BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
21 december 2012-world's last day

Let's start here: "The end of the Mayan Great Cycle after the completion of the 12th Bak'tum. It's either the 21st or 23rd December, 2012 depending on whether you use the 584,285 or 584,283 correlation coefficient." "Atlantis sank on August 12, 3113 BC, thus marking the end of the Fourth World and the beginning of the Fifth. The Sixth World began on December 12, 2011 AD, and will end, according to the Mayan calendar, on April 4, 7137 AD." "The canonical dates (according to Ehran the Scribe) on the ends of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth worlds are August 12, 3113 BCE (the fall of Atlantis), December 24, 2011 CE (the appearance of Ryumyo)..." Source: http://www.greatdreams.com... My point? In addition to 12/21/2012, other speculations about the date of the world's end is in question. For instance, the quotes above illustrate how different people have heard/made different predictions about doom's day, including 12/23,2012, 12/12/2012, and 12/24/2012. If scholars or even your every day man can't agree on a date, then clearly we're not 'understanding' the Mayan calendar fully or as well as we think we do. Further, my opponent has not proven that out of all of those dates in question, that 12/21/2012 is the most likely to be right. If by some chance she succeeds at accomplishing this feat, we'll move onto other arguments about this tall-tale.
The Death Penalty

*Note how Con, yet again, ignored my points on rape and pedophilia. A Mentally Sane Person's Breaking Point:I, somewhat, agree that if a psychologically sane person snaps that they should be able to receive a second chance. There should be leniency towards those who snap as he human brain can handle so much psychological stress at one time. IF it reaches its limit then the brain loses its control and has the person kill. That's what sucks about being human. "Every person has a breaking point, after which everyone would become part of the new psychological order..." (http://drrimatruthreports.com...)I extend my arguments of rape and pedophilia.
The Death Penalty

As I mentioned, I have been under the weather and have been in no shape to debate. However, I do not want to disappoint the audience, so despite my illness I shall not disappoint. A person who does not value a life like they should should not be here? Well then if you're willing to execute someone, kill them, end their life, then a human life is also provably not valuable to you. If you are willing to end a life, then you have proven that a life is not worth having around. That's rather insulting. And what about second chances for mentally sane people? Even mentally sane people reach a snapping point and react outside of their normal self and end up killing. I know this first hand. I don't care to get personal. I reached my snapping point in life, and I was ready to kill... myself. I am normally sane, and now very happy, but so much stress entered my life, and I was ready to kill myself. Should I have just done it anyways? Because I have been proven harmful and provably valued life less than I should have. And that is the question I want answered. If nothing else, the last paragraph I want a response to. Tell me that because I stopped calling life for a period of time because I snapped, that I ought to be dead. Tell me that. If you do, I won't report you for hateful talk. I will forfeit this debate and encourage a unanimous, seven points to be awarded to you by each voter. So go on. There's not enough character space for me to address every argument and then finish what I previously wanted to finish had I not been too ill to participate sooner.
The Death Penalty

Note how Con ignored my points on rape and pedophilia. My Rebuttal:A, "person," who can't see it but they choose to ignore it shouldn't be allowed to live. If you chose to ignore right from wrong; you don't deserve to be considered a human being. However, in terms of insanity (They can't see right from wrong); that person should be put in an asylum. If that person cannot value the person's life that he/she ruined or ended should not be a human being and therefore should be put to death like an animal.
The Death Penalty

The death penalty serves a negative purpose. It does no good. What is the point of the death penalty? To rid the world of a killer? Lock them up and they will never come out. Getting rid of them proves that life isn't all that valuable. If you are willing to kill someone, then you do not see human life as valuable. But isn't the whole point of the death penalty to punish someone the right way for the seriousness of the crime? Well, if the crime is so bad, like murder, then you have killed one person on top of a person who is already dead, proving that life isn't all that valuable. Though life is very valuable no matter who you are. I will continue my arguments in upcoming rounds. I am very ill and I find it hard to participate at the moment
The Death Penalty

My opening thesis: If a person has intent and malice to cause mental and physical harm and gets the sensation of enjoyment out of it, that person should be punished by death. Once you murder someone (and feel enjoyment), rape, and touch a child inappropriately; you should not be seen as a human being in the eyes of the law and deserved to be put down like an animal. The death penalty is justified at this point. Many will argue that killing a human being after he/she killed another human being (with malice and intent, of course) is unjustifiable as it results in the ending of a human life which is illegal and immoral. I, however, (and many more) disagree as that allows that person who ended a human life to still be alive. Many believe that imprisonment is too humane for these people who commit such heinous acts. Now, onto the subject of rape. Rape is as heinous as murder. You have the intent to cause harm, both physically and psychologically. The result of the rape to the victim is as devastating as murder. You have to live with the thought of being raped and not trusting another human being after the act. Now, onto the physical harm of it. The physical harm of rape is terrible. Rape victims have cuts, bruises, vaginal (or anal for both men and women) damage, and (possibly) broken bones. Pedophilia is devastating to a child. That child will not be the same as he or she was before the incident. They have to live WITH the rest of their lives psychologically and emotionally broken. Children are delicate people. As soon as a man or women lay a finger on a child inappropriately; they should be seen as an animal for ruing that CHILD's life. When I say, "animal;" I mean it as you are seen as a barbaric piece of human flesh with a mentally unstable brain. These animals aren't fit for society and should be excluded from it as a result of their heinous actions. Humans are meant to be reasonable and socially fit people. That is where I end my argument.
Resolved: The Storm Troopers were given the orders to not kill the main characters in Star Wars.

This debate is about whether or not the Storm Troopers for the Galatic Empire were given the orders to NOT kill the main characters, Luke, Han Solo, Princess Leia, and Chewbaca. This theory is only applicable to Episodes 4 through 6. Rules First Round is acceptance. Second Round is arguments, no rebuttals. Third Round is rebuttals. Forth Round is rebuttals and conclusion. No new arguments are to be permitted in the forth round. No profanities. Wikipeadia will not be used as a source. The debate MUST be Cannon. (No fanfics permitted) Only the Movies are the only applicable sourcin. 72 hours response time. 8,000 character limit. If any of these points are violated you will forfeit all seven points to your opponent.
Nations should work to prepare for climate change instead of preventing it.

No one is denying that climate change is upon us. The present effects of global warming and other forms of climate change are well documented. As we see it, the people of the world have two choices: --shore up our defenses against the worst effects of climate change and hope that we won"t eventually be incapable of coping with the rising seas, floods, droughts, disease, etc. that are even now threatening communities on every continent, or --focus our energies and resources on preventing further climate change damage to mitigate the impact on humanity and planet. Given the ominous fact that there is nothing that can be done to immediately halt and reverse the effects of climate change, humans need to take the long view. Where will we be in 50 or 100 years if we fail to take steps now to prevent even greater climate change? The effects we are feeling now are so threatening to human health and the ecosystems we depend upon that it is inconceivable we could survive many generations at the current rate of damage. The alternative to real and concerted prevention of further climate change, is to accept a future in which the people of Earth who are not killed by heat waves, mosquito-born diseases, floods, famines and the other inevitable effects of global warming find themselves fighting over the few verdant patches of land high enough to escape seas that have risen [find stat] feet once the polar ice caps have melted completely. The preparation position is a fatalistic one. It accepts the eventual demise of humankind. The only viable position is the prevention of further climate change in hopes of reestablishing ecological balance in the world. No amount of raising levees, recycling water, or distributing mosquito nets will be sufficient over time to save our race and the world from the climate change damage we have put in motion. Given a choice between preparing for the worst, and attempting to prevent the worst--humanity"s best hope lies in prevention. We must do everything we can, starting now, to halt the shameful dependence on fossil fuels, the destruction of tropical rainforests, and pumping of hydrocarbons into the air.
Washing clothes is a waste of time

Thank you for your response. I promise mine will be delightful and convoluted.As a society, what is educational is decided upon by a group of people, and without fail it is decided not based on the majority but on a minority. Most of the time the education standards are set by idiots who majored in business.[1]. This is ironic do to the fact that business majors are rated as some of the least educated to come out of college[2]. This can be connected with how business does not encourage curiosity. I do not hate business majors, I hold them in contempt for their lack of humanity. This is a popular view and it would be easy to brush it aside as political, but if business were interested in improving humanity then they wouldn't be considered as defining altruism.[3] Maybe instead, the standards of society should be decided upon relatively. This is standard hogwash to some, but in other cases it is most desirable due to it's ability to free and it's latent chain to the constitution. Nude beaches are revered by nearly all gay men and every single senior citizen. Both of these groups of people could be considered as undergoing more existential stress than any other group. Homosexuals deal with, and as is evidenced by the latest ruling, and overcome, being different from their peers. This is a deep seated terror that nearly every kid has experienced in school at some point. Senior citizens are faced with demise and regret. Now, I have wondered off topic and it could be conceivable that I am arguing for the permissibility of public nudity. This could not be further from the truth if it were written by a blind man. I am arguing that washing clothes adds an unneeded amount of stress due to it's tedious nature, it's annoying nature. If someone were to stop washing their clothes they would free up at least 3 hours each week. According to journalists Malcolm Gladwell[4], it takes 10,000 hours to master an art. The average lifespan in hours is:24 hours * 365 days * 75 years = 657,000 hours livedTime taken to wash clothes:3 hours * 52 weeks * 75 years = 11,700 hoursBy not washing your clothes, you are improving your life in someway. [1]http://www.nybooks.com...[2] http://www.nytimes.com... [3] http://www.cracked.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...(book)
Washing clothes is a waste of time

I need to get more accustomed to debating, so by choosing a fun topic I hope to become a better debater and in turn, more sociable. In this debate I will defend the argument that washing your clothes is a waste of time and that it is unnecessary in society. Con will be arguing against this using whatever he needs to disprove my claim.First round is acceptance and argument. There will be three rounds with 3 days posting time allowed.Good luck.
God's Forgiveness

A 17 year old woman curses the executioner as he prepares to hang her for the murder of her newborn baby. Earlier the woman told the pastor when he advised her to ask God for forgiveness "the baby deserved to die for what it's father did to me" The pastor responded "this woman is unrepentant. She must pay for her crime" Should the woman be punished for her crime and will God forgive her? I say yes she should be punished and yes God will forgive her
Should The Equal Rights Amendment Be Passed

No, they would not interpret it the same way. You ignore my arguments, and play ignorant. If you do not get what "The Judicial Branch interprets the laws" and "The ninth amendment gives unlisted rights (privacy being one of them) then you have not studied the amendments and should not be debating on this topic. " Do we really want our daughters, sisters, and nieces forced to draft?" America has not needed to draft since the Vietnam war, so that argument fell flat on its face. If you simply would like to ignore the facts I have pointed out, or did not understand them, then you are not cut out for this debate which has to do with the Constitution and amendments. Opinion and emotion have no place here.
Should The Equal Rights Amendment Be Passed

I wasn't exactly sure what Pro's point was the last round. Something about the 9th amendment and the judicial branch's ability to interpret the amendment. Couldn't the judicial branch interpret the amendment the same way I did or very similarly? Also, what would be the point of the proposed equal right amendment if between the judicial branch's interpretation and the 9th amendment if no change took place? Do we really want our daughters, sisters, and nieces forced to draft? Nay, I say.
Should The Equal Rights Amendment Be Passed

"Now with equality it swings both ways. For example animals being more equal to human would also open the flood gates for human testing. After-all, if we gave human and animals equal rights and we already test on animals like vivisection labs, it would only be just to subject humans to vivisection also." The Equal Rights Amendment says "Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." If you have not read it, the amendment means by sex, not species and is given to humans exclusively. The Constitution is not a tool for giving animals rights, but humans. To include any amendment giving animals exclusive rights would be an unwise choice considering they would have to propose the amendment, and approve it, which the government finds quite wasteful. In the beginning of America, soldiers fought a hard and long war against the British to have these rights, but for who? Surely not pets of course. "Next, is the issue of men's and women's locker rooms. To avoid gender discrimination unisex locker rooms would be used. Men and women would get changed in the same locker rooms. Similarly, public showers would be unisex. Both men and woman would shower in the same room. Finally, there would be the issue of religious freedom. Many religions practice strict segregation of men and woman. Thus, gender equality would interfere with the first amendment, freedom of religion. [3]." This theory is rather wild and unlikely. Let me remind you that it is the Judicial Branch of the U.S. government to interpret the laws including amendments, not you. This is also unconstitutional, as both genders Ninth Amendment rights would be broken. http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org... Amendment IX "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The right of privacy is one retained by the people although it is not written down, as well as the right to get married, own a violin, own a guitar, own a bottle of lotion, and etc. "While sounding like a good idea on the surface. Gender equality would have many costs that would become apparently quickly. Mainly, woman would get drafted. Public health, menstruation, and swimming pools. Finally shared restrooms would leave many opportunities for sexual assault. A woman would no longer be able to scream without practicing discrimination when a man walks into a locker room, bathroom, or shower with the woman. " Let me remind you that this debate is no place for sexism; it is a formal debate on whether or not The Equal Rights Amendment should be passed. And again, that would violate their Ninth Amendment rights. https://www.whitehouse.gov... https://www.whitehouse.gov...
Should The Equal Rights Amendment Be Passed

OutlineI. Intro and historyII. Equality swings both waysIII. SummaryIV. linksI. IntroR1 is debate, so I will not waste this round with acceptance only and instead produce a full fledged argument. The Equal Rights Amendment was started in 1923 "Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."This simple sentence comprised Section 1 of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which was first proposed in Congress by the National Women's Party in 1923. " [1] II. Equality swings both ways Now with equality it swings both ways. For example animals being more equal to human would also open the flood gates for human testing. After-all, if we gave human and animals equal rights and we already test on animals like vivisection labs, it would only be just to subject humans to vivisection also. "Every year, tens of millions of animals are dissected, infected, injected, gassed, burned and blinded in hidden laboratories on college campuses and research facilities throughout the U.S. Still more animals are used to test the safety of cosmetics, household cleansers and other consumer products." [2] In the name of justice, these same experiments would have to be performed on humans. Experimenting on one group but not another would be unfair. The same would be true of men and woman equality. Woman would be drafted at the same age as men. Maternity leave would be questioned. All bathrooms would have to be unisex. After all, restrooms in their current states are segregation, separate but equal. Note, separate but equal is inherently unequal. Then, there is the issue of menstruation. Woman would not be given special consideration. This is especially prudent when dealing with swimming pools. This would pit public health versus gender equality. Next, is the issue of men's and women's locker rooms. To avoid gender discrimination unisex locker rooms would be used. Men and women would get changed in the same locker rooms. Similarly, public showers would be unisex. Both men and woman would shower in the same room. Finally, there would be the issue of religious freedom. Many religions practice strict segregation of men and woman. Thus, gender equality would interfere with the first amendment, freedom of religion. [3].III. Summary While sounding like a good idea on the surface. Gender equality would have many costs that would become apparently quickly. Mainly, woman would get drafted. Public health, menstruation, and swimming pools. Finally shared restrooms would leave many opportunities for sexual assault. A woman would no longer be able to scream without practicing discrimination when a man walks into a locker room, bathroom, or shower with the woman. IV. Links1. http://www.ushistory.org...2. http://vivisectioninfo.org...3. http://constitution.findlaw.com...
If Socrates should or shouldn't have drank the hemlock

Regardless of whether the trial was truly fair or not is irrelevant. You have just agreed that he is obligated to kill himself and even if due to the social contract he is now allowed to leave due to the injustice of the Athens government, by that time it is to late. The trial is over, he has already been given his sentence. Think of this, as you said Socrates disproved that he was an atheist because he believes in demigods there for meaning he believes in gods seeing as how demigods are the children of gods. Socrates said that everything he does is because of a divine spirit he listens too. If his divine spirit has not told him to run then not only is he obligated to kill himself by the state then at this point it is the will of god. While it is truly a shame that we may not have everything of Socrates and his teachings, but we do have some or else he would not be mentioned in philosophy classes. However whether that itself be an injustice has no direct effect on whether or not he should have drank the hemlock. Fact of that matter is he was given a fair trial, was seen as guilty and due to his social contract was obligated to kill himself therefore he did. Whether it be a suicide or a death sentence he was sentenced to death so one way or another it had to be done.
If Socrates should or shouldn't have drank the hemlock

It is true that under the social contract, as you stated, he was obligated to kill himself. However, the idea brought up of the fair trial is hardly true. In "The Apology" finds the contradictions in the claims made by the city of Athens against himself. He disproves his charges of being an atheist and teaching atheism to the youth as well as corrupting the youth. However, at the end of his trial, he was still sentenced to death after having proved himself innocent? yet Athenian law system had wronged him. And under the social contract that every Athenian is obliged to it claims "Yet we proclaim that if any man of the Athenians is dissatisfied with us, he may take his goods and go away wherever he pleases; we give that privilege to every man who chooses to avail himself to it,..." Under this social contract due to the injustice received upon him by the Athenian contract in which he follows, he now has a creditable means of logic for fleeing Athens and going where he likes. Though it is true that he may undergo similar circumstances wherever he chooses to migrate to, he is still alive to spread his ideas and teachings among those that are willing and/or able to receive them. With his socially contracted obliged suicide, we are left with only few of the scripts and teachings received by others from him. We have no literature from himself to pass his teachings on to other generations. That in itself is an injustice which could now never be reversed. This is why Socrates should have never drank the hemlock.
If Socrates should or shouldn't have drank the hemlock

What other choice did have then to drink the hemlock? As I said previously if he were to escape then he would be proving the judges right and would be corrupting the youth. Socrates said that he preferred death to exile and even if he did not, then this situation would more then likely repeat itself in another city. Also as said in "The Crito: Socrates' Refusal to Escape" 'You might go to one of the neighboring states ... but, Socrates , you will come as an enemy to these governments, and all who care for their city will look askance at you, and think that you are a subverter of the law.' The fact that Socrates stayed in Athens all of his life means that he has a social contract with Athens, to run away would break that contract. Socrates had a fair trial, he had his trial in front of the public, was given a chance to speak and in the end he was still sentenced to death. Due to his social contract, due to the fact that he did not run away, he must go by the decision that is given to him. Due to all of this Socrates was obligated to kill himself.