BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Young should go to abroad for higher studies

One point I need to drop is, 1) Consider your country's economic and academic situation. Though, I also agree at some point that going to another country can give you higher education, that does not mean you will not gain it in your own motherland. I take as Con, not only because you are the Pro, but because I do believe that every country can give high education. What's matter is that, the level. Let us take two countries, (To avoid "racist's mentality" here, I will not name a country. I will just name it as "Country A", "Country B", "Country C" and, "Country D") Country A: Average economy, average education quality (School facilities, teacher's/professor's training) Country B: Average economy, poor education quality Country C: Poor economy, high education quality Country D: High economy, High education quality Which country do you think will give you the best quality education? Do you think these four countries can give you quality education? Country A: Having average economy, still, has the capacity to support education in their county. (check) Country B: Having average economy, the government can provide little funds for quality education. (check) Country C: Though poor in economy, the teacher's and facilities are still high in quality - maybe, the school is richer than the government. (check) County D: Pretty obvious. (check) What's the point here? All countries can give high quality of education. But which one will give the best? Country D. It's the level, but it does not make your country's school to be so poor.
Young should go to abroad for higher studies

Ok, Pro, I will direct this to the point: First, you do not need to go to abroad to attain quality education, though, if you want to have HIGHER education standard, feel free to go to Oxford as long as you have money. Second, I am not telling that they are mad, in fact, I said, "Will you be 'mad' for not going to Oxford?" Third, do not always rely on education abroad. I am happy studying in my own land, though, in reality, Oxford seems to be better than my school. But why do I am studying here, instead of craving for international schools? Because I still gain knowledge - that is the important thing. I want people to learn how to be contented, how to be satisfied, and most of all, find alternatives to attain what they want in their life. Going abroad for studies is good, but not all people can afford that. So, why not try to look for ways if you really want that "Quality Education"?
Predestination and Freewill

To believe in predestination is to believe in fate, destiny or some sot of religious doctrine that governs the actions of humans. Such a thing is extremely hard to prove on a scientific, evidential basis. But to speculate, surely fate and the omniscient nature of god is supposed to be positive? People's fates should have some significance if they are determined by 'our creator', otherwise what is their purpose. What good is being achieved by the early deaths of thousands of people, and the horrific acts that they do to others. Obviously assuming there is a creator, his teachings and aims would be far too complex to describe by talking about good and evil but there is simply no observable pattern that backs up the idea that we are simply following a predetermined route already set out for us. Our mind is what sets us apart from animals, our morals and speech. This is what I would argue to be 'free will'. The ability to disembark from nature's path and set our own precedent. Without it we are simply surviving, existing and yes following a set path for us which was laid by our ancestors. Because we have our mind, our consciousness and curiosity, we have the free-will to do as we please, which explains all the anomalies and secular-digression our species have experienced.
Gay sex is entirely a moral activity

Thank you for accepting this challenge my main goal here is to change your mind and if i didn't achieve my goal I should automatically lose. What we mean by gays sex is for penis to put in a anus of another man (sorry for the staright language) which I oppose because penis is only destined for vagina to result of reproduction and oneness in love. The main reason for people to be gay is unaapreciating who they biologically are and continuing doing gay acitvities is just not acceptable because it represents their own disatisfaction from they're own self and getting away from reality. Gay sex will only result to nothing. These images in this link are example of gay sex click at your own risk https://www.google.com...;
Michael Jackson faked his own death

That's right, reports of the death of Michael Jackson are premature - the reality is he is alive and well and living in a rented bedsit above a Lebanese restaurant on the Edgware Road, London. http://www.earth-photography.com... But wait, I hear you say. I saw pictures of his body being taken to the coroner's office on television. Did you actually see his face though? No, all any of us saw was some shots of something under a white sheet being put into the back of a van. All his assistants needed to do to fake his death was drive around the South Side of L.A. until they found the body of a recently deceased drug addict, take it back to Jackson's house, dress it up in some ridiculous clothes, put some make-up and a wig on it and call 911. To illustrate my theory, here's an artists impression of what the corpse could have looked like: http://www.johnshakespeare.com.au... And here's a recent picture of Michael Jackson: http://www.onlinebreakingnews.info... It's difficult to tell them apart, isn't it? Okay, you concede, so there's no proof it was actually Michael Jackson's body that was taken to hospital, but why would he fake his own death? Well, he was $200 million dollars in debt and that is why he was forced to agree to perform in a series of fifty concerts beginning in London's O2 Arena next month. Jackson didn't want to do them, though, "I don't know how I'm going to do 50 shows," he said. "I'm really angry." http://www.guardian.co.uk... http://www.timesonline.co.uk... In addition to his financial problems, further allegations of child molestation coming to light was also a real possibility and being no longer able to pay off his victims and unable to afford to employ the most expensive legal teams, he would be looking at spending the rest of his life in jail when found guilty. However, while he was in London the desperate Michael Jackson hatched a cunning plan to escape both his creditors and his juvenile accusers by tricking the world into believing he was dead and it was that plot that was played out in front of the world's media yesterday. So, now that he has fooled everyone (except the more astute Debate.Org voters) into believing he is moonwalking up the stairway to heaven he can live in peace and obscurity in a modest one room apartment above a kebab shop in London's Arab quarter, going about his daily business disguised as a Muslim woman dressed in a burqa, just as he did when he was in Bahrain. http://www.abc.net.au... So there we have it. The motives for faking his death are certainly there and we also know how he probably did it. For these reasons we must conclude that Michael Jackson is still alive and well and you should, therefore, vote Pro. Thank you.
Michael Jackson faked his own death

Many thanks to my opponent for agreeing to debate this delicate matter. I realise that many people feel personally affected by the reports of Michael Jackson's supposed death, even though they may have never met him, and unless they go shopping on the Edgware Road, probably never will. I suspect that these are the same people who refuse to believe that Michael Jackson sleeps with little boys - even though he has admitted to it himself on television. Sadly, it is this type of blind loyalty and refusal to accept uncomfortable truths that has enabled Jackson to dodge his responsibilities in the past and has allowed him to pull the wool over the eyes of the public this time as well. My opponent wrote that Jackson hadn't been feeling well recently. Please remember, on his next birthday he'll be 51 years old and all middle aged people get a few aches and pains every now and again. However, most people don't have their own personal doctor looking after them all the time like he does. Wacko Jacko's quacko was in the room when the 911 call was made so why didn't he do anything to help him? And why did he suddenly go missing after 'Michael Jackson's body' was taken to hospital? And why has his car been impounded by the police? And why are the law enforcement officers so keen to speak to him? http://www.nypost.com... I'll tell you why. Because they smell a rat. Jackson and his henchmen have put one over on the LAPD before and they're not going to let him get away with it again. If I were Jackson, I'd be quaking in my diamond-encrusted slippers right now. He can run but he cannot hide forever and when they catch up with him and expose the truth to the world I doubt even his most loyal fans will forgive him and the people he owes hundreds of millions of dollars to most certainly wont. Thank you.
Michael Jackson faked his own death

NO!!! That is not right, the assumptions that the affirmative side states are not to be taken into consideration at all. Why? There are many reasons...one of the main ones being that I strongly doubt that the affirmative had a close relationship with Michael Jackson himself to have the guts to say "Oh yeah..he's not dead.....he just faked it because he is in debt. He was so in debt he was willing to make the world mourn. Mm Hmm yep.... it's true....." I am here to strongly say that that is not true!!! No matter how unfortunate it is...we have to face reality and accept what is the saddest truth we have come to known...the death of someone we all know... The King of Pop Michael Jackson..*may he rest in peace* :,( Because he IS dead Unfortunatly of coarse. If the affirmative is having a hard time accepting the unfortunate death of Michael Jackson...perfectly understandable too. "But wait, I hear you say. I saw pictures of his body being taken to the coroner's office on television. Did you actually see his face though?" Although that may be a great point as to why agree with the affirmative don't be fooled. Actually think about it.....done thinking? Okay.....we did not see his face, but just because we did not see his face, who are we to doubt his death just because we were not there to see it? This may seem a little off topic, but hopefully it will make a point...what about the air we are constantly breathing? Oh my gosh! We don't see it, but we know it's there. Isn't that kind of like Michael Jackson's death? We were not there to witness such unfortunate event, but it did happen did'nt it. The affirmative makes another point about his debt having to do with faking his death. Don't be fooled again. One thing the affirmative fails to state/discuss is about his illnesses. Michael Jackson had heart problems that lead to this tragic death. Family and friends...fans and all mourn to this tragedy. "Okay, you concede, so there's no proof it was actually Michael Jackson's body that was taken to hospital, but why would he fake his own death?" He could have not faked his death no matter how much in debt he was in! Why? The man had heart problems. As you read about his death, you'll see that not long ago before his death he was not feeling well. This king of Pop had many problems! (obviously) He has gone through A LOT!!! There is only so much one can handle and if they say he died, it is because he did in fact die! This is tragic! I know! But we have to face the reality of this cruel world...that people do die....just like Michael Jackson did yesterday.....a couple of debts are nothing to compare all the illness and problems he had. So...unfortunatly he is "moonwalking up the stairway to heaven". http://www.tmz.com... http://www.tmz.com... http://www.christiantoday.com... As unfortunate as it is....Michael Jackson is dead. Thus, I urge a strong vote on the negation.
The Earth is Flat

Gravity? Stupid? Let me show you something. All over the world, when you jump, you fall back down. If the earth was round, that would only work at the north pole! And also, you clearly need to put more money into your space team if the camera was that distorted. Do you even care? Also, eclipses still make sense, The MOON goes in front of the SUN. What does the earth's shape have to do with that? You haven't given me a single good piece of evidence.
Gene Patenting is detrimental to society

I concur that promoting the progression of genetic therapy is beneficial. Conversely, gene patents could allow corporations to hold a monopolistic reign over a certain gene, driving up prices, and harming the consumers that wanted to buy the product. If Company A has complete ownership of a gene, they are the only company allowed to make a treatment or cure for said gene. This means that people who require this treatment may only buy their medication from Company A. Company B cannot compete with Company A, because they have no substitute product. Company A may charge as much as they like for the product, because the people who need it will have to buy it regardless of the price. This shows the detriments of gene patenting. A consumer who does not have the means to purchase the treatment they need is forced to either come up with the money or possibly die. It is undeniable that allowing patients to die because they can't afford a cure is detrimental to society.
The Godfather is better than Shawshank Redemption

Arguments:1) The Godfather is a film based on family values and the necessity for humans to trust and depend on one another. It tells about the basic need of mankind, the need for togetherness and society. It also talks about how the entire social structure can be destroyed if people don't stay together. It instills a deep sense of family bonds and stresses upon how it is beneficial for the entire society if the society works towards a single goal.2) Memorable, stunning and stimulating performances have been given by Marlon Brando and Al Pacino. It is worthwhile to note that this is Pacino's second film. All actors have done due justice to their role and have made a film that will stay in people's minds for years to come. 3)The Godfather has one of the best storylines till date. Multiple angles and differing viewpoints give you a complete overview of the situation with the climax being utterly poignant. The multiple angles give you an all-round knowledge of the characters and their thinking, and enables you to analyse the story from a 360 degree prespective. Reasons why "The Shawshank Redemption" fails:1)It is based solely on the friendship between Freeman's and Robbins' characters. It supposedly tells of a story based on unity in times of adversity, but the friendship with the other characters is not well defined. It is left to the viewer to assume a deep friendship between the other characters. The concept of society is talked about, but not properly expressed.2) It falls short of memorable performances. The reason this film scores is because of Freeman's soothing baritone. Noteworthy performances that could inspire generations are absent in the film. In some scenes, however, the acting is good, but it lacks the captivating power and charisma of Pacino's or Brando's.3)The climax is hinted at at the beginning itself. We know this is a film with a positive ending. And the story is told entirely from Freeman's character's view.
Without God there is no reason of morality

I. I am in fact speaking of the Judeo-Christian God. You are an atheist so let us keep it at a debate between and Atheist and a Christian. II. If an atheist has a right to be non-religious, then so should I. I try not to have anything to do with religion. I hate the word. If religion is simply "a method by which to explain seemingly unexplainable natural phenomena" then I am not religious because atheism (specifically evolution) does the exact same thing. You said, "My opponent has alleged that even atheists and agnostics pull all their moral knowledge from the element of the religious in their environment. .. " No, atheists and agnostics pull their moral knowledge from God. You may say there is no difference but I disagree. I contend that it was not a religious group that developed morals, but it was God Himself. III. You have brought up a very interesting point by stating we "If, truly, morality was born of a single God, as my opponent suggests, we would not see such moral diversity amongst people…" But I disagree with this point. First of all, there is a general moral code within all humans. You pointed this out at the end of the paragraph. Everyone, even in the remotest tribes, would agree that it is wrong to kill. Deep down inside, everyone knows stealing, murder, and adultery is wrong. Now, there are specific disagreements within some moral issues. Homosexuality, abortion, etc. are all debated. This is because when humans originally sinned against God (they had free will), their perception of morality (conscience) was damaged. I think this is perfectly rational. I was purposely saving the reasoning for the irrationality of morals outside of God for this round. It goes as follows: a1. I will begin with assuming God does not exist a2. If God does not exist, then the universe came about randomly by chance (in other words, nothing) a3. If the universe came is based on random chance, then humans are based on random chance. a4. Human minds are therefore nothing but random chemical combinations. a5. If ideas are part of the mind, then ideas are random. a6. If ideas are random, and morality is an idea, then morality is random. a7. The statement, "morality is random" contradicts morality, because it is a specific standard of right conduct and cannot be random. There must be an absolute standard for morality. Otherwise its boundary can be increasingly pushed. You could say it is moral for a person to steal money only if they steal from one who is richer than they are. But clearly, by some standard, stealing is definitely wrong. I say it is by God's standard, not society. The society you speak of is based on evolution, which is based on chance (nothing).
Without God there is no reason of morality

Without God there are no morals This will be my first debate. So far I am disappointed in the weak attempts to prove gay marriage is wrong, but that is for another day. I begin my debating career with the strong and daring statement: without God there are no morals. Everyone who does not believe in God and some who do will undoubtedly object to this. Remember, I am not saying people who do not believe in God have no morals, but the God is the reason for their moral standard. My opponent will attempt to show that morality can exist without God. I will mainly push for consistency from my opponent. Definition of morality* – conformity to the rules of right conduct (morals) - A person stealing money is acting immoral, while a person giving money to another who needs it is acting morally. *As if there was a need to define it. C1: Without God, there exists no reason for morality. Morality is then unreasonable and non-existent.
The world is flat.

Con's argument seems to based upon that there is little to no proof to back up Pro's arguments. The problem is that for a long time people didn't believe microorganisms could harm them. Not until the 1800's did the germ theory formally exist. "The French chemist and microbiologist Louis Pasteur, the English surgeon Joseph Lister, and the German physician Robert Koch are given much of the credit for development and acceptance of the theory. In the mid-19th century Pasteur showed" [1]. Just because there isn't much proof for an idea doesn't mean its wrong. Pro is fairly certain science can't even prove reality exists. "Science, by its very nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything. For example, can science prove there are no unicorns? Absolutely not. How could science ever prove that unicorns don't exist? All science can do is say that scientists may have been looking for unicorns for a long time and never found any. " [2]. In summary, as unlikely as Pro statements are, they could be true. Science cannot disprove them. Which then it comes down to which is more likely and which using Occam's Razor is simpler? Yes, Con's arguments are more likely and simpler, yet that doesn't prove they are true. Neither does it prove Con's arguments are false. 1. http://www.britannica.com... 2. http://www.str.org...
The world is flat.

It's fairly clear the opponent took the 'troll' route. That's fine, but I won't get sucked into it, so don't expect to find humor in my response. Giant pump at bottom of ocean.No evidence presented for this argument. Significant claims require significant evidence. Aliens built the giant pump and tamper with our memories. No evidence presented for this argument. Significant claims require significant evidence. Dinosaurs and advanced technology.No evidence presented for this argument. Significant claims require significant evidence. Earth is stationary, center of solar system/universe.No evidence presented for this argument. Significant claims require significant evidence. Cats have hijacked our sats.No evidence presented for this argument. Significant claims require significant evidence. Shadow on the moon caused by invisible satellite. No evidence presented for this argument. Significant claims require significant evidence. Magical dragons and sinking ships. No evidence presented for this argument. Significant claims require significant evidence. ConclusionIt's pretty clear that the opponent has essentially forfeitted the debate through presentation of nonsensical arguments.
The world is flat.

Geometry was always my weakest math class. The Earth is a cuboid. "A cuboid is a box-shaped object. " [7.] As for the water and gravity clearly for their for the water to fall over the edge there must be a larger object beneath the Earth. That larger object is what is causing gravity to pull the water off the edge of the cuboid, known as Earth. Think of a fountain, water is sprayed up and then pumped through again. Seemingly endless. The same goes for the edge of the Earth. A huge pump is pumping the water than falls off the edge. The water falls off the edge of the world, then is collected by a much larger surface than the Earth. A huge pump then pumps the water up into the bottom of the ocean. The additional water at the bottom of the ocean displaces the water near the edge. The water previously near the edge falls over the edge creating a waterfall thus completing the infinite cycle. Now a philosopher might ponder what would happen if a ship sailed over the edge. The aliens who built such a pump thought of this. Anyone who survives the fall has his or her memory erased by an arcane machine. Since any witness has his or her memory erased the exact edge of the world is hard to determine. Usually ending up in the Bermuda triangle. [8]. As for gravity rounding the Earth, that is only true if the Earth is moving. The Earth is stationary. The moon and sun orbit the Earth. Also, note the Earth is the center of the universe. Those distant objects labeled stars are quite small if you get close to one. As for the Earth being billions of years old, that was a clever trick by the dinosaurs. See the dinosaurs scattered some of their bones around and used advanced technology to trick our carbon dating techniques. Next, the issue of satellites. Satellites rely upon electronics and computer. Recently cats from outer space have hijacked our satellites and have been relaying false data. As for the shadow over the moon looking like a sphere that is the work of an invisible satellite that creates a shadow, just to fool us. Finally, the ships sinking and then returning. That simple, that's the work of magical dragons. See dragons sink the ships and then create a phantasmal double of the ship. Tricking people into thinking the ship returns safety. Therefore, more people will sail ships blissfully ignorant to the danger. Links 7. http://www.mathsisfun.com... 8. http://www.bermuda-attractions.com...