BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is it a waste of money (presumably your rich) to get a Bugatti Veyron

Sorry, are you saying I have just enough to buy one? Like exactly what the Bugatti is worth? Please clarify this again, maybe I'm being dumb but I can't really tell if you mean "rich enough to buy one and still have loads of money left over," or "rich enough to buy one.... and that's it"?Assuming I'm rich enough to buy a Veyron and not have a dime left over, then the main reason I'd buy one would be strictly for aesthetic appeal. Being able to simply own such an exotic and rare car would be amazing. I would wax it, shine it, put it on display, invite people over to sit in it (assuming I can't drive it due to gas prices, and I have no money left over....?) and have fun and be able to experience such a thing. Not very many people can sit in a Bugatti Veyron, and I know I would make a lot of people very happy if I was able to allow a lot of people to check it out and sit in it. Not only that, but just the fact of knowing I own one of very few of these cars is a treat in it's own.Now, I'd rather go with the other scenario, where I still have lots of money left over, say a few million. That would allow me to drive it, take it to car shows, tune it up, paint it, put on decals if I wish, etc. I've personally seen a Veyron drive around the streets of the city I live in, so it isn't impossible. It's a car with a lot of horsepower, but if you are able to control it, you won't constantly be at 100mph. As long as you can drive it, the practicality of having a Veyron is the same as having a Toyota Corolla; except the Bugatti is a lot nicer looking. Of course it would be nice to take it to a race track, and you actually can (I've taken a couple exotic cars to race tracks for $2,000 a day, so it isn't expensive) especially if you have money left over. Also, considering the fact that you have money left over, you can fly it out to Europe and rip down the Autobahn. Assuming you're rich, you'll be able to do a lot with this car. You'll get a lot of attention (if that's a good thing), a lot of compliments, and you'll be more than happy owning one.If your argument is basically "it's so expensive," then yes, but remember - you're rich.Thanks!
Dota is better than LoL

League of Lego's is ten times better than Dota. LoL has a wide variety of "champions" you can play that fit your play style. You have roles that can suit any type of play style you like to play. If you like to sit back and farm in your lane for five hours, then you can play top lane. And if you are not good at the game, you can play support and make sure the ADC never dies. Both games have similar objectives which is trying to destroy the enemies "core" that is guarded by turrets. The overhead mode is also a big winner because you are able to know and time your attacks and your opponents attacks. Also, bushes are a part of the game and make the game more challenging.
Legalisation of cannabis

Ok, firstly I would like to have a link for your sources as I find this hard to believe that. If they are true then I find that hard to argue against, however I can tell you the positive effect of the legalisation of cannabis. As you know one of the main reasons of smoking is pier pressure. This is because people see it as a cool thing to do as it is illegal. If it were to be legal people would no longer see it as a cool thing to do and along with quitting posters (no need for quitting packs-it isn't addictive) people will stop. This will then make all of your points about grades irrelevant.
Legalisation of cannabis

Marijuana can harm a person"s memory"and this impact can last for days or weeks after the immediate effects of the drug wear off. In one study, a group of heavy marijuana users were asked to recall words from a list. Their ability to correctly remember the words did not return to normal until as long as four weeks after they stopped smoking. Students who use marijuana have lower grades and are less likely to get into college than nonsmokers. They simply do not have the same abilities to remember and organize information compared to those who do not use these substances. Research clearly shows that marijuana has the potential to cause problems in daily life. A study of 129 college students found that, among those who smoked the drug at least twenty-seven of the thirty days before being surveyed, critical skills related to attention, memory and learning were seriously diminished. A study of postal workers found that employees who tested positive for marijuana had 55% more accidents, 85% more injuries and a 75% increase in being absent from work. thats what i have im a little shabby because i actually am for weed not against it
Solar man is not a buddhist.

What do you know about Buddhism? Who have you read? What are the main tenets of Buddhism? How are you able to discern whether I subscribe to Tibetan Buddhist philosophy or not? Why is the fact that I am pointing out the THREAT that militant Islam, Communism, the far left sympathizers, all of whom espouse the OPPOSITE of the teachings of the buddha, namely death , destruction, suppression, big government control, anti-freedom and suffering ? Buddha taught , in short * ending the path of suffering and the rebirth/ death cycle * being empathatic and sympathetic to others * discovering the deep self * being unconditional love and truth * eliminating anger from one's psyche * putting others before oneself - ending selfish behavior , the source of all suffering and so on and so forth now, I am NOT a good buddhist by any means, but WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO TELL ME WHAT I AM AND WHAT I BELIEVE you likely dont know the first thing about Buddhism I suggest you start with Robert Thurmans books 1st like INNER REVOLUTION
Solar man is not a buddhist.

Solarman claims to be a buddhist. I cann't believe this is so. Judging by the hatred present in so many of his debates he just cannot be a buddhist, Not a practicing one anyway. He may call himself a buddhist but if he doesn't practice buddhism then he can't actually be one. Its like the people who call themselves christians who have never gone to church, even seen the bible or have ever thought about god. Solarman calls himself a buddhist as a joke, simply to mock buddhists.
Smoking should be banned.

Smoking is a public health nuisance just like drinking, fast food, a lack of sports in exchange for extended tv-watching, etc. Although it does not "kill" instantly it undoubtedly causes a higher risk for impaired health and premature death amongst others. I admit: There is one main difference. Smoking does also affect other peoples well-being or even their health. For this reason it is banned in many public places, especially in the United States. Since I am a non-smoker, I enjoy this ban and agree with it. However, if somebody alone at his home decides to smoke, it is his personal matter. A ban would certainly be inadequate and disproportionate.
Abortion

It's a very simple argument: fetuses need the mother's body in order to survive. If a human needs an organ, e.g. a kidney, are you forced to give them it so that they survive? No, because you can do whatever you want with your own body. If someone needs part of your body to survive, you are under NO obligation to give them that part of your body, even if you are dying and your kidney's rot with you rather than help someone else. You are allowed to do what you want with your body; if a mother doesn't want a fetus to use its body to survive, it doesn't have to let it.
Abortion

I clearly said that with some definitions of human (clearly not yours), fetuses can be seen as independent human beings. Not everyone will see them as human beings, I never said that, but even if, let's say, half of the people will see you as a murderer, this should definitely be forbidden (you don't want to be half a murderer either, do you?). About your fetus is not child thingy, just because fetus is not the same word as child, it doesn't mean those are not the same things. I came here up with a better example (credits to Willard van Orman-Quine): bachelor = unmarried man. All bachelors are unmarried men and all unmarried men are bachelors. You might consider heavily restating your argument.
Abortion

Just because a fetus shares some biological functions with a human does NOT make it the same thing. A baby girl has some of the same functions of a teenage girl; however, they are NOT the same thing as well. Murder only applys to humans; a fetus is not human. Therefore, killing a fetus is not murder. A fiat is a car; however, not all cars are fiats. A fiat is a SUB category of a car. This is an incorrect analogy because a fiat is a TYPE of car, a fetus is NOT a type of human, because a fetus is a part of its mother's body. Human beings don't live in the bodies of other people.
Abortion

I have to disagree on that one. Indeed, people wouldn't call a fetus a child. However (and this really depends on your definition of human), it is possible to see a fetus as a independent human being. Especially in the later stages of the growing process (where the abortion normally happens), he/she already has many own biological functions, so not shared with the mother. This means that killing a fetus can definitely be considered a murder. To come back on your argument. That is of course nonsense, because you can give things different names, for example you can call a Fiat a car so the proposition Fiat=car is definitely true. Same could be said about fetus and child, but I prefer calling the fetus just a fetus, since the definitions do differ in this case.
Abortion

The problem is, a fetus is NOT a child. Yes, it has the POTENTIAL to be a child; however, it is not the same thing as a child. You are making the false analogy that fetus=child. No, fetus=fetus. Child=child. Fetus has the potential to BECOME a child, but fetus does not equal child. Baby girl=baby girl. Teen-age girl=teen age girl. Baby girl has the POTENTIAL to become teen-age girl, but it is not a teen-age girl. It is a baby girl. When the fetus BECOMES a child, then it is no longer a part of the mother's body.
disabled ppl should be required to pay more taxes

Hello Pro, First of all, Not all people with disabilities use wheelchairs or crutches. There are people with mental disabilities or intellectual disabilities. Also, People that wear glasses have an eye disability, Which equals to 75% of the total adult population in the US (https://www. St-andrews. Ac. Uk/hr/edi/disability/facts/). So, In that trail of ideas, Are you suggesting that at least 3/4 of the total population should pay $100, 000 because of something they can't control such as a birth disorder? Second, You are copying this whole idea and argument from another debate previously posted on this platform, Therefore I don't really see why your comments are even valid since you didn't even come up with them. ) Thirdly, Your comments about "nuking" India are not only unethical but also suggest that you are a really discriminatory person, Which would also show why you think disabled people need to pay more. Not because you think is better for the country, But because you are a horrible person that needs to respect that people have rights just like you
disabled ppl should be required to pay more taxes

i think that disabled ppl should have to pay more taxes, B/c they consume too much crap. For example, The glasses, The crutches, The wheelchairs, Leg braces, Hearing aids, And special needs stuff, As well as diapers, Cost too much material to manufacture with the same amount of production costs, We can instead build a time machine, Go back in time, And nuke india so they won't stink up the world according to reggee, Indians smell like f_cking curry so they should be illegal thus all disabled ppl should pay at least 100, 000 bucks for each yr they live, Starting from now on well im pro, So guess you gotta be con please go
Rap Battle

Uncoditional love Talking about the stuff that don't wear off They don't fade Always last for all thiz crazy days thiz crazy nights Werther you wrong or you right No matter she still love you love,still feel you,still there for you No matter what You will always be In my heart But on unconditional Love (Verse1) Come listen to my truest Stories My truest feelings All my peers doin years beyond drug dealin How many casscets can we witness Before we see its hard To live this life without god so we must ask forgivenes Ask mama why I got the urge to die Witnessed the tears falling free from her eyes Before she could reply For we were born without a silver spoon My broken down TV showed catoons in my livingroom(hey) One day I hope to make A player in this game Mama don't cry long as we try maybe things will change Perhaps its jst a fantasy A life were we don't need no welfare We aint sh*t without our own family Maybe its me that caused The fightin and the hurting In my room crying cause I didn't wana be a burden Watch my mama open her arms to hug me And aint worried about a dahm thing But on unconditional love (Chorus)x2
Rap Battle

Superhero Ok, I know I ****ed up, But everybody ****s up, And anyone can **** up, Especially when they loved up, I was so loved up, I didn"t see I"d mucked up, Until it was too late and now, I"m tryna pick my heart up, You gotta believe me, When I say that I loved you, When I say that I love you, When I say that trust you, And if it"s too late forever, For a me and you, Then know when it was us two, I was so in love with you, And I hope the next man, Knows just how to treat you, To get you smiling and feeling, The way that I do, When I"m with you, And when I kissed you, And now girl, I want you to know that I miss you, Your so so special, In every single way, You"ve got me so insane, Almost every single day, Your on my mind 24/7, Eternal flame, In my mind from, The moment I awake, Until the time I go to sleep, Starts the very next day, You"re the stuff of my dreams, You"re my, night time queen, You"re my early morning princess, My mid day wishes, My late night kisses, My reason, to exist, And give me, one wish, It would be to be with you, But I see the truth, It"ll never be me and you, And I wish I could, Turn back time, But I"m no superhero, You were mine, I pray to god, I ask why god? Why? But it"s not his fault, It"s all on I, Know I did so many things, To deserve this ending, But I know with one more chance, I"d make a happy ending, spending, The rest of my life with you girl, Cause you were my world, My flawless pearl, You can"t get better, And you won"t get worse, And every time I see you now, Yeah it just hurts, But I"d never trade in, The time I spent with you, And if I got the chance, Yeah there"d be a part 2, So this is your song, Put it on, sing a long, I love you, And miss you, And I wish that you, Missed me too.
Food Security

Thanks, Bsh!Note: The debate's rigid structure prohibits the merging of arguments and rebuttals. As a result, if my case overlaps with my opponent's, then our discussion is going to start becoming rather redundant in subsequent rounds. In order to prevent this, I'm going to limit myself to presenting a single opening argument which avoids any such overlap.== NEG CASE ==All human beings have ownership over themselves. This is intuitively obvious -- since you are the sole user and occupier of your own body, you are the only one who can exert any sort of authority or control over it. Denying self-ownership results in a performative contradiction because simply the act of denying it (via speaking/typing) requires you to exercise your faculty of self-ownership. However, perhaps the biggest problem with denying self-ownership is that it results in moral nihilism -- without self-ownership, human beings have no autonomy over themselves, and are therefore reduced to deterministic robots with nothing to distinguish them from the rest of the inanimate & amoral universe -- there is nothing to indicate that they are "morally significant" in relation to reality. Nihilism is problematic because it automatically makes Pro's burden of proof impossible to fulfill, since he has to demonstrate the existence of a moral obligation. With self-ownership established, it is easy to see how this translates into rights like life and liberty -- life is the most essential component of the self, and liberty stems from the very definition of "ownership". Self-ownership also necessitates the existence of property rights -- it logically follows that if I have ownership over myself, then I should also be granted ownership over the material property which I have rightfully acquired, since my actions are an extension of my person. The takeaway here is that every individual possesses self-ownership and its associated negative rights to life, liberty, and private property ownership; the only moral obligation in existence is to not infringe on the rights of other individuals. That is, in essence, the Non-Aggression Principle.Given this ethical framework of inviolable rights, the *only* plausible role of a "just government" is to enforce the Non-Aggression Principle -- in other words, the only justifiable use of tax revenues is to protect citizens' rights from being violated. I will go ahead and point out now that it is impossible to derive positive rights from self-ownership because property has to be acquired by virtue of a person's actions (i.e. earned) in order to rightfully be their own. Thus, we conclude that ensuring food security does not fall into the category of what just governments "ought" to do. In fact, ensuring food security would necessarily involve forcibly redistributing people's rightfully-owned property; that makes it a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle, and therefore *antithetical* to the purpose of a just government.The resolution is negated.
Food Security

PrefaceI've debate this topic before [http://www.debate.org...] but it should be fun to switch sides. Romanii's a great debater, and we've faced each other before, so I am looking forward to debating him again. We tried another debate, which didn't work out [http://www.debate.org...], so I am glad we've got this one as a back-up :)You must have 2,500 ELO to vote on this debate.Full TopicJust governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens.TermsThe definitions below are influenced by or excerpted from Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Merriam Webster, Oxford Dictionary, the WHO, the FAO, the World Bank, and Encarta.Government - 'the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions' and 'the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority.'Ought - expresses moral obligationEnsure - to guaranteeFood Security - A condition wherein all citizens have access to reliable and sufficient supply of affordable and nutritious food.Citizen - 'a legally recognized subject or national of a state or commonwealth'Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (e.g. moral skepticism, the government is an amoral actor, moral nihilism, etc.)7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate9. The BOP is Shared10. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. Acceptance OnlyR2. Pro's Case, Con's CaseR3. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's CaseR4. Pro defends Pro's Case, Con defends Con's CaseR5. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's Case, both CrystallizeThanks......to Romanii; I am looking forward to a truly stellar and enjoyable discourse!
The 2nd amendment is not compatible with today's times

Due to the fact that I did not see the notification of the acceptance of my previous debate, I am opening up this debate again. I will pay closer attention this time Round 1. Acceptance Round 2. Claim Round 3. Rebuttal Round 4. Conclusion Any rebuttal in round 2 made by con will be ignored. Round 2 is strictly for the claim. I look forward to debating this topic. My position: The 2nd amendment is NOT compatible with today's times.
Homosexuality should be more accepted in society.

"You act like this is a contagious illness." It is not contagious, but it was actually considered a mental illness until 1974 when a committee (under pressure) voted to remove it from the DSM-II list. As you said, more people will be homosexuals as a result of it becoming accepted. http://www.behaviorismandmentalhealth.com... "Currently there are some religions generally accepting homosexuality including:" Since you said "currently America", I assume we're talking about the US, which is predominantly Christian. The percentage by population of US of most of the other religious groups that you mentioned is negligible. http://religions.pewforum.org... "I do not see why this is such a problem. There is around 7 billion people on this earth, and I don't see way this a such a bad thing. There are currently 153 million children without parents or a parent. [2]These children need a parent, homosexual parents could adopt these children." Population affects everything, workforce, infrastructure, industry, military etc. With decline in population, all of those things decline as well. You also mentioned the adoption of children. Research has shown that heterosexual parents are better than homosexual parents. http://www.frc.org... Scroll about halfway down. Maybe instead of focusing on the support of homosexuality, we should focus on supporting the adoption of children? For centuries, homosexual individuals lived alongside heterosexual individuals and there was no trouble. All of a sudden, "HOMOSEXUALITY MUST BE ACCEPTED!" Why? Thank you for the debate.
Homosexuality should be more accepted in society.

"Research has shown that homosexuality is mostly psychological. Some people are more prone to it than others. If homosexuality was accepted in society, then more people would be homosexual. " You act like this is a contagious illness. I will agree that there will be more homosexuals but that is because of homosexual people staying "in the closet" because they are afraid of what will happen. "Only 1.5% of deaths are from suicide. Not all suicides are from homosexual-based reasons. " I know that. I am talking about homosexual people being suicidal from not being accepted by other beings. The hatred and anger towards homosexuals causes people to TRY TO KILL THEMSELVES! This is the problem at hand. "Most religious institutions are against homosexuality, not the condition, but ACTS of homosexuality. Here, for example, is the Bible and Quran. " I have to somewhat agree with this. Currently america have freedom of religion and separation of church and state. It cannot choose one religion over another. Currently there are some religions generally accepting homosexuality including:[1] Buddhists Wicca Unitarian Universalist Quakers Jews Presbyterian And some others "This would lead to a decrease in population, which affects everything. " Why is this a bad thing? I do not see why this is such a problem. There is around 7 billion people on this earth, and I don't see way this a such a bad thing. There are currently 153 million children without parents or a parent. [2]These children need a parent, homosexual parents could adopt these children. [1] . http://en.m.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://www.sos-usa.org...