BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Obama degrading the Kardashians

In a recent interview with Amazon, President Obama decided to discuss how children are being wrongfully motivated to become successful adults; and in doing so, he alluded to celebrities Kim Kardashian and Kanye West. He stated "When children once aimed for a good home, a good job, and the possibility of higher education, today's youngsters are exposed to such wealth in the form of celebrities' lifestyles that everything else seems smaller by comparison. Kids weren't mentioning everyday what Kim Kardashian was wearing, or where Kanye West was going on vacation, and thinking that somehow that was the mark of success". This assertion sparked controversy and enragement in many people, including Kim Kardashian"s mother Kris Jenner, which she made clear in her daytime talk show. This quote by President Obama is worthy of discussion due to the fact that Obama profiled other media figures in a negative manner, offending them and their supporters. While President Obama made perfectly valid points on children striving for unreachable amounts of wealth and fame, it was not necessary to bring other celebrities to the forefront of the discussion. Obama said that kids were wrongfully thinking that Kim and Kanye"s life were the "mark of success"; but who is he to say what is the mark of success is? Kim Kardashian alone owns multiple clothing lines, co-owns multiple stores, and is worth approximately 40 million dollars. In the eyes of many, this would be considered successful. Obama also thought it was wrong that children knew where Kanye West was vacationing, but Obama himself has spent more tax payer dollars to go on vacations with his family than any other president in history; making his statement very hypocritical. The President also has made multiple speeches about bullying, for example, he said "Bulllying is wrong. It's destructive and we can all prevent it". However, many consider his mocking of the success and fame of Kim and Kanye a form of bullying in its own; which is a worse example set for children than the fame of the Kardashians. President Obama is in a very high state of media power, and he should not use it as a weapon to attack the Kardashians. His speech about children striving to become better adults was valid and well stated until he had to compare what he thinks is success to two individuals whom were completely unrelated to the topic. People everywhere should take a stand against celebrities of any kind making fun of or fighting with other celebrities in the media; it is immature and a bad example set for children. P.S. Sorry if this sounds speechy, this is for school and I decided I might as well put it on here.
PETA in generals, has had a positive effect in society

PETA call themselves the protector of Animals and have created campaigns which have caused sheer shock without effect. One can look at for instance the images PETA gained from Chinese fur farms [1] now in a country where there are no Animal rights [2] and hardly any public pressure on the Chinese government is PETA actually doing anything except allowing images which could negatively impact our Children's minds. Yet is it not hypocritical for an organization such as PETA whom are against the killing and torture of animals to have leaders whom seem to have a zeal for killing with Newkirk saying " "I'd go to work early, before anyone got there, and I would just kill the animals myself...I must have killed a thousand of them, sometimes dozens every day." [3] Does this not show an organization which does not stick to even the words in its name. Ethical is defined as 'motivation based on ideas of right and wrong' [4] the definition of what we believe is morally wrong is hard to define due to the fact that different people have different frames of reference. I therefore put forward that the only general consensus of right and wrong can be that of what society generally accepts. Society is defined as 'A society is a body of individuals of a species, generally seen as a community or group, that is outlined by the bounds of functional interdependence, comprising also possible characters or conditions such as cultural identity, social solidarity, or eusociality. ' [5] One has to remember also the procedure of how medicine is approved, in that the FDA requires all medicine to have animal testing before being approved in order to test the safety of the medication. [6] If animal testing was stopped as wanted the affect would cause major problems for society in the testing of new drugs. On a side note I look forward to the debate ahead especially since this is my first of hopefully many debates on debate.org. 1.www.peta.org/feat/chineseFurFarms/index.asp 2.http://buyhard.net46.net... 3.http://www.nokillnow.com... 4.http://www.google.co.uk...= 5.http://en.wikipedia.org... 6.http://students.cua.edu...
PETA in generals, has had a positive effect in society

I thank my oppnent for a good debate. "It would ruin a way of life many of these people have been doing that job for their whole life its all they know and have skills for. Yes it can be replaced by artificial fur but what about the families who's whole tradition and history is based around the fur farms." I believe there is always a chance to learn a new profitable skill. Firstly I said adoptable animals not ones given back to owners. My statistics come from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services whom PETA are obliged to submit all their statistics to. But if that is not a secure enough source for you I'll use the very web site you have used on petakillsanimals.com in an article it said and I quote PETA's "Animal Record" report for 2008, filed with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, shows that the animal rights group killed 95 percent of the dogs and cats in its care last year. During all of 2008, PETA found adoptive homes for just seven pets.[1]" The source from the website that "backs up" their stats is the same source I gave. " will take that further in the very same article it gives a further account of statistics of Euthanasia with regards to PETA the lowest percentage of Euthanasia is in 1998 with 72.6% being killed. Surely this proves that from the start PETA have been killing more than what any reasonable person would call ethical!" The numbers do not support that. "I was not talking about owners reclaiming animals as in those cases its obvious that they would not be euthanize. If my dog runs away I am going to want it back and I would likely go look at the shelters." But it is impossible to tell what dogs were thrown on to the street and what dogs ran away. "What I was talking about were the animals not claimed the ones that PETA needs to find a home for but instead of doing that cost cut and fall back to euthanasia." Since when was it PETA's fault that people aren't adopting animals from them. Many people go to local shelters before going to PETA. "Surely PETA in this case in particular lack compassion when shelters such as the SPCA in San Fransisco( who don't kill any animal unless fatally sick)[2] are the ones leading the ethical treatment of animals and not an organization such as PETA who kill 95% of adoptable animals." Again, the data simply doesn't support this. "I don't recall any accomplishments apart from getting a few celebrities not to wear fur! But as my poll shows it has no affect on mainstream society who are still for fur not against. The support for the Ethical treatment of animals can surely not be accredited to PETA when you think about how many groups there are out there trying to protect animals. As far as I can see PETA's accomplishments are lacking and their contribution is more of a burden to society." PETA hasn't just gotten celebrites to stop using fur, they've got companies to stop using it. As i've stated before, this hurts the fur trade. Thank you for reading.
PETA in generals, has had a positive effect in society

'That would be a valid argument, if the jobs wouldn't be able to be replaced with the production of artificial fur. This would provide the majority of the people job opportunities. ' It would ruin a way of life many of these people have been doing that job for their whole life its all they know and have skills for. Yes it can be replaced by artificial fur but what about the families who's whole tradition and history is based around the fur farms. 'I'm sorry, but your statistics are wrong. (http://www.petakillsanimals.com......) on page 3 it clearly states that PETA returned 7525 animals back to their owners, while euthanizing 2369. ' Firstly I said adoptable animals not ones given back to owners. My statistics come from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services whom PETA are obliged to submit all their statistics to. But if that is not a secure enough source for you I'll use the very web site you have used on petakillsanimals.com in an article it said and I quote "PETA's "Animal Record" report for 2008, filed with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, shows that the animal rights group killed 95 percent of the dogs and cats in its care last year.ï¿½ During all of 2008, PETA found adoptive homes for just seven pets."[1] I will take that further in the very same article it gives a further account of statistics of Euthanasia with regards to PETA the lowest percentage of Euthanasia is in 1998 with 72.6% being killed. Surely this proves that from the start PETA have been killing more than what any reasonable person would call ethical! I was not talking about owners reclaiming animals as in those cases its obvious that they would not be euthanize. If my dog runs away I am going to want it back and I would likely go look at the shelters. What I was talking about were the animals not claimed the ones that PETA needs to find a home for but instead of doing that cost cut and fall back to euthanasia. Surely PETA in this case in particular lack compassion when shelters such as the SPCA in San Fransisco( who don't kill any animal unless fatally sick)[2] are the ones leading the ethical treatment of animals and not an organization such as PETA who kill 95% of adoptable animals. " I believe the American people are misinformed about the fur trade, and perceive it as ethical. " Well then PETA's grand campaign which you were proclaiming a while back as effective is ineffective! "I have already listed PETA's accomplishments above. " I don't recall any accomplishments apart from getting a few celebrities not to wear fur! But as my poll shows it has no affect on mainstream society who are still for fur not against. The support for the Ethical treatment of animals can surely not be accredited to PETA when you think about how many groups there are out there trying to protect animals. As far as I can see PETA's accomplishments are lacking and their contribution is more of a burden to society. 1.http://www.petakillsanimals.com... 2.http://en.wikipedia.org...
PETA in generals, has had a positive effect in society

Thank you for a speedy reply "But is that good for society? Does that not mean less jobs for people in China? At the end of the day fitting basic needs such as food and shelter is the core essence of Society. With 23.45 million people [1] in China below the poverty should animal rights come before basic human rights. It seems that PETA's aim in preventing the fur trade ruin lives instead of helping better society." That would be a valid argument, if the jobs wouldn't be able to be replaced with the production of artificial fur. This would provide the majority of the people job opportunities. "PETA are well known for killing animals which other animal rights organizations would consider adoptable. This animals are not being tortured or killed they are in the care of the PETA organization! Based on official figures out of all the animals PETA gets 96% of all these animals are put down. PETA have put that down to the poor health of the animals but then how come other shelters/animal groups who take in animals have a lower euthanasia rate? With the euthanasia rate of the RSPCA being only 8% [2]. Is it not hypocritical of PETA to kill so many animals instead of giving them a second chance?" I'm sorry, but your statistics are wrong. (http://www.petakillsanimals.com...) on page 3 it clearly states that PETA returned 7525 animals back to their owners, while euthanizing 2369. "For instance the 2 things the PETA are violently against (fur and animal drug testing) the American people seem to disagree with. In a Gallup poll 61% thought it was alright to buy clothes and wear clothes made of fur up 7% from 2008 [8]! " I believe the American people are misinformed about the fur trade, and perceive it as ethical. "So what effect is PETA having on the fur trade? PETA started its action against the Chinese Fur farms in 2008 [9] its shock campaign it seems did not work and the only effect it has had is putting terrible images of animals dying on the internet! Is this ethical? To such brutal images of dying animals on the internet?" I have already listed PETA's accomplishments above. Thank you for reading.
Illegal smoking

Smoking should be illegal for all ages, some of my family smokes and there health is getting worse by the second, no millisecond. If the World bans smoking our life span will and shall increase. Have YOU ever see some random teenager smoking! If you haven't you need to consult your therapist immediately! I know that these people are killing themselves just to be cool, or in the "group". That needs to stop NOW! I can see that some people are smoking and trying to quit be cause they realize that it is only hurting them. And I'm not saying that your a bad person if you smoke, but if took all of that away we wouldn't have the issue of killing your self.
It is better to find a fulfilling job that a job that pays well

Thanks for accepting this challenge. I kind of see what you mean... However, we can look at Jane Goodall. As we all know, Jane Goodall studies primates but primarily chimpanzees. So, she can be counted as a scientist. Scientists generally don't earn very much unless they discover something or are famous. If you say that well paying jobs are more preferred, then why would we even have artists, professional orchestra players, etc. You might say that these people don't need a very high level of education. Sure, they might not be passing in math at school, but they are excelling in other subjects. Anyways, Jane Goodall chose to follow her interests and become a scientist. She has chosen to enjoy her work for the next couple of decades instead of reaping in money from a hateful job but losing hair from having to go to work. Because of her determination and devotion, she has managed to soar to the top and become famous because of what she did. Like I said, if everyone was interested in high paying jobs, what would become of our music, arts, and literature. Our artists, musicians, and authors would all disappear. Lastly, I'm suppose to prove that fulfilling jobs are always better than well paying jobs. Hmmm... Well, working for a profession that one dislikes is proven to cause stress, be damaging to one's self-esteem. "The experience is worth more than the wage."-Garmin. It is impossible to say that a statement can cover all cases. Even the constitution couldn't do that. In conclusion, choosing a more fulfilling job challenges you and makes life all the more exciting. Thanks for debating, learned a lot. (I'm a girl.)
It is better to find a fulfilling job that a job that pays well

Thanks, Pro, for initiating this debate challenge. As Pro and Instigator, my opponent bears the burden of proof. He must therefore affirm that in all cases (or at the very least in a *majority* of cases), it is better to have a more fulfilling job rather than a higher paying job. This seems to be a nearly impossible task since it is purely a matter of personal opinion. Let's make this into an equation where H equals total happiness, J is the fulfillment one gets out of his job, and M is the amount of money he makes. By combining the amount of job satisfaction with the value one places on it, we can construct a function f(J) that allows us to assign it a happiness value. Similarly, by combining one's earnings with the value one places on money, we can assign a happiness value to f(M). So, our equation should look like this: H = f(J) + f(M) It's a rather straightforward matter then. All other things being equal, an individual who derives more happiness from wealth than career fulfillment will be much better off taking the higher paying job. If one assigns equal weight to both career fulfillment and wealth, the monetary benefits (M) of the higher paying job need only to slightly exceed the greater satisfaction (J) of the more fulfilling job to make it preferable. Obviously, if the M value of the higher paying job is significantly greater than the M value of the lower paying job, it would be in the person's best interest to take the higher paying job unless he assigns an absurdly high value to career satisfaction. Outside the clear cut cases, there are many factors that go into determining which job will bring about the highest H value. People have many conflicting desires wholly apart from their careers that affect the weight they assign to the J and M values. Someone may want to retire early, or be able to support a large family. He may want to be able to send his kids to a prestigious university, or buy an expensive sports car. All of these things contribute to greater weight being assigned to the M value. == Conclusion == Pro has his work cut out for him. I have demonstrated how and why one might choose a remunerative career path over a more fulfilling and given several examples. Pro has his work cut out for him: he must prove that it is always better (in terms of H value) to choose the fulfilling job. Even under a more liberal interpretation of the resolution, it would still be nearly impossible to demonstrate that fulfilling jobs are more conducive to happiness than high paying jobs in simple majority of cases. The resolution is negated.
It is better to find a fulfilling job that a job that pays well

I agree that there is no price you can put on a dream, however, people like Jane Goodall represent a tiny fraction of all cases. For many people, their job is merely a means to an end. Financial security is necessary to achieve their other, more important goals. I again agree that the world would be a dull and bleak place without the artists and musicians who make tremendous sacrifices to pursue their dreams. However, they are referred to as starving artists for a reason. People who become famous and wealthy for their achievements are incredibly rare. The vast majority of musicians end up working part time jobs and playing a few gigs at local clubs on the side. The lucky ones who find regular employment still make barely enough to get by. It's simply not practical for most people. Those with goals like those I listed earlier (wanting to raise a family, retire early, etc. ) can't achieve this working as a field researcher, or an artist, or a musician. Working a job that you hate may cause stress and make you unhappy, but that's not necessary in many cases. Take teaching at a private parochial school, for example. Many teachers find it more fulfilling, but the higher pay offered draws many to work at public schools instead. In cases like this, an individual trades a marginal amount of job satisfaction for what they consider to be a large enough increase in wages. == Conclusion == Pro has failed to fulfill her burden of proof. There are many instances where a high paying job is preferable to more fulfilling job. People who place a higher value on their non career-related goals have a good reason to choose the high paying, less fulfilling job, as do people who need sacrifice only a marginal amount of career fulfillment for a greater increase in pay. The resolution is negated.
Should Meloetta be 100% female

I do agree with you that Meloetta does look female, but there's a lot of Pokemon that should be characterized as one gender, but is either/or. For example, Gardevoir has a 50% chance of being male and female. The same goes for Pokemon such as Machamp and Loppuny. Also, its a mythical Pokemon. The only legendary that have a gender is Manaphy, since it can breed.
Video Games Are Art

Listen here Art is defined by Merriam Webster as "skill acquired by experience, study, or observation" Someone that makes video games has a study for coding, computers, and ideas. They observe their surroundings by using real life scenarios to display messages and characters. The coder or developer had a purpose in putting characters in the game, while artists have a purpose in putting objects or people in their painting. Obviously, they observed the surroundings and have a general idea of idea of life. They used observation to add key scenes in the plot. They used observation to fix bugs, add new characters, look at critiques, and add new game modes, etc. An argument against this would be invalid because they are using observation to code.. and code is a skill which leads to skill Skill is known as being good at a certain thing that maybe other are not... Coding takes a skill in computers and in coding to program. They need a skill to fix bugs and add new patches to improve a game, which is harder than making a painting because everyone will keep wanting and if they don't deliver, it can lead to a bad rep and people not wanting to buy a game. Art is the opposite, you can make art people do not like and they cannot do anything as the piece is set and stone. Artists tend not to listen, for example Michelangelo was told not sculpt the privates in David statue. he did it anyways because he didn't care You can not pick up a coding manual in one day, and make a hit game. You need experience. Art and video games are the same way. Need experience in having art design, need experience for coding In conclusion...the definition I got from Merriam Webster is what art is defined as and the best definition. I answered the definition and proved my point in all. Video Games and classic art are the same thing. Video games meet all the requirements from art.