BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A business should not be forced to pay for maternity leave because pregnancies should be planned.

As a strong supporter of women's rights and planned pregnancies as well as being a small business owner, I believe that it's unfair for an employee to expect their employer to pay for their absence from work due to their pregnancy since the employee was initially hired to do a job and their absence from said job means they cannot carry out that performance. Accidental pregnancies should not an employer's burden. I believe the employee has an obligation to plan their pregnancy and work out an arrangement with their employer in order to continue working for them. There should also be no law that forbids an employer from firing someone for getting pregnant if the employer can prove that the pregnancy has significantly hindered and reduced the employee's job performance.
God does NOT exist

Alright, first, I would like to apologize for my abscence in the previous round. Hereafter, I guarantee my presence in all the events relating to this debate. I will immediately begin my argument. The foremost point that I would like to make, is that it is impossible to prove the existance of an entity that has left absolutely no trace of itself. If I were to tell somebody that unicorns exist, they would either laugh at me, or ask me how I came to this conclusion. To both of these responses, I will end up explaining an incidence when I saw a unicorn. He may actually believe me. But this somebody will most probably say that I have lied, or that I was seeing things. When I threaten him, that if he did not believe in unicorn, then upon his death, he will be tortured by unicorns for eternity, then maybe, out of fear, he may believe me, or reply with the same brute force. In fact, there is absolutely no difference between 'God', and the unicorn I descrbed. People have been terorized with these concepts for as long as human civilization has been around. The concept of a higher power is not acceptable to most people because: 1.There is no physical evidence suggesting that God ever existed. 2. None of Jesus' "miracles" left any evidence either. 3. The Bible we have is probably incorrect and is obviously the work of primitive men rather than God.(Only primitive men would advocate violence, as done in theBible, Quoran, Mahabharata,etc..) 4. Huge mishaps like the Japan nuclear holocaust, H1N1,Small Pox, and AIDS occur without any response from God. There are also many contradictions in both the new and old testament of the Bible. Jesus is praised to be a Prince on Peace, while on the other hand, God himself advocates violence, in both the new and old testament ofthe bible. All religious scripts are filled with atrocities. No religion is free of this violence. It leaves me dumbfounded to hear that people follow the words of a non-existant entity, that demands faith and refuses to prove it's existance to te world. If blind-faith were to be the basis of criminal prosecution today, then pedophiles, rapists, terrorists would all quote their respective religions and rome free. This is by no means acceptable by anyone living on Earth today. The only reason why the criminals mentioned above get justice, is because in our hearts, we do not truly believe that a God will punish them by sending them to Hell. Neither do we want them to roam free, which is why the law locks them up. With these words, I rest my case. Over to the Contender. REFERENCES: http://en.m.wikipedia.org... http://godisimaginary.com...
God does NOT exist

Welcome back to the debate. I made sure to wait so you still got the opening statement (it's a good thing you put it to 5 rounds). I will letter categorize my responses to you so they stay organized. A) There is no difference between God and unicorns. See, this is an interesting argument. The difference between the two is distinguishable. The reason people believe in God is because the evidence is around us. Some things are just too perfectly intertwined. I can give you a list of examples; such as dung, bees, trees, condensation, etc. So there is evidence to believe in God. People just don't think we exist for no reason. Moreover, on the unicorns part, you can't prove unicorns don't exist either. The difficulty for your argument is to give absolute proof that God does not exist. You can't state unicorns don't exist either, because I can counter your argument by mentioning dinosaurs. Did people think dinosaurs existed before all of the discovered fossils? No. Therefore, how can you claim unicorns don't exist? It's possible we haven't found out any evidence yet. B) There is no physical evidence to support God existed. I already addressed this above. People believe, or at least a percentage of people believe in God, because of how fined tuned reality is. C) None of Jesus' miracles left any evidence. See, this is irrelevant to the debate, but I understand. The Bible is a history book and cites all of his events. However, even if I state that, it is irrelevant to the point at hand. You have to prove God doesn't exist, not give reasons why people don't believe he exists. D) The Bible we have is probably incorrect and is obviously the work of primitive men rather than God. If you can cite this, then that's different. However, none of this proves God doesn't exist. Just because some people claim that God wrote those books (and we can debate if the Bible is the word of God on another debate if you wish) does not mean they are. E) Huge mishaps like the Japan nuclear holocaust, H1N1,Small Pox, and AIDS occur without any response from God. Can you prove this? Just because the entire event happened, does not mean God didn't help anybody. F) The Bible advocates negative things and is contradictory. First, none of this proves God doesn't exist. Secondly, I'd like to see you cite your evidence from the Bible directly. Thirdly, you talk about jail being useful, then talk badly about Hell? Why do you think Hell exists in the first place? It does the exact same thing as jail does.
Buddhism (Pro) or Christianity (Con)

I thank CultLeader34 for accepting.1.) The Question of ReligionFirst, I would like to point out the definition of religion.Religion- An interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group.http://www.merriam-webster.com...Yes, many religions have the worship of a deity involved in them. But, the main concept of every religion is that there has to be some level of faith attached to it. For someone to be considered a Buddhist, they must have faith in the four indestructible objects of faith:1.) The Buddha2.) The Dharma (the teachings of the Buddha)3.) The Sangha (the Buddhist community)4.) The five preceptshttp://www.sutrasmantras.info...Thus, for one to be considered a Buddhist, they must have faith in these four items.2.) Christianity and BuddhismCon asserts the point that one can be a Christian Buddhist. Technically, one cannot (although I do believe that one should try different ideas and religions). To quote from the bible:"Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me'." - John 14:6https://www.biblegateway.com...As it is demonstrated, the only way to the Christian ideal of liberation (residing with the father) is through Jesus. But, in Buddhism, the way to nirvana (the Buddhist ideal of liberation) is through the teachings of the Buddha, and not Jesus. Thus, Buddhism and Christianity are incompatible.3.) The Buddhist WorldviewThe Buddhist worldview is actually a very viable worldview. It can be summed up in the four seals of the Dharma:1.) All compounded things are impermanent.2.) All stained emotions are painful.3.) All phenomena are empty.4.) Nirvana is peace.http://buddhism.about.com...As these are just my premise, I won't go into detail just yet. In Con's turn, I ask con (although con doesn't need to comply) to state his (I will refer to Con as he/him/his from now on, until Con says otherwise. If I have offended anyone, I apologize) argument of why Christianity is "better" than Buddhism.
Buddhism (Pro) or Christianity (Con)

The debate is simple enough. Which religion, of the two, is more relevant in our present day 21st century, first world society. Which one offers more truth, and which one is "better" (I left the word open to interpretation, as it will be up to the voters, based on the arguments that both sides give, to decide which one is better in their own terms). Definition of Truth: the quality or state of being true http://www.merriam-webster.com... Definition of True: agreeing with the facts ; not false http://www.merriam-webster.com... Con agrees to argue for the side of Christianity (any or all sects they wish), and I, Pro, agree to argue from the side of Buddhism (any or all sects I wish). The Burden of Proof is shared, and the first round is for acceptance only. For the voters and/or readers, I ask that you please keep an open mind, and consider the arguments, and not let your personal beliefs weigh in too much. For all of those involved in this debate, Con, readers, and voters, I thank you.
What is the best firewall

Spy Shelter is a system monitor that protects your whole system. Key features: "Global Hook Installation "Rootkit Installations "Thread Context Changing "Direct Physical Memory Access "Remote Thread Creation "DLL Code Injection "Kernel Driver Loading "Program State and Memory Modification "System Critical parts Registry Modification Spy Shelter also protects you from drive by downloads. Most firewalls focus on creating rules and protecting (stealth) your ports, so that a hacker can't hack into your PC. If your PC gets compromised and your PC gets infected with malware, the firewall that you are using will not protect you. Spyshelter also protects you from social networking.
Christiano Ronaldo(world's best footballer): Love him or Hate him

Yes, my friend, I agree that he may be egotistical, but that does not mean we have to hate him or either think that he is not the best footballer of all time, let us take a look at the stats: He has played 745 matches and scored 549 goals, that's an average of 0,73 goals per match, how many guys do you know with this average in this amount of games? He has won 4 champions leagues in 2 different teams, a few premiers along with FA cups, Fifa club world cup, and several Spanish league kings titles. With national team he has earned the European title, and it does not matter that it was boring or else, Spain won the world cup by scoring 8 goals in 7 matches, and even losing one of those matches, in the end what lasts is the honor of the title no one will care how it was won. Also, you seem to agree with me, Portugal has Pepe and CR7 and they won euro cup while other teams have many more stars and get nothing giving me the advantage on my argument that he carries teams which are low level. Great debating with you.
Christiano Ronaldo(world's best footballer): Love him or Hate him

Your English seems fine brother! ps you didn't tell me whether you've seem him perform live,? Lets face it, Portugal were terrible in the Euros, that victory should be discredited, they played so many horrible draws, void the 3-3 w/ Hungary. If it was not for the new qualification system, they would not have made it out it of the group. Portugal only has Ronaldo n Pepe, they literally bored the opposition to sleep. Argentina has many more stars, but anyway we are not talking about Messi, so no need to bring him up. Since you agreed that he is v.egotistical, that speaks for itself, esp. on the field this year, he's goals return in dreadful n he still whinges.
Christiano Ronaldo(world's best footballer): Love him or Hate him

Excuse me my friend but English is not my first language and I do not understand some words like "R1". That being said, I agree with you that CR7 is a very egotistical person, however, he is always trying to be the best, to get better numbers, to get more titles, is that not who we would want in our side in any kind of enterprise in life? Would you rather work with someone that wants your company to achieve great things or someone who just cares to do enough in order to get a paycheck at the end of the month? I certainly prefer the first. My point being about CR7 doing charitable things is precisely the opposite to what you said, he does not do it as PR, he does not call in cameras to come and show him doing this or that. Other people do that, not CR7. I am from Barcelona, here we have the second best player in the world, Messi, I have seen live both of these guys plenty of times. And let me tell you, my friend, Messi is nothing without Barcelona Behind him, he does nothing with his national team because he lacks the support of other great players. CR7 brings his team to another level, it is him who carries the team, not the other way around. They did not make a statue of him, they have made several, in Madrid, he has a couple, in Madeira he has one, that I remember. However, it is not him who ordered those statues, the ones in Madrid was his own team who spent 45.000 euros on the statue, in Madeira it was the government. the transfer system is a free market as any other in any capitalistic state, here we are entering another debate: It is not the players fault that their teams are willing to pay and do anything they ask for. I agree their salaries are ridiculous, I agree the transfers, for example, of Barcelona of about 300 million Euros for 3 players are ridiculous and shameful. However it is everyone on their own free will who paid this, none was forced to it. If they will pay anything for anyone it is certainly not the fault of the players, it is a matter of time that this bubble will burst and many teams will be forced to lower salaries, and avoid contracting anyone for a while.
Christiano Ronaldo(world's best footballer): Love him or Hate him

'R1 Is acceptance only', shame on you Bro! Ok so before I begin, here's a quick introduction about me. I'm a lifelong man united fan, although it's depressing watching them nowadays! And I've seen CR7 live twice (RM v Zaragoza Dec 09, and Euro 2016 vs Poland, and it's the latter that caused me to hate him. HBU? Here's my arguments, first allow me to discredit the fact that he's charitable. Any rich man can be charitable doesn't mean he's got a nice personality, most of the time it's a PR requirement. Take saurez for example, he's charitable but the lad likes to bite people! Ronaldo is an egotistical primadonna, i mean he has a museum and statue dedicated to himself, what a pr1ck! He's always moaning and complaining on the field nowadays, esp v Poland. I mean the other week vs La Coruna he got a bump to the head and demanded a mirror!! Wow! Next point is that because im invested in to marketing, i feel PR is so important nowadays, n since Ronaldo has ivf children, his children have no strong maternal figure. That goes against your typical PR standard for a celeb, i mean tom Cruise literally auditioned girls to wed him because of this PR strategy. The inflation in football transfer fees, just because wages and transfer fees are increasingly souring, elite bellends like cr7 n neymar demand more from their current contracts to reiterate their ego, thus further ruining the transfer system. Meaning sh1t players are brought for over their value. Final point he left man united on a low, losing a final, so that made it seem like he was a sellout for going to Madrid. Additional point for drama, some people believe the Wayne Rooney-Ronaldo wink incident was a setup to elevate their celebrity profiles.
Christiano Ronaldo(world's best footballer): Love him or Hate him

Well to start of: I believe CR7 is not only the best in the world but the best ever. CR7 has always excelled in all the teams he has played in: Manchester United, Real Madrid, Sporting and Portugal's national team. That can't be said from many other players. One thing that makes people love him is that he is a very charitable person, he does visit children in hospitals every 2-3 months in his home country, and he does pay their medical care. Something that makes that even greater is that he doesn't call in cameras to show him giving to the needed, he just goes and does it. Messi Does this once every 5 years and he makes sure there is every last camera in Barcelona in the same room to see him visiting some kids.
The Smurfs movies are terrible.

I'm not gonna lie. The Smurfs (Movie # 1) did positively TERRIBLE! But as I have checked Rotten Tomatoes too. The Smurfs 2 did alot better, so far. Although 14 % of critics liked it, 75 % of regular viewers liked it. I know I am going to lose, because you are absoloutly right about them being terrible. On Movie web, 93 % of viewers liked it. They did say it should have had a better ending though. Sources: http://www.movieweb.com... http://rottentomatoes.com...
The Smurfs movies are terrible.

1. They say "smurf" way too much. What the smurf? They say smurf way too smurfing much. Oh my smurf. They replace just about every other word with smurf. Smurfity smurfity smurf.2. Why do they have to be in a city? The smurfs cartoon is based in a mideval kind of place with castles and such. Not a smurfing city.3. Practically the only people who like them are strange adults and really little kids. Strange adults might like it because, well, they're strange. Little kids might like it because its just really dorky and they don't understand how to tell if a movie is good or bad just yet because they're so young.4. The director must be an annoyingly presistent and stubborn man. He has released to Smurfs movies, both have gotten absolutely terrible reviews (Rotten Tomatoes). Yet he is ALREADY planning to make a third one. *Yawn* another unneeded movie guaranteed for bad reviews. And look at his page on Rotten Tomatoes. His name is "Raja Gosnell". He's a horrible director, apparently. The best review he's gotten for one of his movies is 56%. Yikes.VOTE SMURFING PRO!
College, Why bother..

Haven't these institutions of higher learning now turned into indoctrination centers of "Politically correctness" indoctrination Centers ran by leftist radicals.. Ward Churchill,Bill Ayers,note..."William Ayers sees his work on college campuses as carrying on his radicalism in a new sphere." The "well rounded individual"for that is the end purpose of an education, who goes to these educational institutions it would seem is now more qualified to Party-hardy, than they are in any way, qualified to be leaders of the country. Education's whole objective now seems to be to denigrate America and especially the White race, and European History and to promote other ethnic races. If the "Dumbing down," of America is the objective of America's institutions of higher learning then, and only then, should Colleges and Universities be allowed to claim that they have achieved their promised goals. "Do the colleges and Universities still retain the same value to individuals that they once provided, Thats the question, I believe the answer is "College, Why bother.."
College, Why bother..

"The young students who will be America's future leaders are being educated/indoctrinated stealthy, by professors, and teachers who are, for the most part, leftists who vote for the leftist controlled democrat party. The material used for instructing these young impressionable students in these educational institutions that is developed and used by members of the teaching profession are, on the whole, leftist democrats too." I don't want to be that guy, but can you show me something for this? To at least show me why you think this way? Where I'm from, people in political influence don't need degrees to get into their position, they just need to be cunning and persistent. "I can't imagine a more easily indoctrinated group of individuals than a captured group of young impressionable students under a person who has the capability to determine the outcome of their endeavors, whether they succeed or fail while in an educational institution for lengthy periods of their lives." So who then? who will educate the kids? by the way, I am a biology major and NONE of my teachers are either aloud to talk about their religious or political affiliation or bother to do so, they are their to teach biology. same goes for tech classes, other math classes, I'm not sure what genre of 'college' kid you're referring to here. "The leftist instructors in America's educational institutions have as their philosophy the same philosophies and objectives as Hitler did, he said,"When an opponent declares, 'I will not come over to your side,' I say calmly, 'Your child....the youth..... belongs to us already. What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing but this new community...."" The more I read this the more I feel you think this is some kind of huge conspiracy. " Educational institutions were at one time in America's past, centers of learning from which the country and its citizens were the beneficiaries but since the 1960s radicals have taken over these educational institutions The National Association of Scholars has done a study of what has happened to University Education..over a period of eighty years." Cool, where's the paper? Basically, what I see here is you are saying 'teachers are making students do it their way', you don't agree with their way and are presuming they are either put up to it or are ignorant. You have just said college at least in the past was a good thing and are just presuming it's not now due to fascists on the net. I am in college and have never experienced this, I also find college students to be the most proud and arrogant people when it comes to world views, they would challenge the teacher DAILY about why they're right.
College, Why bother..

"College, Why bother..." First off, I would like to get some truths down pat. In university or college, where the end result is a degree whether a diploma, bachelor, masters or PHD. The reasons for going is because of an education, what you're being taught on the other hand depends on how well or badly the subject in question is in the area of taboo or not. It depends on how much relevance the teachings has on the impact on the country. I know in china, north korea and heavily extreme Islamic followers will all brainwash their students to do what they want them to. But when being taught a subject like theology and biology (my two fields). there is structure and order. There is no political views when doing these two subjects in particular. Even when doing tech work, my father is a computer technician and he is quite good. If he was taught single minded clutter, he wouldn't be very good. I think a big issue is we are assuming people aren't questioning and just absorbing, that is the opposite of what we are taught in science. We are taught to stand up and question, to attack the opposition with logic and reason, to show faults in their defence. I have gained a lot more insight since I have started my courses and for the better, I am a lot stronger in who I am, I am a lot more grounded and understanding seeing the evidence or at least reason from two different sides. I have become humble and decided to express who I am in different ways, I have become more aware of the afflictions that hinder my life or life style. College or university is a different experience for different people, I have no doubt that some people can get warped world views from taking something too intensely. But we wouldn't have scientific literacy if it wasn't for college, say goodbye to your TV. Einsteins general relativity helped with that, you wouldn't have many things that you do today. College is a good thing.