BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homework is better than video games

Thank you for your response, Let's see what we have here "But 99% is not successful" Are you talking about parents being successful to stop addiction or the success of the child in adulthood? Because both of those are wrong "If others give you stress you are not going to be fond of it! " Here's what I meant: If your mother constantly stresses you out to do homework because you won't be successful, Then you will be addicted to homework, Constantly fearing that you won't be successful "99% of parents are unable to stop their child. " Okay so it is about parents. . . . Which is wrong. You are the parent, You decide what you child does, If you see he/she play a bit too much videogames, You can tell her/him to take a break. Also that a very bold statistic you have there "If you are an adult, Well, The case is much worse as you aren't supervised by anyone and you can easily get yourself addicted! " If you are a well raised adult or just an adult with common sense then you won't get addicted. You're saying that the adult isn't supervised, So that means they're in a house of their own, Which they have to pay rent for, Which they have to work for. . . "You said the game puts you into a whole new world. See? That makes it easy to let you forget your realistic side and cause you to become an addict! " Blaming the video-games for a person's responsibility, I can predict that you will do that a lot "You also pointed out that video games do not cause stress. Well, Mentally, Yes, But it does cause physical stress. " Again, Blaming the video-games for a person's responsibility. Also you can quit video-games, Homework? Not so much A person addicted to homework will also cause mental stress AND physical stress. I point this out because you like putting addiction into your arguments Your turn
Homework is better than video games

Now let me further explain what I mean. See, I didn't say 100% of people who play video games will be addicted. Yes, For a child, His or her parents have the responsibility to stop the child from being addicted. But 99% is not successful (which I will continue the disadvantages later). And why did you think people can be addicted to doing homework? If others give you stress you are not going to be fond of it! While you are happily playing your beloved video games, Have you thought of the long-term effects? You might say that you are not addicted to the games, But I've just said, 99% of parents are unable to stop their child. If you are an adult, Well, The case is much worse as you aren't supervised by anyone and you can easily get yourself addicted! You said the game puts you into a whole new world. See? That makes it easy to let you forget your realistic side and cause you to become an addict! You also pointed out that video games do not cause stress. Well, Mentally, Yes, But it does cause physical stress. I"m not saying I"m a doctor or anything, But health is a person"s must. Also, I am no parent. What do you think about my argument? Your turn.
Homework is better than video games

Alright, Instead of writing a goddamn essay, I'm just going to respond to what you have claimed. "Why does everyone prefer video games? " Because it is fun and entertaining, Puts you on a whole new world instead of raising your stress "If you are addicted to video games you will stay at home all day playing instead of meeting friends (unless you go inviting them to play with you, Which is highly not recommend). " Yes, IF you are addicted. You are claiming like 100% of all people who play games are addicted. It is a parent's responsibility to help your child not become addicted. Also why do you not want people to invite friends? Do you think it's some sort of virus? Also homework has a less chance of making friends than video games. It's not some sort of all mighty social activity. "But you can't be addicted to it" Yes you can, If put through massive stress from your parents or close ones "So if you arrange your time well you can still exercise and meet friends to reduce your stress. " Same goes for video-games but they do not cause stress Saying that, I think you're probably just some parent. No right-minded person would say this to be honest. Homework doesn't really learn anything either considering they're just recaps of the lesson in class. It is an ineffective way to learn anything really, Anything it does is give you hand cramps. And with that, Your turn
Homework is better than video games

Why everyone prefers video games? Sitting in front of your computer cause physical problems while it also causes mental problems. If you are addicted to video games you will stay at home all day playing instead of meeting friends (unless you go inviting them to play with you, Which is highly not recommend). What about homework? Doing homework all day does cause physical problems, But you can't be addicted to it, So if you arrange your time well you can still exercise and meet friends to reduce your stress.
Heterosexual marriage is the only marriage union that the state should provide benefits to

4 Rounds. The first round will be for acceptance only. Second round we will present our arguments for or against. third round will be rebuttals Final round will be concluding comments, arguments, and/or more rebuttals. note* please do not make rebuttals to any arguments that were made in the same round. For example, do not argue in round 3 against something that I just said in that round, rather make your rebuttals of my arguments that I made in the previous round. In other words your second round should be for arguments (no rebuttals) and your third round should be rebuttals for arguments that I made in the second round only. You will defeat me in debate if you can logically conclude that heterosexual marriage should not be supported by the state or that homosexual marriage or any other form of marriage should be supported by the state.
Underage boys should not be supervised by gay men

What would a grown man's motive be to volunteer to become a Scout leader, a soccer coach or a choirmaster? These types of posts are unpaid so the motive cannot be financial. It could well be that the man simply wants to pass on his skills to the younger generation, which is most commendable. However, in the case of a gay man, it could be that he enjoys the close company of boys because he is sexually attracted to them. Tragically, you don't have to look far to find stories about gay men abusing boys in their trust... http://www.dailymail.co.uk... http://news.bbc.co.uk... http://www.thesun.co.uk... Of course, not all homosexual men are paedophiles, but neither are most straight men. Nevertheless, a heterosexual man would not be allowed to take a group of underage girls on a camping trip and it therefore follows that a homosexual man should not be allowed to take a group of underage boys camping. In view of this, I propose that applications from gay men for positions that involve the care or supervision of boys under the age of consent should be automatically rejected. Thank you.
Human Enhancement ("designer" babies)

Human enhancement projects help thousands, if not millions of people to live better. A really good example could include burned victims. Burned victims are pointed at by little children and are embarrassed every time they leave the house. Imagine how that would feel, to be asked by a child, "what's wrong with you?" Well Human enhancement projects are able to help those specific individuals get passed the embarrassment. Skin can be generated to help burned victims. There are other ways for a human enhancement projects can help others. Artificial organs are increasingly becoming a reality. Synthetic eye is already in use for people who had previously been blind. Of course I get the reasoning of not doing human enhancement projects, but those experiments are a choice. It's not like people are forced to make sure that their baby is born healthy, with no genetic diseases of other possible diseases that can be inherited. They just want what is best for their children.
Human Enhancement ("designer" babies)

yes, human enhancement is capable of treating disease. Is it always affective? According to ASRM, only 24% of the time is this successful;. we are here to gather the facts, not your opinion. yes it is their body, yes they should have the right to choose. But no woman should have the right to selective abortion. With human enhancement, 10-24 embryos are taken from the owner and experimented on. Only one is selected to be implanted, and the others are immediately discarded. Thats a range of 9- 23 abortions, all for one "perfect" baby. Regent academy, has also proven this procedure to not be 100% safe, for the embryo or the mother. Let me ask you this, is a "perfect" baby really worth the risk of infertility, death, and the guilt of selective abortion?
Human Enhancement ("designer" babies)

Human enhancement refers to any attempt to temporally or permanently overcome the current limitations of the human body through natural or artificial. People have a chose of whether or not they want to do that with their bodies. Basically, if the want to change how they look or how they are inside, then I say let let them. Human enhancement is no only for one's characteristics, but it can be used to save someone's life. Those inherited diseases affect children even before they are born, and if you are a normal person and have normal feelings then you want your child to live a nice, happy life.
Human Enhancement ("designer" babies)

Hitler never made the mother uncomfortable, because blue eyed toe heads often survived and unidnetical family did not. I understand that enhancments can improve lives, but at the cost of what? Designer babies are often created(regent) as matches for sick family members. As seen in "my sisters keeper" the child is emotionally blackmailed into giving organs, blood, transfusions, etc... To the dying family member. This takes an emotional toll on the child, and eventually they break. I adk you and parents considering this operation to weigh the risks, te pros and cons, and look deeper into this. Do you really want to go througj with more advanced enhancing than Hitler? Do you want your child to be a natural product of steroids? Have an unfair advantage? Widen the social gap that is already to far as it is? I ask you to look imto the future and safety of your future children. Natural conception has many more pros than designer/ enhanced. Thank you
Human Enhancement ("designer" babies)

Hitler did someone of his own doing. He did not have the technologies that we have today. he made the operation absolutely uncomfortable for the mother and usually the mother had no choice. This is the 21st century and people have the choice of whether or not to get the operation done. According to foresight.org, nanotechnology will allow people to analyze and repair any physical alignment of the body. This will repair someone who is damaged or diseased back to full health. An aged and bodied brain will be at a youthful state. This human enhancement repair line will result in the end of pain, disease, and aging. It will also grant children and unable people to start making decisions for themselves, so that they do not have to rely on others so much. In the end, we cannot say for a fact that human enhancement projects will succeed, but a mother can have a higher chance of giving birth to a very healthy baby boy or girl. The odds are on the positive side, usually.
Human Enhancement ("designer" babies)

Hitler, slave owners, and others have all experimented with human enhancement, minus the tehnology we use today. In the Holocost, tall, blue eyed, blonde haired people (jew or germanic) were kept alie because they were viewed as perfect, other jews, were killed. The best, hard working slaves were breeded, well fed and prioritized above other less inclined slaves. The baby with the desure traits(beauty, intelligence, athleticism) are kept and implanted into the mother; is this any different then what slave owners or Adolf Hitler did? Because it is done with technology, is it any less wrong?
Human Enhancement ("designer" babies)

Human enhancement projects are life-changing. Usually the baby is already unhealthy before they are even born, but these projects can change that. Who's to say that the child will not die soon after he or she is born. It is better to be able to do something about it, that slight risk could help that child or save the child from all the suffering that the disease could lead to in the future. I understand that sometimes the desired results may not happen, but sometimes it can. The parents who do this to their child, they know the risks. They know what they are asking for. They just have to have a little faith. the mistake that may be in the embryo is sometimes not caught, yes, but according to Hughes, using reproductive technologies " in this case, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), in which doctors screen embryos before implanting them " for cosmetic purposes is just an old-fashioned parental impulse, translated into 21st century technology. Basically, is the mistake is not caught in the embryo then the least they can do is screen it just to double check. The patient at the end or the day is satisfied and the child can be born as healthy as others, or even healthier.
Human Enhancement ("designer" babies)

Enhancements such as sleeping pills, yes they are ysed every single day, but not without extreme side affects. Anti depressants for example, are they an enhancement? Yes, do they help people, absolutley. Do they have side affects like any othrr drug? Of course. ASRM concludes that duting experimentation, trying to get the desired genes, 1 in 3 embryos are accidentally terminated. If the mistake is not caught, te damged embryo is still implanted into the mother and an unhealthy, terminally ill baby is born. Only 24% of these procedures are successful with disired results, which leav 76% of mistakes and unsuccessful results. Is this 24% chance of a healthy baby worth the rish compared to higher chances of success with natural conception?
Human Enhancement ("designer" babies)

Human enhancement is already being used by simple every day drugs that either help people sleep more, keep them more energized or for something else. It's not like people are being forced to genetically enhance their children. In my opinion, I would want to do anything in my power to make sure that I have perfectly healthy children. If people have children that are already healthy, athletic and has no problems, then so be it. Designer babies, according to my research are the next best thing. They have major benefits to them, including increasing the human life by over thirty years, preventing genetic diseases, allowing a healthy life, eliminating mitochondrial disorders, creating a quick adaptation to any environment, giving the child genes that the parent does not carry, granting scientists a better understanding of genetics, and reducing the risk of inherited medical conditions, according to designerbabiesethics.wordpress.com. With traditional ends of medicine, the primary intention is the use of biotechnology is to treat physical or mental health. It is the exact same thing as designer babies.
Human Enhancement ("designer" babies)

Human enhancement is not the only option for victims of horrible accidents. stem cells can be cultured and aid victims as well. Enhanced babies/humans are only going to widen the gap between socioeconomic classes further. by creating more athletic, intelligent, musically inclined children, the unenhanced children are put at a disadvantage. The best of the best are selected for titles, scholarships, and many other advantages that are now,thanks to designer babies, unavailable to the others . From the beginning of time, humans have to be equal to one another. By creating an enhanced species of humans, we are taking a step backward from this goal.
Governments--Religious--People

To make a long story short, The people should understand now, that God is God of religions and governments. One world government and religions or a division of governments, religions and people, we are all under God and Jesus rule. This includes the devil and non-belivers. Since the Trinity has powers over all the world and everything therein, no revolutions or critics can over rule their world government and religion. Therefore, you can be either a obedient person of our creator or a disobedient person of our creator. Now, wouldn't you agree that God is God over all mankinds and God over all laws?
Governments--Religious--People

To Atmas, my challenger, it is likely that even though you said you are an atheist, yet your body for sure is the temple of God and Jesus Christ. My texts, refers to the books that record the writing of God and Jesus and are govern by historical governments and government that exist today. So I write, that the people are of God and that some rebel from God. Now, the revelations and messages of the trinity, the holy spirit are God's and Jesus. Therefore, let the people be prepared for the defeat of the revolution of the devil as prophesied by Jesus Christ. Long live the king of kings and may his world and governments exist forever.
Governments--Religious--People

I accept this challenge. First, I want to question Pro's definition of religious laws. What exactly do you mean by a religious law? A law based on a religious belief? What evidence do you have to claim that the apparent religious laws dominant in other countries are inferior to the ones within christianity? Second, I want to question Pro's source material for said religious laws. Is the christian bible the source of these laws you wish us all to follow? Should we follow ALL of them, most of them, or pick and choose what would work and what wouldn't? Third, I want to question Pro's want of fallible humans to speak for an omnipotent creator. If the people have a say in how things should be run, what if they make a decision that is against the wants of God? If we assume the bible is the ultimate source of the creators wants, then the people would have no choice but to follow the bible, thus eliminating their possible judgments. Also, if you are a christian, which I'll take a wild swing and assume that you are, then surely you realize that the devil is the adversary of god and this would mean Lucifer would do everything within his power to destroy this Utopian society based on the wants of god. I want to close this section by clarifying that I am an Atheist with a Fundamental Christian past. So I will be playing devils advocate against my atheistic beliefs, but I will not be ignorant towards the christian beliefs.
Rap Tournament: Semifinal (Pajama Boy vs cakerman)

If young metro don't trust you, Imma shoot chu(treble entrance)So far you've had a real easy tourneyBut you're leaving this bjtch in a gurneySlow mode poser thinks he's rapping quick?Mofo joker got me laughing, quit!yeah, yeahYou think I'm playing, but this aint a gameYou think I'm faking, but I'll go insaneI'll find your address, then drive down yo laneBullets flying like rain in a hurricane...You see me pull up, pumped up from cocaineYou scared to look up, gun aimed at o brain...I see you on knees, screamin please in vainI give it a squeeze, porch has a red stain It's yo end day You got it off easy fighting mc9Thinking your bars are God? Well they can't beat mine!I'm JimShady, aka Pajama BoyMy bars fuckin' vibrate like yo momma's toy
Foreign aid is a luxury we can"t afford.

Please define what you understand under afford, and what country you are talking about. The argument that we cannot afford Foreign aid is not true for most Western Countries. Many countries can indeed afford it, and no one is pressuring countries into foreign aid. Obviously, if an LEDC is struggling it cannot afford in foreign aid. Foreign aid helped a lot of countries that were doomed, per example post world war one and two, to rise again and be leading economies. With them being stable again they can export and import and give back to the foreign aiding country. We do not live in a zero-sum world anymore; if we help LEDCs we do not only make their country develop, but we develop all of the world. Therefore foreign aid is affordable by many countries and countries should pursue foreign aid.
Woman belong in a kitchen

I will rebut two parts of my opponents' arguments. The first is that "women are weak" and the second is that they "live to serve men". 1.) "Women are weak." Women throughout history have shown themselves to be as strong--and even stronger--than men. As a teenager, Joan of Arc was able to lead the French army to victory against the English and escort a king to his coronation [1], something that men could not accomplish. A fourteen year-old Shoshone named Sacagawea joined the Corps of Discovery, moving from St. Louis to the Pacific Ocean. Thanks to her heritage, Sacagawea was able to get horses and supplies for the party, and possibly prevented other Native Americans from attacking the Corps, resulting them in reaching the Pacific [2]. At the age of two, Helen Keller became blind and deaf after an illness. Despite her setbacks, Keller was able to get a Bachelor's degree magna cum laude from Radcliffe College and tour the country, lecturing about blindness. She was even able to meet every president from Grover Cleveland to Lyndon Johnson [3]. The numerous examples of strong women both in history and in today's society show that the claim that women are weak is far from correct. 2.) "Women live to serve men." I have been unable to find any conclusive evidence outside of a few blog posts (which were all opinion-based) that proves this assumption. My opponent does not elaborate on this contention either, simply saying that women can serve men in the kitchen and "mak yummy sandwitches". Considering the fact that this contention strongly appears to be one of an opinion, and not one that is based on reliable fact or reasoning, this contention does not prove the resolution that women belong in a kitchen, and therefore falls. In conclusion, both of my opponents' arguments are neither backed up by hardcore evidence nor appear to be anything but an opinion. Therefore, I strongly urge a con ballot. Thank you. SOURCES: [1] http://www.biography.com... [2] http://www.pbs.org... [3] http://www.hki.org...
hockey is better basketball

To start off, I would like to point out that this is a debate about the sport in general, not just the media perspective. Just because the fans watch it more does not make it a better sport. Now let's start things off: "Fans want to see high-scoring games where people score constantly." http://www.sportsnetworker.com... According to this long article, if you scroll down to "Celebrities in social media", you notice that fans like seeing sports with popular athletes. Athletes become famous through amazing plays, their team and sometimes what they do for their community, and how they promote teamwork. Hockey players help out a lot, for example, Sidney Crosby donated his golden metal to charity. http://www.newswire.ca... Also he makes amazing plays that involve teamwork and a lot of dangling. I basket-ball, all you do is run and shoot by yourself, not promoting teamwork. Secondly: An average basketball game is about 105-95 [1]. This demonstrates how easy it is to get points in basket-ball, and how little skill it requires. Hockey has much less points because it is much harder and requires more skill. Now for my arguments: Hockey requires more thought. In hockey games, the coach need to perfectly time everything. When players are going to switch, which players should go on etc. They have to work hard, and plan things out perfectly. In basket-ball it is non-stop running, what is the thought in that? Secondly, the fans are much more invested in the game. The fans are so crazy about their teams. Unlike in basket ball. Basket ball has many fans, and a bigger franchise than hockey. But hockey fans care much more about their teams. Think about it, when Vancouver lost to Boston, they started a riot! http://news.nationalpost.com... Your turn.