BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The government should fund NASA

Hmm, where did you hear about this space elevator? A space elevator is a PROPOSED idea, and I don't think in the slightest that NASA has any plans to build a space elevator, that is completely bogus. Not only did NASA send the communication satellites to space, they MAINTAIN them. If NASA was shut down, then eventually we would lose cell phones and TV. No, NASA is not the priority, but the military IS. Did you know that if we cut the military budget from a week, we could probably end world hunger? Hmm, that seems like a lot. Maybe if we just cut a little of that... What I'm trying to say, is that funding NASA will make virtually no difference to our debt status. If you really want to get out of debt, stop fighting in the Middle East! It is not your fight, and we are spending WAY too much on military aid and supplies. NASA wouldn't do fine on their own. How could they collect billions of dollars in donations? How could they build all of the probes and rovers without some extra cash? Besides, a bunch of America doesn't think we should fund it, so why would they donate to it? NASA represents American ingenuity, the inventions and marks on the science world. Without it, you are destroying an American dream. A TON of little children say they want to be astronauts, and that will completely crush their dreams. A ZERO chance of fulfilling their dream. NASA would continue to create more amazing inventions, and how could they without some funds? They've already made memory foam, in-ear thermometers, insulin pumps, cochlear implants, and others. (http://www.howstuffworks.com..., http://www.stuff.tv...) How could they make more inventions if they are shut down? Hmm? How will the USA continue to be the most innovative country, if one of their biggest scientific branches get shut down? Hmm? How can you argue against this? http://www.youtube.com...
The government should fund NASA

The government should NOT fund Nasa. Nor is NASA, THE GOVERNMENT'S PRIOTY. Look at how much good work, Nasa is doing right now. They are fine on their own, right when you said, 0.05%, it went up over 6%. The difference between Nasa, and the government, Nasa is doing better than government right now. The government lost over %17,000,000,000, Nasa barely $1,000. What should happen if they fund it? Would Nasa shut down? Would Nasa go over not $17, but $18,000,000,000 dollars? Or, would Nasa even LOSE all of its workers. Think about Space. There is nothing about Space that deals with politics, or what America has already done, or what America has already lost. America already HAS everything that you listed. America already INVENTED a Space Elevator, mhmm, have you ever heard of a rocket ship? What's your say, My Friend?
The government should fund NASA

All of the "oh the US is in debt" arguments are completely pointless. I've done all of the math. Out of the US' budget, NASA is only 0.5%. 0.5%!!!!!!!!! How on Earth (that's punny right there) is that even going to make a difference? That's right, it's not. There honestly no reason not to. Space will be the final frontier, and are humans not naturally curious? Understanding space not only allows us to know more about our planet, but it gives us cell phone service, TV, GPS, and others; along with many inventions and theories! You can say we could use the money for global warming and stuff like that, but what if money can't save our planet? Huh? How will we leave a dying, rotting planet if all of the money is being used to "save" ours? NASA has no near-future plans for a space elevator! That's bogus! Yes, missions have failed, but if you haven't made mistakes yourself, you must be really special. Now you are probably thinking, "well I didn't kill anybody!" Oh, last time I checked, you weren't in charge of peoples' lives! Our government made mistakes that got us in debt, militaries around the world made mistakes that led to death, so again, NASA wins. You could say that we should spend more time learning about our own planet, but NASA does let us learn about Earth (How it formed, how tides work, the day/night cycle, the seasons, what are future may be).
music is a essental part of life

"music is all around us no matter what we cant break free from it and it is needed for people to understand one another it is essential i mean im 16 music is life for all people i mean come on i bet you listen to music everyday but im not saying u do but it is most definately certain you do"Although music is important, Pro has failed to prove that it is essential:http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
Voters should be required to take a test before voting

If you only require 20-30% completion than you are basically saying it is not important to actually know the candidates which would not address the issue that the test is meant to combat. And I personally have no problem with the 16-18 age group being allowed to vote. If they can be tried by a jury as an adult they should have the right to vote. And right now people do not spend a lot of time voting once they are in the poll. It is the long lines that will only get longer once a test is required. And by giving states or the federal government to decide what can go on this test it can very well turn into a literacy test that is meant to prevent certain groups from voting. There would be nothing that would prevent a state like Alabama to simply only print the test in English, therefore preventing non-english speakers from having the right to vote. Simply put, having any sort of test opens a pandoras box of possible corruption and voter rights being in jeopardy. And when a person would only need a 20-30% completion it would not address voter ignorance or help combat it. For those who do not think they will pass the test, they will simply not go vote and it will lead to poorer voter turnout.
Voters should be required to take a test before voting

There are many formats of a test and it can be edited to suit the situation in the country. And if uneducated people who have no idea about political parties be allowed to vote, why shouldn't 16-18 years olds who are well-informed about politics not be allowed to vote? The voting system needs to get better, whether it be by a test or by other methods. It can be a short test so that it takes less time, and the passing percentage can be 20 or 30 percent.
Voters should be required to take a test before voting

What you're proposing would only make voting more difficult and lead to poorer voter turnout. There are already counties that have 4-5 hour waits for voting, so by introducing a new verbal test it would simply slow down the process. And some individuals do not know their candidates views on every issue, only the issues that they have a vested interest in. The 15th Amendment guarantees individuals the right to vote [https://loc.gov...] , and any sort of test that would infringe on that right would be struck down by the courts just as literacy tests were made illegal. While the intentions of a test before voting is to ensure that voters are well informed on the candidates it ultimately just prevents many from voting, and there for is discriminatory against those who cannot find time to take the test.
Voters should be required to take a test before voting

When I say test, it doesn't mean a literacy (english) test. The test needs to be on the parties and their ideologies. Test could also be oral so that uneducated people can also vote. If you fail, a booklet about your country's politics could be handed over to you. It will have really basic multiple-choice questions, such as what is Donald Trump's stand against ISIS, is he against immigration etc etc. Also, please tell me the countries where these tests have been used.
I would like to argue with a creationist about the Earth only being 6000 years old.

What do you think will happen if we have dew days or years? There is no impossible . You only think there is no impossible. And nothing last forever.. I have a story to tell you. You know existtance? When i wasn't born yet like i wasnt in my mother's womb yet. I saw or felt what it feels like in the non existence world . You cant realy see anything or feel anything . And it's very very lonely i know why i still remembrr it by now i want to know is how i remember it until now. The point is everything has an end not everything in this world is eternal.
I would like to argue with a creationist about the Earth only being 6000 years old.

It is impossible for the Earth to be 6000 years old. I understand impossible is quite a big word to use when debating a subject but to point out some information which supports me. We have trees currently in existence that are older than 6000 years old, the Old Tjikko for example. We have rock formation and layers which date millions of years and also fossils far far far older than 6000 years old. if you would like examples of these here are a few websites. (http://rationalwiki.org...) (http://www.raptureready.com...) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) (http://scienceblogs.com...)
I would like to argue with a creationist about the Earth only being 6000 years old.

Although my opposer forfeited I will conclude with my closing argument. Scientists use a few methods to determine the age of the Earth here is an in depth look into what they use. "Generally speaking, scientists have developed four different methods of determining the age of the earth. By using these methods, or a combination of them, the age of geological formations created by past events and even the fossilized bones of prehistoric animals can be determined.(http://dnr.louisiana.gov...) The three primary methods are: Radiation Measurement Stratigraphic Superposition The Fossil Record From these methods of dating, scientists have determined that the earth as we know it seems to be about 4.6 billion years old. It is theorized that the earth got its start as a result of what is called the "Big Bang nearly 6 billion years ago. The Big Bang theory holds that all the planets, stars, solar systems, galaxies, etc., are the result of a huge explosion that sent material speeding through space. As time passed, the gravitational force of larger chucks of material attracted the smaller chunks and formed the galaxies and solar systems we see today."
I would like to argue with a creationist about the Earth only being 6000 years old.

You are not even arguing about the world any more. I shall continue to provide proof Earth is older than 6000 years old. (http://www.livescience.com...) Dinosaur fossils, bacteria fossils and animal/ ancient animals predate 6000 years old such as "In its 4.6 billion years circling the sun, the Earth has harbored an increasing diversity of life forms: for the last 3.6 billion years, simple cells (prokaryotes); for the last 3.4 billion years, cyanobacteria performing photosynthesis; for the last 2 billion years, complex cells (eukaryotes); for the last 1 billion years, multicellular life; for the last 600 million years, simple animals; for the last 550 million years, bilaterians, animals with a front and a back; for the last 500 million years, fish and proto-amphibians; for the last 475 million years, land plants; for the last 400 million years, insects and seeds; for the last 360 million years, amphibians; for the last 300 million years, reptiles; for the last 200 million years, mammals; for the last 150 million years, birds; for the last 130 million years, flowers; for the last 60 million years, the primates, for the last 20 million years, the family Hominidae (great apes); for the last 2.5 million years, the genus Homo (human predecessors); for the last 200,000 years, anatomically modern humans. Periodic extinctions have temporarily reduced diversity, eliminating: 2.4 billion years ago, many obligate anaerobes, in the oxygen catastrophe; 252 million years ago, the trilobites, in the Permian"Triassic extinction event; 66 million years ago, the pterosaurs and nonavian dinosaurs, in the Cretaceous"Paleogene extinction event.(http://en.wikipedia.org...)" If you would like me to provide evidence of these I can in my next argument.
Pro-Life Results in Punishment for Women

1. DefinitionA quick Google search will give us a list of definitions of punishment:the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offensehttps://www.google.com...a penalty inflicted for an offense, fault, etc.http://dictionary.reference.com...A penalty imposed for wrongdoinghttp://www.thefreedictionary.com...As you can see, the word "penalty" is a common theme in how the word is used. And although I am sure there is no need for me to define it, I will go ahead anyway:a loss, forfeiture, suffering, or the like, to which one subjects oneself by nonfulfillment of some obligation.http://dictionary.reference.com...There is nothing controversial about these definitions.2. A woman has a right to her own bodyAny part of your body is your property, and therefore can not be used for any purpose by anyone without your consent. If for example someone needed to draw your blood to survive, then absent some loaded context we would consider it a no brainer that your consent would be required. We consider that a no brainer because for it to be considered a right, the default position is that it is yours until there is reason for it to not be yours. Something that requires justification for you to have it is by definition, not a right.This obviously applies to women.3. Punishment.Clearly, a non viable fetus (which is where the vast majority of abortions are performed) requires the usage of a woman's body. But as outlined in point 2, such usage requires the mothers consent, which follows from the definition of a right. Therefore, requiring the mother to carry the fetus to terms against her will constitutes a loss of that right.The justification for this loss now suffered by the woman is the fact that the woman voluntarily took place in an act that caused the fetus to form. One can argue all they want about whether that is valid justification for removing such a right but one cannot reasonably argue that it is not a loss of that right, which according to the non-controversial definition provided above makes it a penalty, which is synonymous with the word punishment.ConclusionThe argument is simple, clear, and unmistakably affirms the resolution. I see no reason to go any further.
Taxes and the U.S. Government

So what does the federal government spend our tax dollars on? The biggest expense that the government spent in 2012 was Social Security with 22% of all spending, next was healthcare 21% (Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP), the next biggest expense was defense (military) with 19%, then safety net programs 12% (food stamps etc...) and then paying interest on our already massive debt 6% (1). By reducing our spending we can reduce our taxes. We can cut or greatly reduce all of our government expenditures. Social Security should be privatized and the government should not collect or manage money for such a program, this should also be applied to healthcare which will save the government (taxpayers) a lot of money (2). The military must also be greatly reduced, we do not need the military that we have, and we do not need our fatherly presence in every country, we should bring back our troops and cut the spending. The next thing we can cut is safety net programs, people need to become more independent and rely less on the government even for scenarios they don't expect, cutting safety net programs over night is not a good idea but reducing the funding to it will save us a great amount of money. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for someone else"s living situation, the best answer to funding safety net programs is through voluntary donation not a forced tax. The U.S government spends 6% of its budget on paying off the debt alone (in 2012). We must lower our debt and borrow less money so the government does not have to pay interest. Overall we need to reduce our spending at both a state and federal level to reduce our taxes, by reducing our taxes we will grow the economy and make people more independent. http://www.cbpp.org... (1) http://socialsecurity.procon.org... (2)
Taxes and the U.S. Government

For taxes to be greatly lowered in our society we first need to reduce our spending. Government does not generate revenue, the people do, everything that the 'government' spends money on is funded by the people (their taxes). To cut taxes we need to reduce government spending, this includes cutting major government expenditures such as welfare and warfare (defense spending). By cutting our spending we can reduce our taxes which will benefit the individual and the economy. Any form of tax cut such as the Bush Tax cuts would be beneficial to the economy such as creating jobs and expanding growth. Over the last 100 years taxes have increased greatly and the amount of different types of taxes have also increased dramatically (1). The federal income tax was not even a tax in the United States until the early 1900's through the passage of the 16th amendment which was a controversial amendment to pass. Even after its passage the income tax did not even effect most people until the 1950's and 1960's, up until that point only a certain percentage of Americans payed income tax (2). If we reduce our unnecessary spending through cutting certain programs (privatizing programs) and bringing our troops home we can reduce our taxes and even eliminate most taxes like the income tax. http://en.wikipedia.org... (1) http://www.loc.gov... (2)
Taxes and the U.S. Government

In order to decide whether or not policy makers should have high or low tax policies, we should look to the empirical evidence regarding taxation and its relationship to economic growth and income growth. It turns out, the majority of empirical research has found increasing taxation leads to negative impacts on economic growth, which can be measured as Gross Domestic Product (GDP). These negative impacts are not just coincidence, even when researchers control for other factors such as government spending, business cycle conditions, and monetary policy, they still reach the same results. In a study titled, "The robust relationship between taxes and U.S state income growth", published in the National Tax Journal, the author, Robert Reed, concluded that: "My analysis suggests that tax policies take time to work its full effects on the economy. When the specification is sufficiently general to pick up these effects, a negative relationship between taxes and income growth emerges." (1) Additionally, a study of 15 developed countries by the International Monetary Fund found that "a 1 percent spending cut has no significant effect on growth, whereas a 1 percent tax increase reduces GDP by 1.3 percent after two years." (1) In contrast, a study published in the American Economic Review found that "A 1 percentage point cut in the average personal income tax rate raises real GDP per capita by 1.4 percent in the first quarter and by up to 1.8 percent after three quarters." (1) These are just some peer-reviewed study which show negative impacts of taxation on economic growth. Even more can be found at the first link cited. So why do higher taxes result in decreased economic growth? Perhaps it is because a dollar in the hands of the private sector is spent more efficiently than in the hands of the government. Perhaps it's because taxation reduces the incentive for people to work and invest. Theoretically, taxing someone for hiring a worker, or investing in capital goods, etc basically makes it more expensive to do those things, and thus, less of it will be done. This explanation makes sense and is loosely confirmed by the results of empirical research. (1) http://taxfoundation.org...
Taxes and the U.S. Government

Everyone who looks at the numbers knows that taxes must be raised to sustain the growing debt in the country. If nothing is done about the current situation, deficits of up to $3.5 trillion dollars outside of the surplus in Social Security are speculated to have built up by 2016. But doing nothing assumes that all the Bush tax cuts will be allowed to expire as scheduled in 2010. also if the tax cuts are extended, and spending remains generally unchanged, the 10-year deficit will total to $7.8 trillion. To balance the budget under these conditions would require cutting defense spending by 67 percent, Medicare by 54 percent, or every other program by a third, which is not an option as far as most politicians are concerned.
Taxes and the U.S. Government

Taxes should be lowered across the United States. Taxation is one of the biggest financial burdens on Americans; Americans are taxed at both the state and federal level. They"re taxes on almost everything that you buy, sell, or own (1). The United States also has an unfair income tax base; taxes should be regressive so that everyone pays the same percentage of their income. Much of the money that the government collects (taxes) is used carelessly on many unnecessary social programs that should not be funded and should be privatized. We are evolving into the era where people must rely on the government to live, this should not happen. By minimizing government, and reducing taxes we can promote job growth, create an incentive for people to work (people become more independent), and improve the standard of living (2). (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://www.cato.org...
Adverts are evil

PRO has made a progressive case based on basic human rights. These are the rights, you have had since you were born. One right we all have is to speak, notice: not SHOUT, just speak. Another is privacy of mind.This is PRO's voice on paper. No one has been FORCED into reading this content. You are here, because you chose (and are still). CON chose to expose himself to the force of my ideas, as they, like I stated, need to be tested and this is the correct testing method (combat ground).CON exclusively focuses on "Utilitarainsim", for that is CON's chosen world stance. It is not even spelt correctly, it is Utilitarianism. CON tries to obscure the simple, deductive process, that yields a basic equation "And 1 right is interfering with multiple rights?". CON says "What?", so, I say if a man was given a gun, that is a "man plus value(gun)", that man shoots a lot of people, they are dead, that is lose of right. Now this is extreme but it clearly demonstrates an immoral(evil) outcome, when one idea(the man's) plus value(gun) is FORCED on others. So, here I will look at "McDonalds" and CON's "cycle of happiness". McDonalds is a business entity, it makes decisions that ensures its survival, much like humans. McDonalds forms the idea, that, people can go to the shop and buy food themselves. This threatens McDonalds because customers would not want their much more expensive food so they would not make money. They go to extra-ordinary lengths to make the most perfect looking example of their food and take the clearest pictures possible. Then pay large amounts of money and fill other people's views with this wondrous food. Then weak the minded have the consciousness filled with this delight, they flock to McDonalds and get served with, what a best could be called a modest meal. They hand over their money without thinking they could have purchased more nutritious food for less money and had a modest meal. It looks to me that CON's "cycle of happiness" belongs to McDonalds! While that is happening, the strong minded are subjected to these images, they know are not real, they have tried McDonalds "food".ConclusionsOf course Utilitarian process viewed by a Utilitarian will be seen to be good. However the fact that Utilitarianism is a subset of ALL people. There are many other points of view but focusing on very basic human rights makes things much clearer.By basic reasoning "money = the number of rights being affect by just one right" is a true statement, that can be applied to all adverts. As more human rights are being affected (bombarded by unwanted images) by the application of money and only one human right is up held, this is immoral by utilitarian standard as well as any other.If you look for understanding with a rigid mind, then don't expect to absorb it.The statement - Adverts are evil - stands.