as at this pictures : http://media.tumblr.com... http://i2.asntown.net... and http://3.bp.blogspot.com... At all these pictures Asians are applying make up so perfectly, as I condole the husbands of their. They can totally change their faces but is not good anymore. The another fact, why make up is no good, is that it hurts animals all over the world. Because as you know probably, the make up goods are tested firstly on animals, and only then we can buy them. All of these, is due to the money, according to the expression " human beings are worst animals in the world". So, don't you feel sorry for the animals that did nothing for us?! The last but not least argument is that rather than spending money for the make up, you can collect all of them and give them as a charity, so becoming better person than you are. Concluding, I am a woman who is not wearing the make up, nevertheless this fact, I am looking after it. And looking pretty good.
natural beauty is better then the make up

In today's world everything becomes seeming. And the best example would be the women walking in the street with the ton of cosmetics at their faces. I feel very miserable about such kind of girls, as their skin deteriorating day by day. Because of the make up,even merely due to a little bit of foundation, their pores become cluttered and consequently the pimples and acnes appear. As a consequence, their skin senesces faster, which is also a disadvantage of this issue.
Stefan Molyneux is a Cult Leader

According to the website culteducation.com here are the warning signs for a cult leader: Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader. Followers feel they can never be "good enough". The group/leader is always right. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible. Now lets go through these one by one. "Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability." Now it is difficult for Molyneux to engage in as authoritarian practises as the FDR cult isn't under one roof. However Molyneux defiantly doesn't support any meaningful diversity of opinion or forgiveness of past actions which went against the message of the cult, I don't think this covers but it is close. "No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry." Any questions posed to Molyneux are quickly censored [1]. "No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement." If Molyneux has ever published a budget I am yet to find it. "Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions." Lets say that if anything counts it's this [2] in this video Molyneux claims that all his followers should remove themselves from relations and friends who are not adherents to the non aggression principle (which I accept) because all non adherents will want to kill you. "There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil." I can't find anything on this. "Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances." If my opponent denies this I suggest he look in the comments section of this debate otherwise here is a forum of ex FDR members discussing their experiences [3]. "There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader." Here are some [4] [5]. "The group/leader is always right." Other than a few inconsequentially's Molyneux more or less claims constant and unquestionable integrity [6]. [1] [2] [3] http://www.molyneuxrevealed.com... [4] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [5] https://www.techdirt.com... [6]
Stefan Molyneux is a Cult Leader

In response to the claimed censorship.1. The accusation about the censorship of opposing views on the FDR forums is not sourced or justified, and from a quick look at the forums it seems that the opposite is the case. It can be seen that Stefan is open to differing opinions, and respects them if they are presented in a calm and non-aggressive manner. This forum thread {1} is an example of a post in which Stefan is directly said to be wrong on an important issue, and, in it, Stefan replies with, quote, “Thank you so much for the information, I had no idea, I really appreciate you sharing, I will have a look in detail[.]”2. Most, if not all, of the videos in the playlist you linked that were taken down as a result of copyright claims by FDR only consisted of the audio from FDR shows with occasional captioning and commentary in text-form. These videos clearly violate copyright law, and, regardless of Stefan’s opinion on IP rights, it cannot be said that taking them down is “suppressing dissent” or is “cultlike behaviour”. At worst, you are accusing him of being a hypocrite – that does not help you in fulfilling your BOP. In response to the “Insane/Cultish Claims” 1. Just for the record, Stefan has publically recanted his views on homosexuality that you mentioned {2}. 2. The majority of the claims on your list are just said to be “insane/cultish”, with no justification as to why this is so (and, with your definition of “cult leader”, I don’t see how any of these directly support the idea that FDR is a cult), just that they are supported by Molyneux. No reasons are given for most of the claims as to why they aren’t valid, as if they are just to be accepted as being such because of some self-evident nature they possess. Even if they were completely and utterly debunked, it would be irrelevant to the debate – one is not a “cult leader”, even by the definition given by PRO, just because they support unorthodox or irrational ideas. As such, these videos do nothing to further the fulfillment of the BOP by PRO, and I do not need to respond any further to them. In response to Stefan’s support of DEFOO-ing I must ask, if the idea of DEFOO-ing is cult-like, would it not follow that most of the modern western world would be cultists? Stefan does NOT universally support DEFOO-ing - he does not want all children to disassociate themselves from their families. He advocates doing so in the cases of emotional or physical abuse – this is to be done for the child’s own sake, not in order for them to be “better devoted” to Molyneux or whatever other sinister theory. Molyneux is applying the concept of a battered spouse leaving the abuser to familial relationships. There is nothing more “cult-like” about this than there is about women supporting that wives who are being consistently harmed should leave the source of the harm, if they can. It is baseless to assert that Stefan is a cult-leader because of this. {1} https://board.freedomainradio.com... {2}
Stefan Molyneux is a Cult Leader

Before I start I am a Libertarian Anarchist (if you want anarcho capitalist) and I agree with a lot of Molyneux's libertarian views. CensorshipMolyneux has this bad habit of kicking people off of the freedomain radio forums if they directly challenge any of the points made by Molyneux. Further Molyneux has been using the DMCA (*cough* government force *cough*) to take down many youtube videos [1] [2] which criticize him. He has critizised others who use the DMCA [7].Insane/Cultish ClaimsMolyneux claims that homosexuality is a result of child hood abuse [3]. Molyneux claims that wanting to take part in contact sports is a result of child hood abuse [4].Molyneux claims that mental illness's are made up by the government [5].Molyneux claims that climate change is made up by the government [6].Molyneux claims jews were responsible for communism [8]."Physicists kind of [expletive] me off, 'cause they've always got their [expletive] pale hands in my goddamn wallet, and stealing from my child's future, indebting her. You know, go be a [expletive] engineer, you lazy, pasty bastards. Go do something useful that people wanna buy." [9].Cutting People Off From Their FamiliesFrom the best numbers I can ascertain something like 50,000 people have "DeFOOed" (left their families) because of Molyneux . This is something that Molyneux has tried to inniciate in many people [10]. This is a recognised sign of a cult [11]. [1] [2] https://www.youtube.com... (this is a playlist of recovered videos)[3] [4] [5] [6] (this acts as a rebuttal to all the claims of Molyneux )[7] https://freedomainradio.com...[8] [9] [10] http://www.molyneuxrevealed.com...[11] http://www.culteducation.com... "Increasing isolation from family and old friends unless they demonstrate an interest in the group/leader."
Pop Singers These Days are Pushing the Limits of Sexual Meaning

Sexual meaning and sexuality in general is fluid. To say that pop culture, specifically music, is pushing the limits with sexual meaning, is giving sexuality a meaning in the first place. People have the right to their own opinions about how their sexualities should be expressed. Music is a great, healthy way to express those opinions and emotions. According to Psychology Today"s website, "[Music] can be an incredibly effective way to express ourselves and cope with challenging life circumstances." It is therefore up to the artist to decide what to sing about. But pop music is popular because many people like it and enjoy the lyrics in the songs. In fact, one website states "Historians sometimes consider songs as more or less straightforward "reflections" of the society and culture in which they were produced." That would mean pop culture is not "creating a new kind of social world," but rather encouraging thrilling aspects of modern day life. Some of these sponsor a specific, rare body type that few teens have. However, there has also been a recent increase of self-acceptance songs on the top charts, such as the very popular "All About That Bass" by Meghan Trainor. Sources: https://www.psychologytoday.com... http://historymatters.gmu.edu... http://feelgoodsongs.info...
Pop Singers These Days are Pushing the Limits of Sexual Meaning

These days, the Hollywood celebrities seem to be pushing the limits a bit too far with the sexual meaning. Many of their songs have to do with sex or things that are not a great influence on girls and boys. In my opinion, they should not have so many songs that have bad influence on people (sex, drugs, girls, clubs, money), and especially teenagers. It's creating a new kind of social world, making teens feel insecure, and too self concious.
The Bible is absolute

My position is that the doctrine of the Bible is absolute, not that everyone agrees, but that it exists and it can be found using the historical grammatical method. My opponent can point out several denominations within Christianity to support his/her beliefs. Opening argument: Critics have pointed out "If the Bible is the truth, why are there so many denominations? " Why? Because the Bible has so much power unlike any other book in the world. Yes, the Bible in a way caused the crusades, "holy wars" between science and religion, between political parties, between nations, campaigns against abortion, organizations, and others. Thousands have died over the Bible. The Bible is a super-weapon (like a nuke) that corrupt and ignorant leaders would want to get their hands on to profit and enslave the ignorant, the absolute truth that men seek to distort and claim that it's "God's will. "
The argument from evil establishes the probable nonexistence of God.

The PoE is, in my opinion, perhaps the strongest argument against the existence of God and therefore I strongly look forward to the following exchange. While Pro's terms are a bit unusual, I accept them as it will allow me to have two rounds to rebut Pro's arguments. Seeing as how I am not making my own argument for the existence of God, it will not be necessary to have a third round. A note about the comments: I ask that all voters/commenters remain curteous when discussing this debate. Once again, I look forward to the following exchange.
The argument from evil establishes the probable nonexistence of God.

This debate is being set up to argue the resolution that the argument from evil establishes the probable nonexistence of God.By "God," I mean the God of evangelical Christianity -- a god who is all-powerful, all-knowing, loves all human beings and wants them to have a relationship with him. Since I am the one making the claim that the argument from evil establishes the probable nonexistence of God, I shoulder the burden of proof. Because I shoulder the burden of proof, it is appropriate that I have both the first word and the last word in this debate, as is common both in American courts and in other debates of this type. I will speak first, and I will speak last.To compensate for this, the length of my closing statement should not exceed the total unused character count in my previous statements. To put it another way, the total character count of my three statements should not exceed 16,000, the same count that my opponent will have following this round.The debate will proceed as follows:Round 1: Acceptances.Round 2: Pro's first statement, Con's first statement.Round 3: Pros' second statement, Con's second statement.Round 4: Pro's final statement, Con does not argue.Con should copy/paste the following sentence into the final round: "By mutual agreement, no argument will be posted in this space."There should be no games with semantics in this debate.If SuburbiaSurvivor agrees to these terms, I will post my opening statement forthwith.
Atheism

I now attack my opponent's first claim, that "there is no such thing as a god"-- Argument #2: God probably exists. A popular conception of God is "Creator of the Universe". I support the above as follows-- (a) That which begins to exist, has a cause for its existence. - Intuition, based on a lifetime of experience, tell us something cannot spring into existence out of nothing. This premise only needs to be probably true in order to support my argument. (b) The universe began to exist. - "The prevailing theory about the origin and evolution of our Universe is the so-called Big Bang theory." [4] Note the word origin, which implies our universe in fact began to exist. (c) The universe has a cause of its existence. - This follows from (a) and (b) above.(d) That cause is God - This follows from the definition of God. Sources: [4] NASA - "Cosmology: The Study of the Universe" http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Atheism

My opponent claims-- There is no such thing as a god AND It is all made up, including the bible. As Pro/Instigator, my opponent has the burden of proof of supporting both his claims. He's chosen a speed debate format, so I'll focus primarily on his second claim. If he can't prove this second claim, his resolution fails. Argument #1: The Bible is not ALL made up. The Book of Exodus describes a king addressed as Pharaoh who built the city of Rameses, had a royal residence there, reigned long enough for Moses to grow up, and commanded an army that utilized chariots. All of these are facts associated with Rameses II of Egypt's 19th dynasty. Thus, the claim the bible was entirely made up is false.Exodus 1:11: They built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for PharaohExodus 2:2: She became pregnant and gave birth to a sonExodus 2:7: One day, after Moses had grown upExodus 14:14: He set out with all his chariots, including the six hundred finest. Egyptian kings were addressed as "Pharaoh" beginning in the 18th dynasty. [1] Rameses was built by Rameses II (1279-1213 BCE). "Rameses II was also the king who.. made it his great Delta residence called Piramesse ('house of Rameses'), the Rameses of biblical tradition." [2] Note the construction of the city of Rameses including a royal residence there, and the 34-year reign consistent with the length that the bible requires of him. Egypt was well-known for their use of chariots, which were introduced in the 15th dynasty. [3] Sources [1] Rameses II: Pharaoh of the New Kingdom, pg. 101[2] Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, pgs. 292-294, 300 [3] Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, pgs. 89, 194, 215, 479-483 (King dating)
The Sale of Human Organs Should Be Legal

Before I start, to reply to your statement, auto-transplants are defined as the transplantation of organs, tissues or even proteins from one part of the body to another in the same individual. This being said, they would not need to purchase an organ they have that will be moved to another part in their body. To say so would, to me, be equivalent to saying whenever someone decides to relocate furniture or a television set, or they need to move it due to special circumstances, they must purchase a new one though they have one and want/need to move it. However, I have lost interest in the debate and I apologize for doing so. I realize that there is really nothing to argue in your case, though I knew that. I set this debate up for someone I was to supposed debate under the same conditions with. I entered a similar debate someone started with these conditions, I was Con. I was just trying to follow up with my own request of starting a similar debate.
Wikipedia is a reliable source of information

Definitions: Reliable - Able to provide constant results. Accurate - Coinciding with reality. I could right now login to Wikipedia and change anything. Those with intentions to provide accurate info could easily be mistaken because they do not have any prior knowledge of the topic. The information could also very well be accurate were the person an expert in the field. But there is no way of knowing what information is accurate and what info is not. This definition infers that anything can be relied upon, no matter the accuracy of the information. We could rely upon someone to provide us with cock and bull answers. Are they reliable? Yes. Is the information necessarily accurate? No. Wikipedia is not capable of providing a constant result. While we can accept that change will occur as time progresses, it cannot provide a constant stream of correct or incorrect answers. Since it is a mix of both, it cannot be a reliable source.
Wikipedia is a reliable source of information

Wikipedia cannot be a reliable source of information. All is explained on Wikipedia's own "About" page. (Note as you read the following quote from the page that this page CAN'T be edited by just anyone as other pages can; we can deem it a valid article.) http://en.wikipedia.org... In the third paragraph from the top, Wikipedia itself states that ANYONE, even a two-year old or someone else with no knowledge of a topic can edit a page. You don't need to be a professional to suddenly know why the half-life of uranium is what it is. While obvious misnomers and mistakes are corrected, small, vital bits of information can be easily flawed. Dates, measurements, names, political candidates standings, or outcomes of major battles could be flawed indefinitely. Also, this page states that hundreds of thousands of people make edits EVERY day. So, which person is correct? The child?Or specialist? We can't know which bits are valid at any given time. AFF's argument is unsound
Wikipedia is a reliable source of information

This is a topic I wrote just because I was bored, and I want to see someone's opinion against this topic :-D There is a common misconception that Wikipedia is an unreliable source. This belief is completely false. My evidence backing this up is on the website itself. Every day, there are people adding the new information to Wikipedia. There are new discoveries every day, and Wikipedia always has the updates within hours of discovery. The information is posted on the front page of Wikipedia.org. Ex. ï¿½€ï¿½Lehman Brothers files for bankruptcy protection and Merrill Lynch is to be sold to Bank of America as part of the ongoing subprime mortgage crisis. It has many accounts over history, and you can literally find information on EVERY topic you can fathom. Vote for Affirmation, that wikipedia is a reliable source of information. Good luck Neg! I am looking forward to this debate
The U.S. should attack the pirate bases in Somalia.

I accept the fact that the debate isn't about whether certain solutions would or would not completely eradicate piracy. I am saying that we SHOULD invade because it would eradicate the problem in Somalia. I disagree with your points because they DON'T fully achieve destroying the piracy problem, which is what I would hope happens when we invade the country. So my points are based on the assumption that we should invade BECAUSE it would eliminate the problem, which is what I personally want.
The U.S. should attack the pirate bases in Somalia.

"All these suggestions are made with the assumption that the "instigator" wants to merely combat piracy, or deter it. If the US were to attack the pirate bases, I would like it to occur with the intention of eliminating Somalian piracy. " -My opponent apparently did not read the resolution: "The U. S. should attack the pirate bases in Somalia. " The resolution is not "The U. S. should completely eradicate piracy in Somalia by attacking the pirate bases. " Regardless, my opponent did not even attempt to make an argument. All he did was state: "the U. S. needs to attack it at a grass roots level. " What does that even mean? After he made that statement he went on to attempt to refute my points. He refuted my points by saying that my solutions would not completely eradicate piracy. It is true that my solutions would not completely eradicate piracy, but that is not what the resolution or the debate is about. He did not even attempt to refute 4 of my points. "In closing, I'd like to say: Get some! Just kidding; I hope you don't judge the validity of my arguments based on my personal unprofessionalism. " -Umm. .. OK then. All my points stand. My opponent did not attempt to make any points whatsoever.
Do you belive in Malcom X (pro)(any means neccesary) or MLK Jr (con)(non violence)

Here are my thoughts. I would say I'm a bit of both. To expand, on an online personality test i rated similar to gandhi, and he was someone who always turned the other cheek. I believe (if) the odds are against you n you're unprepared then cowardice can be beneficial if you are great at mind games n psychological antagonism. Enemies tend to get fed up of the unpredictability and are infuriated that I'm not throwing the first punch even tho I'm causing trouble, but playing nice at the same time. Obviously it can backfire n i have no fwends but that's the cost of success in my eyes, ie it's lonely at the top. I've only ever been in half a fight, got my glasses smashed in lol! Otherwise I'm the bully, because ya know bullies were victims first, so don't hate, just support n appreciate!