BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We should get rid of the penny

Poll Shows Americans Concerned About Costly Price Rounding System If Penny Is Eliminated Washington, DC - A poll released today by Americans for Common Cents shows overwhelming support for the penny by the American public. The vast majority of those surveyed favored keeping the penny in circulation, a sentiment heightened when people were made aware of the penny's charitable importance, and most expressed significant concerns about higher consumer prices if the penny is eliminated. "These results confirm the strong and unwavering support the penny continues to receive from America." said Weller. "Americans understand that eliminating the penny would lead to a rounding process and cost them hundreds of millions of dollars in higher prices. Current and future generations of Americans deserve to live in a country where a penny saved truly is a penny earned." The poll results showed that: * Three out of four adults (73%) favor keeping the penny in circulation; * A mere 12.6% agree the penny should be removed from circulation when people are told that millions of dollars in pennies are contributed to charities each year; * 76% were concerned that if the government implements a rounding system for cash purchases, businesses might raise prices; * 69% of Americans oppose eliminating the penny and establishing a price rounding system. An analysis by Raymond Lombra, PhD, Professor of Economics at Penn State University confirms these concerns. He found that eliminating the penny would lead to a rounding of prices in America that he estimates would cost consumers more than $600 million every year. Polling results over the last eight years demonstrate the widespread support the penny enjoys with the public. Opinion Research polls in 1995 and 1996 found 73% and 76% of Americans, respectively, support the penny. A 1992 CNN/Time survey and a 1990 Gallup poll produced similar favorable results. "Keeping the penny in circulation will avoid an inflationary rounding process and is what the American people want," said Weller. "It's just common cents." Americans for Common Cents is a broad-based coalition of business and charitable organizations dedicated to keeping the penny. The coalition was formed in 1990 in response to Congressional threats to eliminate the one-cent coin. Opinion Research Corporation International of Princeton, New Jersey, surveyed a national sample of 1,009 adults, comprised of 507 men and 502 women by phone. The margin of sampling error is +3%. <http://www.pennies.org...;
Football is harder than Rugby in a high school game

Outright, let me state that I did indeed falsify my opponent's evidence, on three different fronts for the video and one front for the business insider article. These falsifications are things which Pro seems to assume are invalid for some reason or another I'll go ahead and explain them again, but at this point Pro's lack of refutation should be considered a drop on his part. Video When I point out that the video provided by my opponent links to an outside source that I may not have access to, that is an indicator that my opponent is linking evidence without expanding on it or actually making an argument from it. That's like linking a twenty page government report without explaining anything about and then claiming it's reason to support your arguments. The fact is that one can't simply provide evidence and expect that to be the end-all for their claim -- they have to expanon and warrant it themselves. Second, the fact that this video focuses on professional players is significant as a professionally trained player is going to it significantly harder than a high schooler. My opponent never meets or responds to this argument, he simply says that he wishes I would respond to it. Pointing this out is a response. This doesn't apply to high school. Also, I'd like to point out that I didn't write 'most high school leagues don't allow tackling', I would never make that manner of generalization -- I said that there are leagues who don't allow tackling. Business Insider The source evidence for this business insider article doesn't keep injury or death toll number for rugby. It's not comparative evidence and so it doesn't prove that football is harder than rugby; it's comparing apples to blank space. Drops My opponent doesn't even touch the argument I make in favor rugby. I mean he doesn't even try to respond to these arguments. I mean point that he drop every argument I make, he's basically forfeiting the round. So the voting here is pretty simply, keep two things in mind- 1. Pro drops his own arguments by claiming I didn't attack them. 2. Pro drops my arguments explicitly. There are no arguments currently working in Pro's favor.
Football is harder than Rugby in a high school game

first i would like to point out in the video that there is significaant scientific evidence. just because the video has proffesional players it still provides a base point to the amount of the collisions. and to my evidence about casualties since 1982 in high school football, that is countering your information, that said there had been thaat there had been 110 rugby players in britain that had been paraylized. yes, i wont deny that rugby requires more endurance. for the video you should not be complaining that you could have possibly not have been able to watch it. that is like saying you forgot your folder will all of your evidence in it when going to a real debate. in point B of your refutation you said that most high school football doesn't allow for tackling. well you would be completely wrong on that point, because if there is no tackling in football it is not then technically football. Most youth football programs start tackling at 3rd grade, and this would be nation wide. going back to the video for a second, you said that the football player didnt tackle a human, but in a later test he did. you also said that in the video it admits that force is ultimately the same. well it said that on average you get 16 hits in rugby and 6 in football, and then if you add up the forces of each hit in rugby, it is just about has the same force as all the added up forces from the six football hits. so the video does prove quite a bit. i would sure appriciate that in your last round that you just falsify all of my evidence, because alot of your counters in the previous round basically said the opposite of my evidece was saying. that just maid me halve to spell everything out for you.
Football is harder than Rugby in a high school game

I see your argument that personal experiences shouldn't count, so as i could not find the rules to the Minnesota youth rugby i could still tell you that as where in the typical game it is 80 minutes with forty minute halves,but i was going off high school rugby in Minnesota where it does last 70 minutes with 35 minute halves. for your evidence to the harder impacts ,here it is: and keep in mind that in the video it is one person hitting for each subject so there is the possibility of higher or lower impacts. for your evidence about the spinal injuries here is my counter evidence http://www.businessinsider.com... SECOND MOST DANGEROUS SPORT: Men's Football - 19 casualties in a million Participants since '82: 36,762,903 Casualties since '82: 111 fatalities 308 permanent disabilities 280 non-permanent brain/spinal cord injuries this evidence is based on high school not any other grade or level.
Football is harder than Rugby in a high school game

i thank you for taking this debate i am going by Minnesota youth rugby rules i believe that football is harder than rugby in a game setting. all though rugby goes on for 35 min. halves with basically no stops, you still have plenty of times where you are walking, or just standing on the field. Plus at every point scored water comes out to you. in rugby you wear no pads but maybe a scrum cap and a mouth guard. because of his many just automatically assume that it is more hardcore, but in rugby in the high school setting you have to wrap up during a tackle or it is a penalty. in which case you have to slow down and try to get your arms around the person. in football you have short plays where you exert most to all of your physical strength and o half of the plays you sprint as fast as you can, then after 30 seconds do it again. In football you wear pads, now because of this they would assume that you don't get hurt a much because their is something protecting you, but the fact is that the pads are more of weapons used for more damage. and in football you don't have to wrap up. so that means when it s a kick off and i am running at another person as fast as i can with armor on, i will mindlessly hit them as hard can with a goal of making them cry in pain. this is my first points to why football is harder then rugby in a high school game setting.
Make a funnier paragraph of random nonsense

I'm the funniest, because I ask lifes deep questions. Why do the pubic hairs dance around the juggling balls of snot? Obviously because the lighter fluid puked up pea soup and Asthma inhalers. The tin foil girl lifted her skirt of dice rolls, and had intercourse with a karaoke machine. This one Pathetic witch brew makes the giants on the hills of remote controls sick to their paperbaged intestines, to the point where the vaporizing bunnies sing "take me to McDonalds I want a rat poison, spread it on your butt cheeks with blood boilin'". The Key to life is 0483958694gjghg49597$%^$&*%. Only I can encode the message of choda grease, which entails the universe's bowl movements smell like an unwashed Chucky Cheese. Their mother's breath involves a foul stench of a plunger, from sucking meatballs up from toilet bowl number 4776. The jack of spades wondered why God only sucks on Thor's toes... The answer was written in in a Poem called the Whore from the back alley:The whore from the back ally licked the skin of the giraffeAfter a bath she once even deep throated Gandolf's staff Bleeding from her knees at the table of coat checksSewage systems over flowing as she tries to have sex...What happened? I thought the camel that was never in Back To The Future knocked me out with Mars gas. I woke up in the Jungle of Spider semen where Miley Cirus twerking videos make the piss puddles shamed in disappointment. Nick nack, click clack, the gun go boom boom in a woman's poom poom then my car go vroom vroom. The world ends in 2978 when the Cigarette teeth come back for dentists. 2,460 characters remain in the maze of Mice and Pokemon. Ooops, my bear trap screamed so I have to go....
GNU/Linux is way better than Mac OS.

Why Mac OS is better:1. More compatible applications.Linux is terrible for gamers, artists, and video makers. Most video games aren't designed to be compatible with Linux and its subsequent "flavors." Mac OS, while still trailing behind Windows in terms of game compatibility, is far superior to Linux in this respect, as most PC games will work with it. Other popular programs such as Photoshop, Lightworks, and Paint .NET are also incompatible with Linux, thus hindering the ability of artists or video makers who use the OS to make projects.2. Better for businessesMac OS is more commonly-used. It's found on more computers than Linux. If one were to develop an app and want it to be sold, then one would look for the largest possible market to distribute said app. Why should a developer sell an app for a small market?3. Almost impervious to malwareLinux is open source, which means that its code is available to be looked at and edited as willed. This may seem a positive aspect, and it is in regards to customization, but it can also be a negative aspect. Since the code is so easily available, malware and other unwanted scripts can easily created and placed on a Linux-based machine. Mac OS is much tighter. It lacks customization, but its code is much more secure, and since it is less-used than Windows, malware is more uncommon. All versions of the OS since 10.6.7 have been able to detect known Mac malware in downloaded files, and to block insecure web plugins, making any additional anti-malware software unnecessary.Rebuttals"Linux is the fastest operating system."- All software, including operating systems, run differently depending on the hardware used. Linux, along with any other OS, will run faster on high-end machinery, or run slower on low-end machinery."GNU/Linux comes in many distributions, such as Debian GNU/Linux, Ubuntu, Fedora, Linux Mint, Arch Linux, elementary OS, Xubuntu, Lubuntu, CentOS, Red Hat, the phone OS Android, Chrome (Chromium) OS, and many more."- How are these variants unique from each other, disregarding appearance? How does that make Linux better than Mac OS?"Mac OS is only compatible with Apple computers."- Programs such as Virtual Box and other virtual machines make this statement false.
GNU/Linux is way better than Mac OS.

GNU/Linux, also known as Linux, is by far the world-leading operating system. Unlike Mac OS, GNU/Linux is completely free, non-commerical, and open source, and is backed by a large non-profit community that relies on just donations. GNU/Linux is the fastest operating system. GNU/Linux comes in many distributions, such as Debian GNU/Linux, Ubuntu, Fedora, Linux Mint, Arch Linux, elementary OS, Xubuntu, Lubuntu, CentOS, Red Hat, the phone OS Android, Chrome (Chromium) OS, and many more. Many major corporations such as Google run their servers on Linux. Linux updates are released almost daily, depending on distribution. Linux is also customizable from HEAD to FEET, so you can shape your computer to fit your needs. Linux is compatible with most devices, while Mac OS is only compatible with Apple computers. Can Mac OS even compare to all these features?
GNU/Linux is way better than Mac OS.

REBUTTALS"Linux variants can install a package known as Wine, a Windows program compatibility library. Therefore, Linux can download DOS executables or Windows applications and run them properly." -This may be true, but it is incompatible with many popular programs, such as Paint.NET [1], Microsoft Office [2], or Microsoft PowerPoint. In fact, any .NET based program is incompatible with wine, with .NET Frameworks and Visual C++ (unless you install other external programs, which only let one write in the code, not run c++ based apps)-reliant applications unable to run. These programs can be run on the Mac OS however, since its code allows for such frameworks."As a non-profit community of thousands of developers keep their eyes on Linux, constantly searching for caveats, this makes it almost impossible for malware to exist on Linux." [3], [4]ARGUMENTSBetter for Businesses- You missed the point of my statement here. According to this source [5], itunes will not work correctly on Linux, as there are no current editions of it that work with wine. Older editions install and open, but do not work correctly. iTunes is the second biggest market for mobile software and applications behind Google Play. iTunes records over 800,000,000 individual accounts. That's a very large market even on its own. Why would someone develop an app for an OS exclusive to computers like Linux, when an OS such as those developed by Apple is available on both the computer and mobile market? It's a much larger diivison like I have said, and therefore will make more profit.SOURCES[1]- http://forums.getpaint.net...[2]- http://www.linux.com...[3]- http://arstechnica.com...[4]- https://blogs.sophos.com...[5]- http://askubuntu.com...
GNU/Linux is way better than Mac OS.

Comebacks"All software, including operating systems, run differently depending on the hardware used. Linux, along with any other OS, will run faster on high-end machinery, or run slower on low-end machinery."Actually, that is not true. A linux distribution can run fast on any machinery regardless if it is low-end or high-end. The speed depends on the variant, and packages. You can even create your own variant if you think you know what is best for you and your hardware. Linux can be customized to fit your needs, including speed and appearance. Also, I am debating from a low-end machine built in 1999. I've customized it so that the appearance doesn't affect the speed."More compatible applications."Linux variants can install a package known as Wine, a Windows program compatibility library. Therefore, Linux can download DOS executables or Windows applications and run them properly."Almost impervious to malware"As a non-profit community of thousands of developers keep their eyes on Linux, constantly searching for caveats, this makes it almost impossible for malware to exist on Linux. Once an update is created and fully tested, it is immediately released."Programs such as Virtual Box and other virtual machines make this statement false."I didn't mean it like that, I meant like installing it completely on a computer WITHOUT VIRTUALIZATION. Even with virtualization software like VirtualBox and VMWare, you cannot run Mac OS without having the installation image. I am pretty sure Apple doesn't release the installation image for anybody to use online, and there is no legal way to obtain it.Linux applications are easier to update than Mac OS's.Instead of updating applications one at a time, like Mac OS, Linux has a package manager such as "aptitude" and "pacman". This allows Linux users to click one single button, which checks for updates and updates every installed application, the system, and maybe even the distribution at the same time."Better for businesses"Wrong actually. You see, most businesses run their servers on Linux, rather than other things like Windows Server, because Linux is more productive and efficient because of speed and price. Servers are actually what the internet is basically made up of. I know Google runs their servers on Linux. Servers are what makes internet browsing, file sharing, voice calls, internet chat, gaming, and much more possible. In 2008, 87.8% of the world's supercomputers are ran on Linux. According to W3Cook, who verify and update their statistics monthly, 96.6% the internet's servers are ran on Linux.-------------------More Reasons Why Linux is better than Mac OS.Linux applications are easier to update than Mac OS's.Instead of updating applications one at a time, like Mac OS, Linux has a package manager such as "aptitude" and "pacman". This allows Linux users to click one single button, which checks for updates and updates every installed application, the system, and maybe even the distribution at the same time.My Linux PC"http://imgur.com...;
Bubble Gum Should Be Allowed in Schools

ProductivityRegarding the argument about increased brain function, we have already established that the research is not conclusive, some studies say it is good, some say it is bad [1], so I'm not sure what PRO is trying to say here.HealthYes, some gum has good ingredients, and some bad ingredients [2]. It is unreasonable to expect teachers and administrators to police the type of gum students chew, so the logical alternative it to not allow it.HidingPRO's claim that kids would throw out their gum if it was allowed is contradicted by the fact that it is not always thrown out in schools where gum is allowed [3].Wrap UpIn Round 2 I demonstrated the gum chewing can lead to jaw and gastrointestinal problems. These claims were never disputed by PRO and they alone are enough reason to forbid the chewing of gum in school.I would like to thank PRO for this interesting debate.Sources[1]http://tinyurl.com...[2]http://tinyurl.com...[3]http://tinyurl.com...
Bubble Gum Should Be Allowed in Schools

This is my third and final argument. If gum were allowed, according to http://www.pressdemocrat.com... ,kids would actually throw their gum away instead of hiding it under a desk. If gum weren't allowed, kids would attempt to hide the gum under a desk instead of risking getting caught throwing it out. There are also some gum types that have fake ingredients, but some gum has natural ingredients like Glee Gum. Lastly, it has been shown that gum can relieve brain stress and become more productive, according to http://wildcatblogology.edublogs.org... . This is my final argument.
Bubble Gum Should Be Allowed in Schools

Again, PRO's arguments are suspect. While chewing some kinds of gum may be good for your teeth, chewing other kinds is demonstrably bad for them [1][2][4], and may even lead to jaw and gastrointestinal problems [1][3]. Also, while chewing gum may help fight cravings, it has been shown that those who chew gum for this purpose tend to eat less healthy when they do eat [1]. PRO's “solution” to the damage done by gum (giving students a bag) is absurd. There are many bags around every school, in garbage cans, and yet there is still demonstrable damage [4]. Furthermore, PRO did not address my point that the non-quiet nature of gum chewing can be a distraction to learning [5]. As a final thought, the sharing of gum in school can lead to social cliques and even bullying [4][5]. Sources [1] . http://tinyurl.com...[2] . http://tinyurl.com...[3] . http://tinyurl.com...[4] . http://tinyurl.com...[5] . http://tinyurl.com...;
Bubble Gum Should Be Allowed in Schools

Thanks for showing your argument. Now I will share mine. Bubble gum can also help kill bacteria and lose weight. According to http://healthresearchfunding.org... ,gum may also help you lose weight. If you chew gum that is sugar free, you may decrease food cravings. Also ,according to http://www.medicaldaily.com... ,chewing gum for ten minutes can remove millions of bacteria. Lastly, The incident of kids littering with bubble gum can be solved with kids getting a bag to store gum. This is my second argument.
Bubble Gum Should Be Allowed in Schools

Gum should not be allowed in schools.First of all, PRO's claim is suspect. It is hardly settled science that gum chewing improves memory; the researchers who conducted the study PRO's source is based upon noted that their results contradicted previous research [1]. Also, as teachers will relate, students who chew gum do not do so quietly, which can be quite disturbing to other students [2].Secondly, chewing gum is often left in inappropriate places by students [3]. All of this takes money to clean up, and every extra dollar spent on maintenance takes away money that should be spent on the students.Finally, even if we grant PRO the memory argument, it is simply giving students a crutch that will most likely not be there once they leave school and are not allowed to chew gum in the workplace. For this and the two aforementioned reasons, gum chewing should not be allowed in schools.Sources[1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com...
Bubble Gum Should Be Allowed in Schools

I think bubble gum should be allowed in schools. As you can see, according to http://www.scientificamerican.com... ,Gum may improve concentration in class. It states that two groups of twenty people had to listen to an audio track for half an hour. The groups that chewed gum recited the numbers with better accuracy and better speed. This is my first argument to show that bubble gum should be allowed in schools.
You cannot be Christian and a homosexual.

Pro fails to give any argument in R3 why one is a sin and the other is forbidden. He just claims it to be so without warrant. He states that oysters and homosexuality are forbidden in Leviticus for our protection, but fails to state why such health risks would prevent someone from being a Christian. His entire argument rests on a verse in Leviticus forbidding it, but I have shown the exact same statement made about eating shellfish. Pro failed to give any reason why homosexuality is different from eating shellfish. It's absurd to believe that you can't be Christian and eat oysters (especially with Saltine crackers, yum), therefore, there is no reason given by Pro why you can not be Christian and a homosexual. Pro failed his BOP.