BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Drone Aerospace Law

A year ago this time I was watching Tucker Carlson speak about drones and aerospace law as it pertains to the interference of personal property and privacy of individuals. By the end of the 12 min segment all I was able to gather was that it"d suck to have a pervert neighbor who flew drones because the law, as it still stands, finds said pervy neighbor to be fully within their legal right to fly their drone to my house and hover in record mode outside my bedroom/bathroom window. As this space does not belong to me, but is owned property by the FAA. So if I was getting dressed, going to the bathroom or even being intimate with my husband - if I happened to see a drone with the red light on outside my window I am within no legal right to take my shotgun and shoot that drone down. A year later, the purchase of a drone by my soon-to-be husband sparks the debate- If it any point I see a drone hovering anywhere on my property when I"m unaware or unwanting of its presence; I will destroy it. Especially in cases where the drone is not known to me, or my soon to be husband. This started off at a joke topic, as we plan our trip to the boundary waters and I"m a very private "bathroom" person...so I will reiterate what I"ve told him.... I believe I am within all legal rights to destroy a drone when violating my legally claimed personal space, despite any knowledge I have acquired previously stating otherwise. When I moved into my first hous there were an array of issues I had to deal with, I found them all fun and willingly took the projects on. The one problem I did not enjoy dealing with was my super nice neighbor who incessantly bothered me about their overgrown trees, claiming they did not know what to do with them. Well, the problem was that this trees branches were spilling out into the sidewalk (city owned;they"d be fined for the overage), neighbors yards (who constantly complained about dead leaves/flowers in their yard and consequent rodent issues) and their interference with cable lines (privately owned by companies who threatened suit for their customer complaints of interrupted service which went unfixed for months while this tree continued to grow, bloom and die...) The neighbor could not trim the tree themselves, as they were too old to do it themselves, and they could not afford to hire a professional to do so. Eventually they called the city who told them the tree branches were their property, thus they were responsible for their maintence, etc. That said, if A tree branch on city property is held accountable by a different property owned by a different individual, could not the same be said about a drone. As a drone would not be functioning without its flyer"-who presumably is on the ground (rooted somewhere else) committing but otherwise be considered stalking, spying, harassing or minimally trespassing on private property? Thoughts
Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice.

My opponent has agreed tha Obesity is the result of choices, however has not rebutted the fact that this in itself makes it not a choice. She points out people make choices that lead to obesity, and attempts to rebut my statement that obesity is not being unhealthy. However, it still stands. Obesity is a specific condition that can lead to unhealthy consequences. I am not saying that being obese isn't unhealthy, I'm just saying that obesity isn't unhealthiness itself. For example, a smoker can be unhealthy without being obese. My opponent has said that I have not provided facts, but I have. Look to the definitions. Obesity fits all of the definitions for disease provided. It affects a person, animal, or plant and it is a condition that prevents the body or mind from working normally. My opponent has also pointed out cancer, and that it is not a disease because the don't choose to get it. However, this is not true. If you agree with my opponents logic, then you must admit that people who work as painters chose to work with carcinogens . http://www.inchem.org... therefore cancer is a choice. My opponent herself stated "Cancer is a disease". As we can see this is hypocritical and thus falls.
Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice.

My opponent con states that "Obesity is not being unhealthy, or having fat. Obesity is a medical condition. Obesity is not a choice, it is the result of a series of choices. The result is distinct from the choice."He is right. A person makes choices on a daily basis knowing the consequence, of eating unhealthy food, yet they still do it, knowing that their choice will effect their life in a negative way. My opponent also states that "Obesity is not being unhealthy, or having fat" his claim is also incorrect. So exactly why is con wrong? Well here is why Obesity is unhealthy: Obesity is the number one cause of type 2 diabetes. The chances of getting diabetes increases more than tenfold if your body weight is higher than normal. Diabetes do all the bad things to your body. It can give many problems to your eyes, kidneys, and heart. Source: http://www.obesity-info.com... Con has not made any of his points clear other than saying that it IS a disease but yet not backing it up with any facts. Cancer is a disease, people don't choose to have cancer. Obesity is not a disease, they choose to become obese by the food they consume. Vote PRO!! :)
Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice.

There are many definitions. However, we must have an agreed upon meaning of the resolution to debate. I believe my definitions are reasonable and encompass the meaning that they are suppossed it. You are also correct in that they don' make either of us right. Itis the way that they are used that wins debates. My opponent claims that people have choices, whether to be healthy or unhealthy. That is very true. She points out that if they make unhealthy choices they will gain weight. This is also very true. However, this does not matter, as this does not mean obesity. Obesity is not being unhealthy, or having fat. Obesity is a medical condition. Obesity is not a choice, it is the result of a series of choices. The result is distinct from the choice.Her claims merely expand upon the nature of becoming obese, they do not refute my points and they are rebutted by the points I have already made.As you did not ask me to waive my final speech, I will not.Good Luck to the Pro.
Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice.

There are many different definitions. Just because you choose a definition doesn't make you right. Obesity most of the time is caused by excessive amount of calories. People have choices, to be healthy or not. It's all up to them what they eat or don't eat, if they choose to exercise or not. They know if they eat unhealthy food more then likely they will gain more weight, compared to if they eat more healthy food they wont gain as much wait compared to junk food. My claim: 1)Obesity is a preventable risk factor for other diseases and conditions, and is not a disease itself. Like smoking is a preventable risk factor for lung cancer and drinking is a preventable risk factor for alcoholism, obesity is a preventable risk factor for coronary heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, cancers (like endometrial, breast, and colon), high cholesterol, high levels of triglycerides, liver and gallbladder disease, incontinence, increased surgical risk, sleep apnea, respiratory problems (like asthma), osteoarthritis, infertility and other reproductive complications, complications during pregnancy and birth defects, and mental health conditions. [42] [36] Women who gain 20 pounds or more between age 20 and midlife double their risk of postmenopausal breast cancer. [36] For every 2 pound weight increase, the risk of developing arthritis rises 9-13%. [36]. 2)Obesity is the result of eating too much. The suggested daily caloric intake for 31-50-year-olds is 1,800 calories for women and 2,200 calories for men. [7] In 2009-2010, 30-39-year-old women consumed an average 1,831 calories (which is 1.7% over the recommendation) while men of the same age consumed an average 2,736 calories per day (which is 22% over the recommendation). [3] The average American restaurant meal portion size is four times as large as portions in the 1950s and 96% of entrees at chain restaurants exceed dietary guidelines for fat, sodium, and saturated fat, with some almost exceeding daily intakes in one meal. [44] [45] The body is doing what it has evolved to do by converting excess calories into fat cells. The CDC recommends reducing consumption of sugar drinks (like sodas) and high-energy-dense foods to prevent and reduce obesity. [42] The Mayo Clinic states, "Having a diet that's high in calories, eating fast food, skipping breakfast, eating most of your calories at night, drinking high-calorie beverages and eating oversized portions all contribute to weight gain." Sources http://obesity.procon.org...
Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice.

To make up for this if the Pro wants me to waive my final speech I will if I am told in their second speech. In addition I would like to note that as con and the person supporting the status quo, my opponent will bear the Burden of Proof. I agree with the definition of obesity provided, but would like to insert a few more. Disease:an illness that affects a person, animal, or plant : a condition that prevents the body or mind from working normally. http://www.merriam-webster.com...Choice:the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities. http://www.merriam-webster.com...; Obesity is in fact a disease and not a choice. This is because it fits the definition of disease as it an ilness that affects a person, and ir prevents the body from working normally. It is not a choice, because one does not "choose" obesity. A person may make choices that lead to being obese, or even chose that they want to become obese, but the obesity itself is not a choice. Even if you disagree with my analysis, you must also look back again to the definition of choice. Obesity, even if one did choose to become obese, would be an option, not a choice. For all these reasons please vote Con. Good luck to the Pro.
Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice.

What is obesity? Obesity is a medical condition in which excess body fat has accumulated to the extent that it may have a negative effect on health, leading to reduced life expectancy and/or increased health problems http://en.wikipedia.org... Many people use the excuse that the reason why they are obese, is because they have a "disease" I will be arguing that obesity is in fact a choice, not a disease. Opponent in first round may state their argument. Good luck!
Art is gay

My opponent proposes:1. Art sucks.2. Only wimps like art.My opponent has failed to define art in this debate, so I am left to search for a definition myself. I propose, for the purposes of this debate, art be considered to mean any form of creative pursuit. Things like painting, drawings, music, literature, which serve no real world purpose other than to be enjoyed and reveled in. Now my opponents former claim is a bit dusty, as appeal is something which is entirely subjective. Certainly my opponent may not enjoy art, but how does this become some form of inherent measurement? If we were to measure art based on subjective appeal, we would get no where. So what about a group measurement, comparing the collective appeal with collective disinterest? But even that is still largely subjective and based on spread and popularity. My opponent has failed to give any form of way to determine that art sucks. They have simply made the claim, and expect us to agree.Now look, art has existed since the dawn of man. Paintings and music have followed us everywhere, across every culture. It should be obvious to anyone that art has huge appeal, else there would not be such droves that pursue it. Painting may have fallen out of the public eye in this day and age, but professional photography is it's modern replacement. And music still plays a major role in our lives. Clearly, art does not suck, as billions of people across the globe revel in artistic merit every day.My opponents latter claim is easy to disprove. Only wimps enjoy art? Leonardo Da Vinci was a wimp? Vincent van Gogh, who cut off his ear, was a wimp? Ludwig van Beethoven was a wimp? I could go on and on, listing badass artists, but I've already made my point. Clearly not ONLY wimps like art.My opponent has failed to defend his case, which falls apart in light of my own.
Abortion should be illegal

Legal abortion is needed to protect women's health, is justifiable in certain circumstances, and it is a woman's right to choose to abort a fetus. A fetus cannot feel pain until the 26th week Legalizing abortion protects women's health I don't disagree that abortion, in most cases, is morally wrong. However when abortion is illegal it is dangerous to the health of the woman due to back-alley abortions. Whether abortion is legal or not women will abort the fetus if they choose to. This is the most important reason abortion needs to remain legal because making it illegal changes nothing except more desperate women will die from their abortions. The fetus will be terminated either way but illegal abortions are unsanitary and incredibly dangerous in most cases while legal abortions are generally safe. Rape, incest, or danger to the mother In certain cases abortion is the only option if delivering the child is dangerous to the mother. Other times, rape may be the reason the mother is unwilling to deliver the fetus. Nobody should be able to force a woman to carry the unwanted fetus and go through painful, sometimes dangerous, delivery. There are many reasons women need an abortion and it should only be used as a last resort, but sometimes it must be done. Women's rights Abortion is, in the majority of cases, morally wrong in my opinion seeing as birth control is so readily available and putting a child up for adoption is an option. I want to make it very clear I am totally against late term abortion! But the woman should be able to choose in the early stages of pregnancy if the woman sees no other option. Consciousness in the fetus Abortion should only be legal within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, or the first trimester. 88% of abortions take place within this time frame. (I would prefer not to debate over the other 12% as I agree that it should be illegal) The first stages of consciousness begin to develop around 12-16 weeks with the development of thalamic afferents to the cortex but at this stage almost nothing from the thalamus can reach the cortex. The brain cannot sense pain until about 29 weeks but it can receive visual and auditory information at about 24 weeks. Suffering to the fetus cannot be a factor in early abortions because the fetus cannot feel pain. http://www.prochoiceamerica.org... http://www.nature.com... http://abortion.procon.org...
The Bible Is Inerrent

Firmament: My opponent neglects the fact that the Hebrew word firmament refers to the dome which we know to be the sky. I have provided this definition as well as a current definition of the word firmament which proved that i have won this debate. I addressed my opponent's point on Michal as well as his theory on modern city of Tyre. For this reason, io urge that you vote con due to a superior case. I apologize for accusing my opponent of plagiarism. (thank you for a great debate. )
The Bible Is Inerrent

I never plagiarized ANYTHING! Please see my sources for the last round. Plagiarism is defined by dictionary.com as "putting someone else's work as your own" which I gave credit for and blatantly said it wasn't my original work. This is a closing round and am not adding new arguments. Firmament My opponent still doesn't understand the fact that Hebrew was the language written in Genesis, not English. Therefore we need a Hebrew dictionary for the best possible definition. I shown my opponent how the people understood the word and my opponent ha yet to explain that. Thus I won the debate. Extend my arguments and you can see I am not a plagiarist for the following reasons: 1) Sourced I recieved the info from rejectionofpascalswager, which is credited; 2) I have given the fact it isn't my original work. VOTE CON!!!
The universe needs a creator, therefore God exists

Indeed, you were the l last person I expected to accept. Do not worry, I will repost the debate. The only problem is, I am not able to cancel it, hence I believe that either one of us should forfeit, or we can just discuss some random topic. I do know about you and I am aware of your beliefs. In fact, I agree with you on most religious matters, and that's why I never thought of debating you on such a topic.
The universe needs a creator, therefore God exists

Hello In this debate the topic discussed is whether the universe requires a creator (or rather, a God) or not, on scientific and philosophical terms (mainly the former). Pro is to argue that it does need a creator, while I, Con, will argue that it does not. The burden of proof is therefore shared. _________________________________________________________________________________________ Definitions: Universe [1]: [yoo-nuh-vurs] noun 1. the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm. My source provides more definitions, but that is the one to be debated on. Creator [2]: [kree-ey-ter] noun 1. a person or thing that creates. 2. the Creator, God. _________________________________________________________________________________________ Debate format: R1. Acceptance and Pro's initial arguments, if they wish so. R2, R3, R4. No special restrictions. R5. Only rebuttals and no new arguments or claims which have not been elaborated on during previous rounds. It is suggested that both sides make an objective summary of the debate in the last round. Regulations: 1. Please, do not forfeit, except if you have an important reason to do so. If that does happen, though, the discussion may continue in a separate debate. 2. No offensive behaviour is allowed, neither on the debate nor on the comment section. 3. Pro may propose a modification to the debate's format or regulations or an alternative definition to the ones provided above up to R2. 4. Both sides are allowed to provide new definitions to support their claims only during R1, R2 and R3. 5. Have fun. _________________________________________________________________________________________ Sources: [1]. Dictionary.com, "Universe" http://www.dictionary.com... [2]. Dictionary.com, "Creator" http://www.dictionary.com...
Gay Marriage

Resolved: The reasons to make same-sex marriage legal in the United States outweigh the reasons not to do so.My previous opponent for this resolution forfeited, and her account is not longer active, so I would like to try again.The BOP is shared between Pro and Con.Rules:1. First round for acceptance, unless Con wishes to begin his or her arguments. If Con begins arguing in R1, he or she shall not post any arguments in R5.2. Semantic arguments should not be counted.3. Drops will count as concessions.4. No new arguments in the last round.Good luck to whomever accepts!
Gay Marriage

I accept my opponent's challenge; I will be arguing that the reasons not to make same-sex marriage legal outweigh the reasons to do so. I will use this round for definitions. 1. Marriage: a social union between people called spouses that creates kinship. 2. Spouses: a partner in a marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, or common-law marriage. 3. Civil Union: a legally recognized contract between two spouses. 4. The "United States" that my opponent referred to in his resolution will be taken to mean the federal government of the United States of America. My opponent is free to dispute, or accept my definitions in R2. I look forward to a good debate.
there is nothing wrong with same sex marriage

Summary of opponents paragraph (plus my response underneath): 1. Everything should be included in marriage Ok.....then I can marry my dog, because I love him. Obviously my opponents logic makes no sense. Marriage is not based just on love, if that were so then anyone could marry anything. Thus, what is the point of marriage if it has no value, and it is simply an attraction between anything, no matter what it is, or how many there are. This argument is ridiculous, and clearly illogical. *He never responds to my proposed counter-plan of civil unions, thus you can extend it.*
there is nothing wrong with same sex marriage

as my opponent says about a slippery slope in the legal system and no one knows where it will stop it might not only stop at same sex marriage it might go on to other things like polygamy or incest but that's a persons choice marriage is a bond between who you love and want to be with who they like why should a man and a women have the right to be bonded in marriage and the other people of society not be able to as well the legal system banning same sex marriage and polygamy and all those things is just their way of not dealing with the situation acting like its not part of the world. the definition should not only refer to only 1 man and 1 women it should be the bond that two partners or even more than one partner in love who want to bond in holy matrimony.
there is nothing wrong with same sex marriage

I negate: there is nothing wrong with same sex marriage Observation: Since the resolution says NOTHING wrong, my opponent must affirm unconditionally. However, to negate I must prove that there is only 1 thing wrong, and tat is sufficient because it will prove that there is something wrong, as opposed to absolutely nothing. Contention I: Legal Implications A. Changing the definition of marriage will create a slippery slope. If the legal system says that marriage can be between the same sex, what will stop it from claiming that any type of relationship is allowed and protected under marriage. Two specific examples: 1. Polygamy. Having more then one spouse. 2. Incest. Love of a family member. If the definition changes, and there is no set definition then there would be a legal slippery slope to allow all types marriages. *In-case turn: Some would argue that the definition is simply between 2 people. If someones argues this, then they are doing the same thing that the attack conservatives and Christians for, PREJUDICE. Thus, if there is nod definition, then there will be any legal implications. -So, therefore, the definition must be kept at its traditional definition: between 1 man and 1 woman. Neg. counter Plan -Civil Unions Marriage has always been a religious institution. Therefore, the states have a right to have civil unions between gay people. They can do this, I have no objection, however they cannot use the term marriage.
there is nothing wrong with same sex marriage

same sex marriage is fine there is nothing wrong with it people make such a big deal about it for no reason. people say that same sex marriage is wrong because there children will grow up wit problems. this is not true studies show many people wit the same sex partner do have children and the children do no better or no worse they live normal lives also the saying that same sex marriage will not reproduce is not a good argument on the fact that if this is the case then people who are sterile or elderly should not marry as well? another issue is that it is unnatural for same sex. studies show that animals in the wild have same sex partners and raising offspring it is also said that in the bible homosexuality is a sin it also talks about understanding and acceptance
there is nothing wrong with same sex marriage

a women's only gym has nothing to do with it yes they can do that but there are other gyms that men can go to and religion and the bible has everything to do with marriage just like the saying holy matrimony. taking away a persons right to marry rights are what makes this country if you change one thing people hate it it has always been one man and one women marrying way can't it be different and include everyone why should it only be them