BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
gadafi death

If your life or the lives of others are in danger and the only chance of living is to kill the person or people putting you in danger, then killing is justifiable. If a person killed or seriously harmed your relatives and friends, it would be justifiable to want to kill that person but not justifiable to do it. [1]Gaddafi was captured and later brutally murdered. Not only were none of the rebels endangered by Gaddafi at the time, but he was not given due process of law. He was accused of many bad things and then murdered. This is bad in itself but when you consider the fact that [2] many people believed Gaddafi was a hero and was murdered for trying to fix the banking system in Libya, it turns into disaster. [1]http://www.freedom-won.net... [2]http://www.dailypaul.com...
Evolution.

Evolution was introduced in 1859 in the book called, "Origin of Species," by Charles Darwin. This is a known fact (1). My Question is when did Evolution start? Did Evolution start prior to 1859? Please show proof? Note: This would be in direct opposition to Darwin. Evolution does not have any dates, because the theory of evolution states the earth is billions and billions of years old. Which is in direct contradiction with time as a whole. With the record of time kept by the Authors of the Bible we have an accurate description of the events of the earth and also the real age of the earth. The Bible can be proven throughout history, and biblical prophecy, all within the record of time (2). (1) https://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://timeline.biblehistory.com...
Evolution is a scientific fact.

First we must get a few things straight: Evolution is referred to in its most common and general sense which refers to macro evolution: the theory that all life originated from a single celled organism. Scientific Fact: The scientific method has been used to prove conclusively each aspect of the theory individually. Finally, the Con asserts that evolution as defined above is not by any measure a scientific fact. The fact is that only a few individual aspects of the theory have been scientifically proven. The majority of the social advancement of the theory was perpetrated by overzealous scientist and journalists that disregarded the necessity of scientific evidence. Specifically the lack of evidence suggesting that anything can change from one species to another. The Con begs the Pro to offer any such evidence. The scientific community's blind embrace of this unfounded theory has left the scientific community relying on more 'faith' than the most zealous of creationist.
shold grandparents take tech classes

Thank you for starting the challenge. I will start by defining key terms" Shold- This is NOT a word. I am sure that my opponent meant should. Should- Ought Grandparents- I don't think that this is the right word. I will hereby be using elderly instead of grandparents tech classes- Classes taken to teach one how to use a technological device. Opponent argument: "really. they are always like:how do you use this new iphone six diamond edition" But why do they need to use the iPhone in the first place? Phones are used as a communicate across long distances and the regular burner will do for that. iPhones are extravagant since they allow you to download apps and etc. But why would a 72 year old elderly woman need to have these extra apps? She will do just fine with the regular burner phone. The best part is that the elderly already know how to use those burners. The point of a phone is to long distance communicate not to play games. The elderly can do that perfectly well with the regular burner. Having an iPhone 6 and tech classes to go with that is completely unnecessary for the elderly women and men. That leads to my contention that #1. There is no point. The only reason one has a phone is to communicate long distance. Burners do perfectly fine. The reason we have iPhones is because we already know how to use them and they provide extra comfort. The elderly do not know how to use them and there is no point of teaching them if all the iPhone does is provide extra comfort. The elderly are comfortable with the everyday burner.
Marijuana should be legalized

My opponent graces with his presence, briefly.His ground-breaking argument:"marijuana is the shiz"Shiz: slang term for excrement.According to my opponent, M is waste digestive byproducts excreted anally. Even if we are to accept this definition, which seems to lack a factual basis, I hardly see how this strengthens his case. If anything, it gives credence to my arguments on the health hazards of M.He ignores my arguments, and does not attempt to defend his own. Resolution negated.
Marijuana should be legalized

Marijuana should be legalized i have 3 arguments why A1- Marijuana Has many health Benefits A2- If used correctly it can help treatments A-3 Alcohol Was Illegal and now it is Legal I am going to touch up on my Arguments now A1- Marijuana has many health Benefits it has many health benefits it know that it can take away cancer cant take away pain A-2 IF used correctly it can help in the treatment If managed correctly is can help over 14 diseases such as Cancer and Alzheimer;s, appetite loss, glaucoma, nausea, vomiting, spasticity, pain, weight loss, arthritis, dystonia, insomnia, seizures, and tourette's syndrome A-3 Alcohol used to be Illegal and they voted and it is now legal why not legalize marijuana and alcohol has a more dealth tole then Marijuana there were 22,072 related deaths in 2006 for alcohol related. 13,050 more deaths came from alcoholic liver disease. To this day there has not been any recorded credible deaths caused by the effects of marijuana
"Seinfeld" is R-rated

"Again lets go back to my example by mpaa. The f word is used a few times but this does not make it r rated.""For example, if a film uses the F-word more than four times, it will receive an automatic R rating." http://voices.yahoo.com...;Seinfeld has the "Busboy," the middle finger episode (four times non-sexual F-words, which means R right away), potential another finger in the "Strike.""Also in your last example you say that Seinfeld is not for anyone under 15 well that again would make it pg-13."Doesn't make it PG-13. It's still way more serious than a PG-13. There are two main variations of R-rated content. Moderately explicit and just plain hard R. Seinfeld is obviously not a hard R kinda show. But it's without a doubt serious adult content nevertheless. 15 and older is what I said. Stuff aimed at 15 year olds is still way more seriously than stuff aimed at kids who become teens."You said that the themes of murder and dark humor are prevalent that still does not make it R. This again as you saw falls in the PG13 category."I didn't agree with you on being PG13. I said that in addition to the R-rated content that's found on the show already. This just adds an adult-oriented atmosphere even more."So while George may say jerk off and they talk about peeing these are both brief again making it PG13."Explicit peeing is R material, and we actually, as I've said before, have an example of hearing them pee. IMBD actually said that this would actually fall to PG. With all this you can see my case is stronger."Are you sure? Look again http://www.imdb.com...Even if you did not know what was there, something is definitely wrong with that rating. You think "jerk-off," the f-word 5 times, and all this adult content that "Seinfeld" had would be in a PG rating? Something's wrong with that IMDB rating. But it's not relevant.I'd like to thank my opponent for partaking in this debate. I rest my case. Vote for who you think gives the best debate.
"Seinfeld" is R-rated

Again lets go back to my example by mpaa. The f word is used a few times but this does not make it r rated. Also in your last example you say that Seinfeld is not for anyone under 15 well that again would make it pg-13. You said that the themes of murder and dark humor are prevalent that still does not make it R. This again as you saw falls in the PG13 category. So while George may say jerk off and they talk about peeing these are both brief again making it PG13. IMBD actually said that this would actually fall to PG. With all this you can see my case is stronger.
"Seinfeld" is R-rated

BTW, the haters gonna hate was not directed at you, it was directed at someone who hated this."While Seinfeld would be rated r 20 years ago it would not be today."At least you ain't one of those people who think "Seinfeld" is PG or G-rated. LMAO. But I don't agree. Let me contiune the refutal and I'll tell you why."The issue is that little children don't underhand the sexual references and then once they do it no longer matters because they should be mature enough to handle it. PG-13 " Parents Strongly Cautioned. Some Material May Be Inappropriate For Children Under 13. A PG-13 rating is a sterner warning by the Rating Board to parents to determine whether their children under age 13 should view the motion picture, as some material might not be suited for them. A PG-13 motion picture may go beyond the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, adult activities or other elements, but does not reach the restricted R category. The theme of the motion picture by itself will not result in a rating greater than PG-13, although depictions of activities related to a mature theme may result in a restricted rating for the motion picture. Any drug use will initially require at least a PG-13 rating. More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating, but such nudity in a PG-13. That from MPPA Seinfeld meets."Yes, but I actually gave examples of content that's not shown on the PG-13 material. The middle finger episode is the F-word. And they showed it four times, equivelant to the four F-word non-sexually equals an R rule. Yes, first it was the waitress, then it was George two times reenacting what he alleges the waitress did to him, and it was the waitress again. Plus there's the masturbation remark, George saying "jerk off," the episode in which they talk about peeing, and in one episode you can actually hear them peeing. There is another episode where George might have given the finger to Jerry for getting him angry about Festivus ("The Strike"). "I'm going to work, are you happy now?" *then I think George flips the bird to Jerry and Elaine**Pg13. So using this your examples in all are brief so this would make it pg13. I hope this good debate continues.*I only started, I just gave a few more examples.The themes of murder and dark humor are prevelant in certain episodes, and quite unpleasant.There are adult themes, that though are not necessary to get an R-rating, that are R-rated material. Deceit, fraud are amongst the twoAnother R-rated episode, Elaine talking about orgasms and about faking them. Wasn't that what got "When Harry Met Sally" an R, aside from some hard language? "Seinfeld" is not for kids. Not for anyone under at least 15
"Seinfeld" is R-rated

While Seinfeld would be rated r 20 years ago it would not be today. The issue is that little children don't underhand the sexual references and then once they do it no longer matters because they should be mature enough to handle it. PG-13 " Parents Strongly Cautioned. Some Material May Be Inappropriate For Children Under 13. A PG-13 rating is a sterner warning by the Rating Board to parents to determine whether their children under age 13 should view the motion picture, as some material might not be suited for them. A PG-13 motion picture may go beyond the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, adult activities or other elements, but does not reach the restricted R category. The theme of the motion picture by itself will not result in a rating greater than PG-13, although depictions of activities related to a mature theme may result in a restricted rating for the motion picture. Any drug use will initially require at least a PG-13 rating. More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating, but such nudity in a PG-13. That from MPPA Seinfeld meets. Pg13. So using this your examples in all are brief so this would make it pg13. I hope this good debate continues.
"Seinfeld" is R-rated

Haters are gonna hate, whatever...Anyways, here...Here are some examples of why "Seinfeld" is R-rated"The Busboy" -- Antonio (the busboy) gets into a fight with a neighbor next to him, apparently angered by being bumped into. Antonio gets furious and he says to watch. The other guy doesn't listen and Antonio gets furious and lauches a Spanish tirade against the other guy. He finally says, if you listen closely, "You're the f$%Tr!" And it's left uncensored. Now this one is not solid, but I'm not the only one who has heard this.Here is more solid reasons why"The Heart Attack" -- George says "jerk off" after Jerry playfully puts the pillow on George. "Jerk off" (even though not mentioned in its real meaning -- masturbation) is an R-rated word. And thus, is also a word not allowed on TV."The Pitch" -- George makes a remark about having a good story. He says that story "is the foundation of all entertainment, you must have a good story, otherwise it's simply just masturbation." LMAO! That's R-rated subject matter in itself."The Pledge Drive" -- revolves around the finger (which is shown, even if not in its meaning, it's done to sneak it into TV). How they got away with showing the finger on TV is beyond me. Kramer also says, "p&**ed off" (also uncensored, and not allowed on TV).This one is debatable for R-ratedness, but I definitely am sure this would have gotten you an R rating or explicit label 20 years ago. "The Parking Garage" had a scene devoted to peeing.
"Seinfeld" is R-rated

http://www.imdb.com... This shows that its rating is PG13. You can't use the example of 15 to prove that it's R and that is also just your opinion. I say it would be fine at age 10 for some. Something from yahoo isn't as reliable as the mpaa. Which following this makes Seinfeld PG13 to PG. Having an adult atmosphere does not make it R. Also your link is irrelevant because it doesn't have an actual rating while mine did. I rest my case and believe I have provided a better case.
Religion and Science do NOT go together

During the Dark Ages, scientific repression was at an all time peak. In a Euro-centric world, feudalism ruled, with a king at the top, and religious figures also high on the authority scale. Religious superstition and regional phenomenons were used to explain basic things like weather and thunderstorms. In this society, lacking any scientific enlightenment, schloars like Bede were attacked by religious, for making now correct statements on things like the shape of the Earth being round. Nowadays, post Enlightenment period, with society now roaring thanks to the advancements of science, religion again challenges scientific fact. With Islamic extremists in the Middle East now aggressing on scientific knowledge, religious apologists of the opposite, in the Bible Belt of America, religious superstition and evangelism is growing doubts to scientific knowledge. In a world without religion, creationism no longer disputes the almost scientifically proven evolution by natural selection. Stem cell research goes forward, abortion clinics don't have the constant death threats of pro-life bickering religious, and no people think the Earth is flat. This is just one religion ruining the Earth in its ways. What about Islamic extremists violating the ability for people denying God, in pursuit of science? What about the Islamic moderates who stand by and simply say, "That's not us, those are the fanatics!" when there is nothing to be fanatical for... if the Quran was not followed to the letter. I feel like Con's separation of religious people into two groups actually aids my argument. Why separate a group of people who follow the same beliefs, with varying degrees of moderation? Sure, some aren't carrying rucksack bombs into war, but they still house the beliefs that allow for the extremism to grow from, because from moderate beliefs stem extremism. This is obvious in politics, everyday life and especially religion. The ancient civilisations Con explained also fail to show, aside from the Ancient Greeks, how the other civilisations were in any way religious AND scientific. Con explains architectural monuments dedicated to religious purposes, but this does not prove religious-scientific alliance. If anything, it is showing architecture aiding the progression of religion, not science, therefore the argument is invalid. Religion prevents scientific advancement, and is arrogant about being an obstacle to the progression thusly of man and womankind.
Religion and Science do NOT go together

I would like to separate these "Religious" folks into two categories: Those naive group of so called "core" religious folk who would like to stick to the old practices that were formed in a time without modern science, and the other, larger, group that is open to scientific change and the like. Let me now take you back to the Ancient times... I recommend that you buy yourself a game called "Sid Meier's Civilization", and as you play through the game, you'll see the huge technological advances of Civilization over the ages. Now, this is only a game you might say, but it is based off of fundamental historical facts. What is similar about all these civilizations?? They all held very strong beliefs in some sort of deity, or 'God' figure, and they achieved some amazing technological feats. The colossus of Rhodes, the Pyramids, the Wheel. They even discovered how to heal blood clotting in the brain. But still, this is not enough. If you might not remember your history very well, these huge and awe inspiring structures that were built so long ago were mainly built for certain reasons; those usually being related to religious practices.
Religion and Science do NOT go together

Many right wing religious fundamentalists in the U.S.A, and around the world, try to claim that science and religion can live in tandem. In this debate, I will be providing evidence as to how this is not possible, how science and religion quarrel over almost every matter that is a discrepancy from the other belief. Pro will argue that this is not true; that religion and science can live in peace and in harmony together in an environment which allows both parties to be content. I believe that in today's growing scientific society, it is religion that needs to be dispelled, or at least pushed aside so as not to hinder scientific progress in the 21st century.
We are born from stars > Proof Inside <

I'm arguing literally because literal is synonymous with reality. Metaphorical meanings are make no sense when considering the resolutionMe holding BoP because language is more than words is a non sequitur. Regardless, I provided an argument thereby fulfilling the BoP. Pro has yet to refute it with a counter-argument. Perhaps if he reworded the question into one then i'd have more to refute.
We are born from stars > Proof Inside <

Well, after I set up all my data, I took an orange, poured some of it onto a remote, and nothing happen - I then got a bigger electronic device, poured another instance of orange juice onto it, and it started to short-circuit into a meltdown. You're the remote, not the bigger electronic device, so I can't smoke you out with vitamin C. Therefore you automatically lose for being used by fat lazy folks.
We are born from stars > Proof Inside <

I. CounterHere's a definition of born.https://www.bing.com... According to this definition, being born from something means that it gave birth to you. There has never been an event where a star gave birth to a human. This is especially true considering tht humans would burn to death if they even went close to a star.II.ConstructMost humans are born from human females. This is due to a process called reproduction. As far as we know, stars are incapable of using reproduction to produce a human. http://wiki.answers.com...
Dog fightning should be legalized in the USA.

EconomyDog fighting will help raise revenues that will help get the USA out of debt. With a debt of about 19 trillion dollars [1] the U.S. needs all the money it can get. Black MarketDog fighting is already part of the black market. FreedomProhibiting dog fighting restricts freedom. By allowing dog fighting we help to maximize freedom. Links1. http://www.usdebtclock.org...
Dog fightning should be legalized in the USA.

Stucture R1. Acceptance and definitions onlyR2. ArgumentsR3. RebuttalsR4. Defense of arguments against R3 rebuttalsWill use wikipedia definition for dog fighting. This is the only round to dispute this definition."Dog fighting is a type of blood sport generally defined as opposing two game dogs against one another in a ring or a pit for the entertainment of the spectators or the gratification of the dogfighters, who are sometimes referred to as dogmen" [1]Links1. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Gymnastics is the most difficult sport in the world for men and women

To start I would like to state my variety of sports. I have done boxing, MMA, UFC fighting, karate, swimming, gymnastics and more. I have been in a ring with someone bigger than me and had to face my fear of getting hit, I have been fighting since I was about 8 and have been doing gymnastics since I was six. Currently I am no longer doing competitive fighting but I still compete in gymnastics it is exhilarating and utterly terrifying at the same time. Some of the greatest fears of gymnast is, of course, dying on the equipment. Their have been many incidents where equipment, from the gym and from the gymnast, that have malfunctioned and resulted in permanent injuries or worse. I have seen incidents of grip lock, this occurs when the dowel of your grips get locked on the bottom part of your buckle or Velcro hold, and shattered an arm on the high bar making it impossible for this child to rejoin gymnastics and crippled him for life. Facing your fears is not only faced in boxing, 2 years before the 2012 Olympics John Orozco injured his knee and was out for two months and yet still competed in the world gymnastics competition America VS. the world. He along with Paul Reggeri were two of the most important people on the team AND competed in the Olympics placing 2nd-All-Around, High Bar; 3rd-Pommel Horse, Still Rings, Parallel Bars; 4th-Floor eXercise; 6th-VaulT(T). Respect is also something that not only boxers fight for. Respect is a universal goal that all people fight for even if they know it or not. Respect can be fought for in many ways whether it's punching someone or using a speech to tell a dream you have for your country or children. If fear is the only thing that a your fighters have to worry about then gymnastics already has them beat in that aspect. Gymnast must not only overcome the fear of messing up and landing wrong or worse but they also have to process where they are in space again referring back to my first argument of spatial awareness. Without the strong mind of a gymnast and the processing power of their seasoned brains in spatial awareness they would fall and more dangerously than not if they had not trained their minds to be "quick on their feet". And again boxers are outmatched in a physical aspect as well entirely because they focus explicitly on their arms which leaves them relatively weaker on the lower parts of their bodies where as a gymnast must work every part of their body so that they can perform the best way possible because most to all events require the same amount of upper body and lower body strength plus they work on all parts of their body so they don't look like a wine glass.