BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Unanswered questions

Religion is a topic of great interest to me because it concerns the number one question of humanity. Why are we here? I began thinking about life one day, stimulated as could be and I started to wonder" why the fu#k am I here? Why does your so called God/god put you on this planet? I don"t care how many gods or how you have to pray, I want to know why. Because I"ve seen some of "god"s creations" and I have to say I"m not impressed. Like seriously that"s the sperm you chose to win? I get that he made us all equal and we all have the option to do good or bad but again" why? Like are we god"s entertainment? Does he have to keep up with his daily gossip? Then he puts out the Ten Commandments as basically "Gods rules." Which actually are some pretty good ideas but as we all know don"t work in today"s society. So then I guess Hell is the answer right? So is life a game for heaven and hell, which can influence the other? Good religions and bad religions? Is hell a tool for God to threaten you with? If heaven is so great why can"t we go straight there? Therefore there must be something here that God wants us to find. Are we pons in his master plan? Why do I dream? " Ok I"m done.
The Death Penalty should be made illegal in the USA.

The Death Penalty should NOT be made illegal in the USA because think of the criminals actions to the victims family, and what will happen if the criminal walked freely from prison in around 10 or so years. He/She would end up hurting someone else, the victim deserve justice, the victim's family demands it. The criminal who taken a life of a person, should not be allow to live and cause havoc and tax payers money. Like the saying goes' A life for a Life'.
The Death Penalty should be made illegal in the USA.

Welcome everyone to this debate that I have started. The death penalty is a topic of hot controversy both within and outside of the USA. This debate will hopefully shed some light onto the subject for people who are either misinformed, confused, or just want a friendly debate. The rules are as follows: First round is acceptance only. Fifth round is closing statements only; no new arguments or refutes. No religious arguments. The BoP is shared. This is an open challenge to anyone that accepts it! I believe that's all, so if you have any questions, please post comment.
Resolved: Electric Cars Are Overall Better Than Gas Cars

Hello, and thank you to anyone who participates in this debate. Special thanks to my opponent, greekgodfan321 for either accepting or declining this debate.Because of my personal opinion with the resolution put forth, I am obliged to argue in acceptance to the resolution that states, 'Resolved: Electric cars are overall better than gas cars."This will be a four round debate. The criteria in which the debate will flow is as follows--- Round One: ACCEPTANCE ONLY (and key terms in regards to resolution) Round Two: Main contentions/arguments put forth Round Three: Rebuttals/cross-examination of opponents points---NO NEW ARGUMENTS Round Four: Closing statements---NO NEW ARGUMENTS Before passing this debate onto my opponent, I must lay out some key terms in regards to the resolution... Electric Cars: (mechanical engineering) An automotive vehicle that is propelled by one or more electric motors powered by a special rechargeable electric battery rather than by an internal combustion engine. [1]Are: Self-explanatory [2]Overall Better: Including everything; comprehensive/Better---meaning in terms of electric cars V.S. gas cars [2-]Than: As compared toGas Cars: A car maintained by some sort of internal-combustion engine. [2--]With these statemnts put forth in regards to the resolution, it is obvious to see as PRO, I will be arguing the fact that Electric Cars are Overall better, in terms of pollution and other contributing factors that hurt our environment (and in a more wider scope than just this)---as compared to gas cars, that in terms of the resolution, aren't necessarily better OVERALL as compared to electric cars because of a variety of reasons which will hopefully be asked and discussed in the rounds to come in this debate.With our criteria at hand, our definition at equal opportunity, let us see if CON shall accept. Thank you.Sources:[1]- http://www.answers.com...[2]. [2-]. [2--]- http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
The U.S. Constitution is a "living" document

Resolved: The U.S. Constitution is a "living" document ==Definitions== 1 U.S. Constitution does indeed refer to none other than the US Constitution. Simple. 2. "living" document: term referring to a philosophy of judicial interpretation of the Constitution that promotes the view that the Constitution is dependent upon the judiciary's opinion of it at a specific time and place in history. This sub-divides into loose interpretation and judicial activism ==Rules== 1. No semantics 2. Drops are concessions 3. Forfeiting will result in a loss of all 7 pts 4. No new arguments can be brought up in the last speech 5. Reciprocal Burden of Proof *This round will be for acceptance. Argumentation will start Rd.2*
Gun Prohibition

Due to the high rate of shootings, Accidental shooting, Spree shootings, School shooting, And work place shooting, I propose the government ratify the second amendment to prohibit ownership, Sale and use of all guns. By creating a new Federal Act we can set down the rules and penalties for possession and or use of guns through Federal enforcement. Social controls, Back ground checks and current legislation have not worked to stop the endless gun violence and society suffers because of guns Public health, The public morals, And the public safety, Is endangered daily by the general use of guns everyday, Whether through accidental shootings, Crimes or angry reprisals such as work shootings and school shooting. The statistics of every state show a greater amount of crime and misery attributable to the use of guns. I propose a Gun Prohibition across all 50 states, With an induction of Prohibition Officers to enforce the law. This will create many new jobs and with the Prohibition of Guns in place reduce the gun violence to almost minimal shootings. Gun Prohibition is the way to go to stop the endless gun violence in the USA
Gun Prohibition

Guns kill people, And that's all they do, The only people who should have guns are law enforcement people who have to deal with these deranged lunatics who want to follow a 300 year old expired parchment called the Constitution. I could debate this until I'm blue in the face about how stupid it is to have guns but the trailer park rednecks will never change, So I say go ahead keep killing yourselves but when you hurt innocent lives than I say we start handing out life sentences to people who own guns. Your bipolar son decides to take your gun to school because he is being bullied, We execute him, And we jail you for life. Enough is enough with this senseless gun violence. Only paranoid people think they need a gun. Owning a gun has to be the stupidest thing you could do to your family. Some child will get their hands on it and shoot someone, Or it will be stolen and used by criminals, And you just helped them out by giving them your gun. I'm not going to keep going on and on about how having a gun is stupid, Stupid people you can't teach. So I will provide my resources about how stupid it is to own a gun https://nationalpost. Com/news/world/actually-guns-do-kill-people-according-to-a-new-study https://www. Rollingstone. Com/politics/politics-features/evil-doesnt-kill-people-guns-kill-people-126759/ https://www. Huffingtonpost. Com/entry/its-time-to-retire-the-guns-don't-kill-people-people_us_59e0f6d4e4b09e31db975887 mic drop
Gay marriage

After reading your debate entitled "same sex marriage", I have observed a variety of flaws. Firstly, you explained how everyone is entitled to their own happiness. Saying that, if killing people makes someone happy, or participating in substance abuse makes them happy, shouldn't they have the right to do such? That is a huge flaw in your argument. Secondly, you explained how we can love whoever we want. Saying that, you are also saying that we can marry our siblings, or fall in love with a child that is a third of your age, aren't you? Same sex marriage is a bad thing. First of all, it is morally wrong. Since the beginning of time, marriage was between man and women. That is the way things are, same sex marriage would go against that. Secondly, it is sexually immoral. They are going against what they were born to be. Thirdly, if they were to adopt, that child would never have the chance to be adopted into a better family, where he could have had a chance to be with a father and a mother. I am excited to see your points of view.
Gay marriage

Great point of view. Your arguments has the amazing perspectives of an activist. However I notice flaws. You explained how people are entitled to their own happiness as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's (paraphrased). That doesn't answer my point about substance abuse. People should be allowed to do drugs because it doesn't interfere with someone else's happiness doesn't it? Also gay marriage would negatively affect the Christian population, interfering with their happiness correct?
Gay marriage

Nice. Very good point. I guess I should rephrase my argument. Yes I did say that everyone is entitled to their own happiness, as long as it does not interfere with the happiness of someone else. Let say we have two gay men, or lesbian, and they want to get married. They rent space, pick a date, create a invite list and pick out wedding attire. In what way is this harmful to society. Its nobodies business but theirs, and it does not interfere with others' life. Put yourself in someone else shoes, or simply turn the tables. What if same sax marriage was the way to go? It wouldn't feel nice to be told that you cant marry the one you love. And as for "the beginning of time"....things change. People change. Society and opinions change. And in 10 to 15 years or so I'm sure that same sex marriage will be legal in all 50 states I'm willing to bet on it. Its inevitable. So why cant we just all join hands as a nation, and realize that hey not everyone you meet is going to have the same view points about life, have the same opinions and moral, but I'm willing to respect you and except you for who you are.' And by outlawing of same sex marriage this not showing that we are excepting of are peers.Not showing respect and support for our fellow Americans. And just because we out law same sex marriage does not mean it going to stop gays and lesbian from seeing other gays and lesbians. Its not going to make them straight, just like no amount of will power is going to make you gay.
Jogger Pants

It is unfair to blame an entire type of pants for the design on one of them. Based on your story, it seems as though your main issue was with the fact that he was wearing the same print, not the jogger pants. Most likely, it would have been just as odd if he was wearing sweatpants with the same print. Jogger pants generally come in plain colors, such as black, beige, etc; so this design was out of the ordinary. It is not right to judge an entire group for the actions of a minority of that group, and the same concept applies to fashion. The fact that one pair of jogger pants looked bad is not an indication that all jogger pants are bad. Generalizations such as this have no place in a reasonable debate such as this. And referring to my earlier point that jogger pants do not have a negative impact on society, jogger pants must have a purpose, or else they would not be selling at the high quantities that they are now. Due to the fact that there is a purpose that jogger pants are fulfilling a purpose, they are therefore having a positive impact on society, not just a neutral one.
Jogger Pants

Okay well I would just like to say, yesterday, my friend (a girl) wore leggings to school with black and white roses and a guy at my school wore jogger pants that has the same print. A GUY!!!!! You say they don't have a negative effect on the world but I disagree!!! DO YOU SEE HOW UGLY THEY ARE!?!? It's ridiculous! I personally have to say I would rather see neon pink and teal workout gear from the 90's than have to look at pants that sag down past the crotch. "I'm sorry I didn't know I was talking to freaking M.C Hammer for god's sake!"
Should the moon be colonized

"It would give us more space to stop overcrowdingThere is about 7 billion peple on earth and not enough space or resources"There is still plenty of undevelped land on Earth. We would be better off finding ways to develop it. The resources found on Erth are not available on the moon so we would have to send resources to the colony. We would still not have enough resources."It would make America a top nation in the worldWe would be respected more for our achievement of getting people settles on the moon"We may be more respected in the world of space exploration but it would not mak us any greater of a nation. It would probably impact our nation's econonmy in a negative way and therefore degrade our nation.My argument is that there is not enough benefits to outweigh the costs. It would probably cost billions of dollars to establish the colony and then we would have to support it. The colony would not be able to help people on earth.
The Death Penalty Should be Abolished

Debate rules 1. There are no arguments, points, ETC only acceptance. 2. Arguments are made (no rebuttals). 3. Rebuttals and second arguments can be made. 4. Rebuttals and third arguments can be made. 5. Closing statements with any facts you want (that are corresponding) . No insults, plagiarism (unless noted) or not debating about this topic will be acknowledged or the opposition wins.
Yo Momma Fight

Rules: 1) 3 jokes per round 2) In the last round, just one knock-out joke 3) Just for fun , don't take this too seriously First 3 Jokes: Yo Momma so stupid she went to Bangkok to get a Tie Fighter. Yo Momma so dumb she sold the car for gas money. Yo Momma so stupid she sits on the T.V. waiting for the couch to change channels. I would like to thank my opponent ahead of time for accepting the debate. Good Luck and Please have fun!
Facebook and Instagram Should Allow Pornography

This is the information in which I found relating back to pornography not helping with depression: https://www.psychologytoday.com... As for your other argument, you're either being vague or off topic. First you call people who don't want porn ignorant than you go on to compliment the US, unfortunately I'm not in the US. The problem with you relating Facebook and Instagram back to the US system is the fact that Facebook and Instagram are not restricted to the US, therefore the US cannot act on those situations. People who want to watch porn can go on any website that allows porn, it is unnecessary to do it on social media. They can go on Pornhub or just do it over a platform like Skype. Some platforms want to cater towards children, it's not in our place to tell them what they should or shouldn't be marketing.
Facebook and Instagram Should Allow Pornography

You seem to have claimed pornography hasn't been shown to make anyone more or less happy. I'm unsure what evidence there is to support that claim. Even if that's true, then it seems there should be no problem allowing pornography on Facebook and Instagram, as it has not been shown pornography makes anyone less happy. Pornographic and non-pornographic content should be able to coexist on social media. Any "large demographic" that does not want pornography on their main social media sites is ignorant. United States' values have prevailed for over 240 years, and they are only getting stronger. Those demographics and those social media sites that do not embody U.S.' values will see themselves overrun by those demographics and those social media sites that do embody those values. Here in the U.S., we already have a system of laws and criminal justice that regulates. It's a bad idea for Facebook and Instagram to further regulate the private behavior and private content of their users.
Facebook and Instagram Should Allow Pornography

I understand where you are coming from but the argument 'porn makes people happy' is not actually true. Porn has not shown to make anymore more or less happy. Pornography is also not exclusively natural, some of it is things like dog pornography or child pornography which is considered unnatural which is why it's called bestiality and pedophilia as opposed to calling it a sexuality. As well as that, there is a place for pornography. Pornhub allows things like that, but if some sites were just to allow pornography suddenly it would destroy a large demographic that wants a normal social media platform as opposed to seeing porn everywhere they go. Some people don't want to see other people naked or having sex. The problem that social medias do have with children viewing porn is, once again, it could be against their religion and be considered a sin. If we just recklessly destroy censoring then many people could get angry and uncomfortable. It's not your problem, it's the website's.
Facebook and Instagram Should Allow Pornography

I do not fully understand how pornography would make some people feel unsafe or uncomfortable. Many people value and enjoy viewing peoples' genitals, breasts, and anuses, especially if those sensitive parts belong to somebody they know. Society's happiness and productivity could increase, perhaps largely. Perhaps less people would be depressed and would want or need mental health treatment. Pornography displays some of our truest human nature and character. It seems instinctual that people would want to be depicted in pornography and show it off to other people for the benefit of all involved. Over more than 10 years, I have viewed much pornography on the Internet. Pornography is not a "crude" thing to see. People could be turned on by things that follow Facebook's and Instagram's rules as well. If people don't want to be turned on by pornography or whatever, that shouldn't be my problem. Children viewing pornography shouldn't be a problem. They could benefit from it.
Facebook and Instagram Should Allow Pornography

(This is my first debate so forgive me if I'm not the best, but I'll still try) The use of any amendment is so that people have freedoms while also keeping everyone safe. You have the freedom of actions of course, but that doesn't mean you can murder someone. The point of not having pornography is so that you can feel safe, as some people feel uncomfortable around that sort of thing. As for twitter allowing pornography, it does. I have been on the site before but it exclusively has a NSFW section to keep young viewers away from that kind of thing. Pornography is very sensitive subject and a crude thing to see. There are some people trying to get rid of their masturbation and seeing porn pushes them over. Some people just don't won't to be turned on. As well as that, porn is one of the top searches, most likely these sites would drown in the porn and make it pretty much impossible for children to go on anymore. Even with the blocking system, it wouldn't end well.
Facebook and Instagram Should Allow Pornography

Freedom of expression encourages freedom to post pornography on Facebook and Instagram. The First Amendment to the United States' Constitution may require pornography to be legal. While all constitutional laws may not directly apply to the businesses of private organizations such as Facebook and Instagram, Facebook's and Instagram's rules can be thought of as extensions of these laws and thus it seems virtuous for Facebook and Instagram to have all of their rules agree with as many constitutional laws as possible. Twitter allows pornography. Vine once allowed pornography. I do not understand how a person can be offended by pornography on Facebook or Instagram. If a person is offended by pornography on Facebook or Instagram, then he or she has options to cope with the pornography that respect the pornography poster's rights and liberties. A person offended by pornography on Facebook or Instagram can unfollow, unfriend, block, or message a poster of pornography, among other options.
People should be allowed to wear what they want.

Sheesh, another wall of text. I noticed you did not have any rebuttals from round 2, so I guess you agree with my points. In round 3, you moved the goal posts again. We have gone from talking about facial veils to head scarfs. The latter do not necessarily cover the face. With all the international laws and standards that you quoted, you failed to realize that #3 supports my claims from previous rounds: "3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others." The need to identify a woman wearing a veil, will trump her religious rights posed by international law. The rest of your wall of text post talks about wearing the head scarf (the debate was about the veil) as a religious obligation. You failed to address my point in round 2 where I stated that women have been killed for refusing to wear it. That is not an obligation, duty or choice. That is an ultimatum, with the penalty for noncompliance being death. I have clearly made the case as to why women may have to remove their veils when traveling to other countries. I have demonstrated why people can't just "wear what they want,"as it could cause public alarm (naked man in the park). You failed to address any of my points in round 2. Lastly, you kept moving the goal posts and changing the debate topic midstream.
People should be allowed to wear what they want.

You don't get to move the goalposts after the game has started. If you wanted to debate a specific theme within that context, then you should have specified that in the beginning. So let's steer the debate back to your original statement of "People should be allowed to wear what they want." Oh, and your wall of text was very difficult to read. You are defending your position from the aspects of Sharia Law. I already stated that in a country where Sharia Law governs, it is fine for a woman to wear a veil. But in countries that are not governed by Sharia Law, Muslims traveling to those countries are subject to the laws of that country. As I have already pointed out, the veil prevents proper identification for whatever reason(s). Moving beyond this point as it was previously discussed. You talked about women being covered up in order to be modest, so that men would not ravish her or have lustful thoughts. Are Arab men really that weak willed? Can they not control themselves? Or is it that Muslim men don't trust their women? Western/European women wear bikinis (or less) on the beaches but I don't see the men raping every female that is sunbathing. As a matter of fact, very rarely do you hear of that happening. Countless times I have gone to the beach and not once have I ever witnessed a woman being raped because she was wearing a bikini. Men can look but not touch. It's called having morals and knowing that rape is wrong, therefore you don't act impulsively. You control yourself. Besides, the women are looking just as hard as the men. It's eye candy! Lastly, you say it is the woman's choice whether or not to wear the veil. When faced with being killed for refusing to wear it, it's not much of a choice, now is it? Source: https://www.jihadwatch.org... Source: http://www.bbc.com... And to show that the veil concept is male chauvinistic in nature, and is merely another attempt to control Muslim women and make them inferior to Muslim men: https://en.qantara.de...