BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bitcoin Should Stay Legal in the United States

Hi I am Mathew Davis. I am some one who works for a physical check and bitcoin is a crypto currency it is digital and I see bitcoin is trying to be a universal form of currency but think about this you will have to convert several places it will cause confusion and what are we doing if 1 bit coin is more than 1 USD I will lose money as I will have to convert all my money into bitcoin if it becomes a universal and takes over stuff like the USD I think it is a good concept but the fact that they are trying to become the only currency will also make it a pain for people like me who actually have jobs if it does happen so should it stay legal not really because its main purpose right now as stocks went down are back to how they where before which is illegal items on the black market.
: a government has the obligation to lessen the economic gap between the rich and the poor citizens

I am not sure why you limited the time to argue to only 5 minutes but I'll debate you nevertheless.My main argument is that if governments don't attempt to lessen the economic gap between rich and poor citizens, the rich will have an obscene amount of control over the rest of society.Money is power. It's power in politics, education, location, and more. If left unchecked, the rich will only get richer and those that are working beneath the rich will become slaves to their power and inequality will rise.Inequality is bad because it limits mobility or other people's opportunity to become rich. It limits their choice of good education, good neighborhoods, it inflates housing and real-estate prices because the rich are able to afford more land than they might ever use and more.10 seconds left.
People that self-harm, or cut themselves, are selfish and attention seeking

I simply used that title in order to attract opponents with that specific mindset or opinion on this topic, and to make my debate topic clear. I apologize for any inconvenience. I agree with your statements that self-harm -- cutting in particular -- has become a sort of "accessory for young people. " However, the people who choose to inflict harm upon themselves for mere popularity or attention are quite rare in society. Most people who self-harm do it with the intention of truly hurting themselves, for many different reasons, and are not doing it for attention or personal gain, other than the fact that self-harmers often report feeling better after cutting. "My views would be to try and demean this horrible stress relief. .. This is not a proper way to solve an issue. .. " These remarks lead be to believe that you regard self-harming as the wrong way to relieve stress, and that you wish to shame or degrade people who choose to do so. To that, I say that self-harmers should not be shunned or degraded in any way, as this is often the original cause of the need for self-harm. Instead, I would like to promote that these people be cared for just as well as anyone with a mental disorder, because cutting can be extremely harmful. Self-harming is often used as a temporary emotional pain/stress reliever, and can be very effective at it. Sadly, cutting obviously comes with some very serious side-effects. My goal in this argument is to prove that self-harmers are neither attention seeking nor selfish, and do not use their wounds for their own gain. I have experience with this topic, and strongly believe that my opinions are correct. Lastly, I would like to politely ask my opponent to use better grammar and/or punctuation in their debate. When reading their argument, there was slight confusion in meaning, and I wish to avoid that in the future. Thank you.
People that self-harm, or cut themselves, are selfish and attention seeking

My views would be to try and demean this horrible stress relief that these wounds are now just an accessory for young people. This is not a proper way to solve an issue and it has been popularized I have seen many young girls and boys start this not to try and suppress issues but more as their friends are starting. I ask the opponent word the debate title better it's unfair to straight off give your opponent a bad head start. Alot of people I saw did not join due to what the debate title was I only accepted because I have my own views on this subject.
People that self-harm, or cut themselves, are selfish and attention seeking

My argument is that self-harmers should NOT be regarded as selfish or simply attention seeking. A large majority of these people self-harm for specific reasons, such as to relieve mental or emotional stress. Also, the stereotypes that you usually see cut exclusively on their wrists, where most people can easily see. This is not the case for most self-harmers. In fact, most people choose to cut on their upper thighs or stomach, regions of the body that are not usually visible with clothing on. This is because the self-harmers DO NOT WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW. How can one be selfish or attention seeking, when one of their main goals is to not show the scars/cuts to anyone?
People that self-harm, or cut themselves, are selfish and attention seeking

As my opponent has forfeited the last round I will just put my closing statement I in no way endorse this act of depression. To violently scar your body this way will make any mental problem worse no one deserves this. I hope if you are reading this and you have these issues please seek help you are worth so much more everyone is. I'm sorry that my opponent wasn't fully able to do this debate but I found doing this a very eye opening experience for myself. So all I would like to finish with is you are worth it and you deserve so much more. Thank you for reading the debate and I hope you can join in and vote. P.S Here are some phone numbers for anyone with any issues with self harm. Kids Helpline- 1800 55 1800 Lifeline Australia- 13 11 14 Note: These are Australian numbers I'm not very sure about other countries and their helplines. But please don't hesitate to find any help on your own or with the help of others.
Video Games Can Cause Violence

The most common argument is that video games desensitize your reaction to violence, thus making you violent. But anyone who has the cognitive faculties to purchase, set up and operate modern games consoles won't have trouble with being desensitized. According to records held by the U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and Office of Justice Programs, sales of video games have more than quadrupled from 1995-2008, while the arrest rate for juvenile murders fell 71.9% and the arrest rate for all juvenile violent crimes declined 49.3% in this same period. It should be the other way around, if that was true. although researchers have often noted the preference of violent video games by many school shooters, given that 97 percent of adolescents play video games such a preference is not overly surprising. It could similarly be argued that oxygen consumption predicts school shootings and crime, because most school shooters likely breathed within 10 seconds before their violent attack (Hey, maybe it does) I'll post more if you actually respond
The driving age should stay 16 not increase

I would like to ask the audience, mostly people sixteen and under, to vote for the one who does best in this debate, and not simply who you agree with. DEFFINITIONS ====================== Driving: Operating a vehicle Minor (16 year old): Under the legal age of full responsibility ARGUMENT ===================== You have based your whole argument off of teen desire, the desire to get a license. One thing we must remember in this world, we can not make laws simply off of desire. Many teens these days want to be able to legally buy alcohol; does that mean we should let them? Some people want to legally buy, sell, and trade drugs, should we pass a bill making that legal because some people want it? Studies show that 60% of people agree that the driving age should in fact be raised. The reason for this is that there are so many deaths involving teen drivers. Car accidents are the number one killer of teens in the USA. I have made my brief argument. There is much more that I can say, but I shall save it for the net round. Thank you. SOURCES: (1). . http://www.usatoday.com... (2). . http://www.rd.com...
Gay marriage should be legal.

I have to disagree with you. Laws are specifically made to be beneficial to society as a whole. And your points are moot concerning divorce and expectations as those are things beyond human control. And yes, every child is different but but every child does have one similarity: impressionability. Children are like sponges. The behaviors they see, they take in and imitate. To conclude, it is unfair to the heterosexual majority to be imposed on by the small homosexual minority. The homosexual community is a vocal but minuscule community. And since we live in a democracy, majority rules.
Gay marriage should be legal.

Marriage isn't all about love. But it is a major part of marriage and I thank you for reminding me. Being a homo parent WILL influence the child because they will begin to see that their parents are not the same as the majority of their peers. It WILL make life exponentially harder for the child. And you are right. Things can be changed. But change isn't always good. Can you prove that gay marriage would be more of a benefit for mankind than a liability?
Gay marriage should be legal.

Children-Your purpose for marriage is wrong. Marriage is about love, and about being with the one you choose. Being a homosexual parent will not influence a child because gay isn't a choice. A child will be curious, that much is true. Tradition-Just because there weren't homosuxual families years and years ago does not mean that cannot be changed. There are many other traditions broken, such as how things are made or how people live in general.
Gay marriage should be legal.

Gay marriage shouldn't be legal. It destroys the original purpose of marriage: to breed and raise children. A child needs both feminine and masculine influence for the best possible upbringing. A gay couple doesn't have the balance that a hetero does. Domestic partnership and adoption is a better alternative. Redefining marriage would be the undoing of over 1000 years of tradition and family structure. Sources: http://www.mercatornet.com... http://dailysignal.com... http://www.frc.org... (Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same-Sex Marriage)
Atheist will be totally okay if someone from their family is in safe incestious relationship

"Opinions often do not have logical reasons behind them." Can i claim that your aversion toward incest have no logical reason behind them? "which shows that the children in the sample who were born from incestuous relations had an approximate 42% chance of having a severe birth defect" I did say "safe incestuous relationship" right? so what i mean is this incestuous relationship is not intended for reproduction but only for sexual or intimate relationship "Buddhists do not believe in a deity" really then who is ganesha, pattini, or saman in budishm? https://en.wikipedia.org...
Atheist will be totally okay if someone from their family is in safe incestious relationship

"Why ??? [C]an you give me some logical argument??" I did, you've made your case that all atheists would be okay with incest, so all I need to provide is at least one example of an atheist who is not okay with incest. I serve as an example. Opinions often do not have logical reasons behind them. To be logical, they should have these, but to exist, they do not. While my aversion to incest has not been justified here, it exists. Ergo, I am an atheist that does not like incest. "[W]hat mental illness?? [D]o you have some proof or evidence??" Take, for example, the study done in Czechoslovakia http://bit.ly..., which shows that the children in the sample who were born from incestuous relations had an approximate 42% chance of having a severe birth defect, while those born of non-incestuous relations had only an approximate 6% chance of the same occurence. I should amend my statement, however, that the birth defects found here were not exclusively mental, that some also experienced "congenital physical malformations." This argument, however, about the consequences of incestuous relations, is not relevant to the main argument. "What physical damage?" See congenital physical malformation in source cited above. "[W]hat spiritual damage?" Irrelevant; my opinion need only exist to provide a valid counterexample. "[D]oes [an] atheist not [believe] in the spirit existence at all?" Atheist, according to Merriam-Webster dictionary, do not believe in God, but it does not say that they do not believe in spirits. "[W]hat [other] moral compass [is] used by an atheist beside[s the] Golden Rule?" Buddhism is a moral system http://bit.ly.... Buddhists do not believe in a deity. Buddhists have another moral system they subscribe to: Buddhism. Therefore, Buddhists are an example of atheists with a moral compass other than the Golden Rule. "And if indeed atheist have another moral compass beside Golden Rule, [does] it rule incest as [im]moral behavior?" Incest, in Buddhism, is called "agammagamana, literally 'going to what should not be gone to', or 'wrong desire' (adhamma raga)" http://bit.ly.... The Buddha said once, after hearing of an incestuous encounter, "Does not this foolish man know that a mother shall not lust after her son or a son after his mother?" This appears to mean that Buddhism considers incest fairly immoral, since it is based off of the word of the Buddha. The example above, however, is not an exhaustive example of what atheists can use as "moral compasses." I, for one, subscribe to Stoic philosophy to some degree.
Atheist will be totally okay if someone from their family is in safe incestious relationship

"Just because someone does not believe in the existence of god(s) does not mean that they are okay with incest in their family," " I am atheist, and my immediate reaction to incest anywhere is disgust" Why ??? can you give me some logical argument?? "If a child is born from such an encounter, they're more likely to have a mental illness" what mental illness?? do you have some proof or evidence?? "It may be reasonably argued that incest could always lead to some damage in the mental, physical, emotional, or spiritual sense to some person" What physical damage? what spiritual damage? does atheist not believing in the spirit existence at all? Alright then if atheis does not only have Golden Rule as their moral compas then can tell me what the other moral compass which used by an atheist beside Golden Rule? And if indeed atheist have another moral compass beside Golden Rule, is it rule incest as amoral behavior?
Atheist will be totally okay if someone from their family is in safe incestious relationship

Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of "atheist": "a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism" https://www.merriam-webster.com.... Just because someone does not believe in the existence of god(s) does not mean that they are okay with incest in their family, nor does being atheist mean that your one and only "moral compass" is the Golden Rule. Here's an example to prove my point: I am atheist, and my immediate reaction to incest anywhere is disgust. But then again, incest can be damaging to someone. If a child is born from such an encounter, they're more likely to have a mental illness, which will emotionally hurt the parents and family. Incest may hurt people of the jealous type, such as if they see their crush in an incestuous relationship and feel sorrow at it. It may be reasonably argued that incest could always lead to some damage in the mental, physical, emotional, or spiritual sense to some person, and thus be in violation of the Golden Rule. This however, does not prove the affirmative position, because not all atheists subscribe to or exclusively to the Golden Rule. Now the burden of proof is with you to prove that all atheists are okay with incest in their family, optionally by first proving that all atheists subscribe exclusively to the Golden Rule.
Baltimore's action are speaking louder than their words .

You have not yet provided evidence that the majority of the protesters are the ones committing the atrocity of destroying public and private property in Baltimore. You make the claim that the protesters themselves are the ones taking part in the violence in majorities. I never stated that people have the right to rob stores and damage property in protest, nor did I assert that the blame is on the police because of his race. I would appreciate a discussion without the use of straw-men, if you may. I am simply stating that the evidence of Freddie Gray's death leans heavily towards a "rough riding" practice commonly used by Baltimore Police. Either way, the cause of Freddie Gray's death is irrelevant. This debate is on whether or not the protester's violence towards police and property are justified. Unfortunately, you have failed to provide evidence that the previously-marching protesters are now committing these violent acts in mass numbers. Telling me to simply "watch the news" for evidence of this has, ironically, been detrimental to your position because those who commit to violent acts on video are in relatively small groups in comparison to those who peacefully protest, including the current live-streaming of the protest in Baltimore which display people standing peacefully in mass numbers on the streets of the city. If you wish for video evidence, I am willing to provide links. I suggest that you do so as well if you wish to fortify your position.
Baltimore's action are speaking louder than their words .

So you're saying that these crimes that are being committed are because of Freddie Grays death ? So every time someone dies , that gives people the right to go and rob stores , beat up police , and damage government property ? because it doesn't . Also these people that are breaking into stores are also the ones complaining about how damaged the city already is . if you need proof watch the news. but although some may say that the police deserve this for what they've done . because the police are being blamed for killing this man Freddie Gray because he's black man . but you don't see every black man that's arrested being killed by a white man . I admit sometimes there are . but in this case and also in many other cases there are no signs of racism being connected to this mans murder . Are you saying that racism plays a part in their crimes ? Even though that the people that are committing the crimes are stating why they are , and they're saying that they are doing this because of what the police did to Freddie Gray .
Baltimore's action are speaking louder than their words .

With many protests come violent opportunists and those who find joy in destruction. For your position, you must provide evidence that the majority of protesters participating in the protests are instigating or taking part in the destruction. In addition, you must provide evidence that the protesters of Baltimore are committing to their protest for reasons that do not involve Freddie Gray's death or general social issues involving the police due to the fact that Freddie Gray's death is one of many cases of potential or confirmed police brutality that are driving many protests today. You would have to prove that the protesters are lying when they claim that their cause is motivated by the previously stated issues. I look forward to this debate, and if you require me to display my sources for any of my information to come, simply request that I post it in the next section of my debate.
Baltimore's action are speaking louder than their words .

In this debate , I am saying that the Baltimore "Protest" is out of control . The people are claiming that they are doing what they're doing for Freddie Gray , knowing that they aren't , the death of this man is no excuse for what they're doing , and I'm sure that most people would agree . So in conclusion of this round I'm saying that just because a black man died , doesn't give people of Baltimore Maryland to act the way they are acting .
Facebook imposes

Article 1 of their ‘TOS' explicitly states, "You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission. " A statement in ‘direct conflict' with remaining anonymous on the internet for guaranteed privacy. See, the problem about this is that it doesn't matter if it isn't anonymous. The point of facebook is to be a social networking tool. This would not work if people had random usernames. You would lose the ability to be able to search directly for a friend that you haven't seen in years. This is the reason they do not want you to muck about with spamming accounts and accounts that try to impersonate someone. Article 2 states, "You will keep your contact information accurate and up-to-date. ". Almost sounds like a direct order doesn't it? This quote doesn't state that you should put all your contact info up for everyone. It is meant to prevent calls to outdated numbers and inconveniences like that. On top of all this, despite wanting you to directly link your profile to your actual identity, the organization main priority has become to 'promote privacy' in all ways possible to cover up the truth that there is a much larger privacy game at hand and that your information is being sold to make Facebook billions of US dollars. Evidence? Your entire history has gone online, you've lost your privacy and as more people continue joining, there will be a point of no return. A) What history? My name and location? I do not see how this is a problem. There is more of a chance that something bad will come out of using a credit card at a store. In that instance, you are giving out information that can BE USED. In this case, even if your info is being sold, it would be sold to advertisers. Now, go to Facebook. com and look at the ads. There are ads before you enter your info. All your info does is let your friends find you, and it lets ads personalize for your area. Now go to your email before and after facebook. Do you see a difference? I don't. You want to know why? Spam filters. Unless you put your phone number on your page, which common sense tells you not to (If I post my number on the bathroom wall and write "Jenny", then ill get a hell of a lot more calls than from facebook) , you are not affected in the slightest by this. I have yet to see evidence for any of your claims.
Facebook imposes

Then again, I'm a noob. So the fact of the matter is here is that Facebook imposes on you to reveal your true identity. Article 1 of their ‘TOS' explicitly states, "You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission. " A statement in ‘direct conflict' with remaining anonymous on the internet for guaranteed privacy. Article 2 states, "You will keep your contact information accurate and up-to-date. ". Almost sounds like a direct order doesn't it? On top of all this, despite wanting you to directly link your profile to your actual identity, the organization main priority has become to 'promote privacy' in all ways possible to cover up the truth that there is a much larger privacy game at hand and that your information is being sold to make Facebook billions of US dollars. The fact of the matter is that you have become a slave to FB because of its functionlity and the way it connects you to people you thought you lost. At the same time, Mr. Zuckerberg takes advantage of this and is making billions of you. Your entire history has gone online, you've lost your privacy and as more people continue joining, there will be a point of no return. Are these points not wise to consider in their most basic sense? I think the fallacies that Facebook represents, in relation to the increasing privacy issues, presents a unique niche chance to create csomething like Facebook that aims at actual privacy and the promotion of publicity and not the other way around.