BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Women are insane

Women are insane. It's a fact. They won't do a direct scientific study on it, because it's not politically correct. Every man knows women are insane. They experience t everyday. Irrational crying, outbursts, unable to decide what they want, PMS moodiness...Remember your 2nd or 3rd grade teacher? If she was female, she would lose it and start screaming for no reason. I once asked a woman what she did for a living and she went off on a 30 minute tantrum about how much she hated her boss. I once passed a woman and said excuse me and she said that wasn't "polite". It's like they are bi-polar. They can be normal one minute and then BAM!, psycho the next!. They say they want to marry nice guys, but date bad boys. They ask stupid questions and want lies for answers."Does this make me look fat?"They assume you can read their minds and get pissed if you can't.They can't just own one cat.And yes, believing in an invisible sky daddy isn't rational. Their whole lives are based on faith, not logic. Just admit it. if you're a guy you not only know women are psycho, you lived it!
Women are insane

It's a fact that women are more emotional and less logical then men.http://www.livescience.com...67% of Atheists are men.http://www.pewresearch.org..."Women are more sensitive to the Holy Spirit than men".http://www.crosswalk.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://dio.sagepub.com...http://www.ccri.ca...Women are also more likely than men to pray to an invisble sky daddy they can't prove exists. (75 percent versus 62 percent)http://www.gseis.ucla.edu...Women are also more likely than men to experience spiritual andespecially psychological distress, with about one-third (32%, compared to only 20%).http://www.spirituality.ucla.edu...While men typically emphasize such issues as career attainment,achieving financial independence, and decision-making competence,most women place a premium on matters of faith. Women are much more inclined than are men to say that they are"absolutely committed" to religious faith.http://www.barna.org...This all puts women in a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction.
Abortion Rights

Thank you for allowing me to debate this issue with you. Since you gave no real background on what your stance is, I am going to guess that you believe abortion is morally correct and can be performed. Abortion is basically the legalized killing of an unborn child. There can be many reasons, such as rape, incest, or the parents just don't want to care for the child. There is, however, a safer solution to these problems, which is a little thing people call "adoption". There are over 2 million infertile couples waiting for a child that they can raise, regardless of health issues, such as Down syndrome, Spina bifida, etc. However, only 1% of pregnant women searching for help will even inquire about adoptions. Abortions are depriving couples from having a child of their own, which is a very selfish tjhing to do in many people's eyes, including my own. Brown, Kristi Burton. Adoption: Why So Many Choose the First and What We Can Do. Live Action News. www.livenews.com.15 May. 2012. 21 Jan. 2013. http://www.lifenews.com...... I also believe that life begins at conception, therefore that child is a person who has the right to live. In 1982, Ronald Reagan stated that all people, particularly unborn children, as stated by the Declaration of Independence, are untitled to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." A fetus is not senseless a mass of tissue, it is a precious living human child that has not yet experienced life, and by aborting it, you are depriving it of that right. Abortion, based on these few examples is morally wrong and should not be tolerated in the world today.
cheer

Cheerleading is not in the Olympics.[1] The difficulty of an activity has no impact on whether or not it is a sport. For instance, it is much harder to build a scyscraper than play football, but building skyscrapers isn't a sport. Further, cheerleading does not qualify as a sport as there is no competition.[2] Sideline cheerleaders take part in no competition - they are just as much a part of a 'sport' as some guy in the stands eating a hot dog. In numerous court cases, judges have ruled that even 'competitive cheerleading' is not a sport, as it lacks any sort of cohesive rules, organization, or even real championships. It is not considered a sport by the NCAA, nor is any championship offered.[3][4] Unlike real sports, 'competitive cheerleading' factors in unathletic factors such as 'appearance' towards scores[5] 'Competitive cheerleading' may one day reach the status of being a sport, if it develops standarized rules (like real sports) and cohesive organizations (like real sports), but as of today it simply is not a sport.[6]References:1. http://www.slate.com...2. http://www.chrismatyszczyk.com...3. http://msn.foxsports.com...4. espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8245864/appeals-court-affirms-cheerleading-not-sport-title-ix5. http://www.google.com...6. http://nesn.com...
cheer

If cheer/tumbling is not a sport then why is it in the Olympics? If you ever played football you can relate: We don't throw a 2 lb. ball through the air. We throw a 100 lb. girl in the air. We catch our flyer it is not like we can miss the object/person and let them fall 10 feet and hit the ground. We also don't run down the field at 5mph we tumble down it at 10mph. now... does it sound easy to you? No, it does not. Why don't you get out there and try some of it on your own. Oh.. Wait, you can't. if you have a problem with cheerleaders then why don't you go talk to a coach. Oh.. Wait again, you are scared so you can't. Cheer has been proven the most dangerous sport and you would never get out on a field in front of 500 people and do cheers and dances would you? No, you wouldn't.
Jokes vs. Jokes

I thought I'd try one of these in an effort to give it a little more structure. Voting Rules I respectfully ask all voters to follow these rules when voting:- Best joke gets Most Convincing Argument. (3 Points)- Second best joke gets Most Reliable Resources vote. (2 Points)- Conduct is always a tie unless one side breaks the rules set forth below. (1 Point)- Grammer and spelling is voted as usual. (1 Point)This means that if both sides have really funny jokes, then the one with the best joke only gets 1 point more than their opponent. If, however, one side has both first and second funniest joke, they'll get five points. Contestent Rules - Only one joke per round, per contestant. - The jokes can be as clean or dirty as the contestent likes. Just be careful not to get reported. - Have fun.
Jokes vs. Jokes

A blonde and a brunette decide to start a farm together. They add up their life savings into a total of $200.00.Then, the blonde decided to purchase a bull with it. The brunette agrees, and so the brunette leaves to go find the perfect bull. When she does she is to telegram the blonde and tell her to come get it.Finally, the brunette find the bull of her dreams. The farmer says he wants $200 for it. The brunette, thinking she can get a better deal, says no to his offer.The farmer says, "Alright then, I'll give you a great deal, how about $199.00?"The brunette accepts and buys the bull. She has $1.00 left for the telegram. The telegram guy says, "It's $1.00 per word." The brunette thinks about this and says,"Comfortable, write that.""Comfortable?" the guy questions."Yes, you see she reads slow."
Jokes vs. Jokes

Sam, Bill, and Harry are good friends and carpooling buddies, and it wasn't unusual for the three of them to carpool straight to the bar after work. On one particular Friday night, they drank hard into the early morning hours and went home. The following Monday morning, Sam picked up his carpool buddies. All three looked worse for wear, and it wasn't long before they began to compete for the prize of the drunkest. Sam said, "I stumbled from the cab to my front door, but I couldn't work the keys. Once I finally broke into the house, I spent the next three hours blowing chunks." "You got off easy," said Bill. "I tried to drive home. I barely made it out of the the parking lot before slamming my car into Joe's garage down the block. I don't even have insurance!" Harry proclaimed, "Guys, I'm ruined! I got home, got into a huge fight with my wife, knocked a candle over and burned down the whole friggin' house!" Bill's jaw dropped as he replied, "Wow, Harry. No doubt about it. You win." He turned to Sam, who seemed less than impressed. "What do you think, Sam?" Sam looked ahead, expressionless as drove and said, "Guys, I don't think you understand. Chunks is my dog."
Jokes vs. Jokes

A dumb blonde is walking along, lost, and encounters a deep and wide river. She looks up and down the river for a way across but is unsuccessful in finding one. Yet, when looking to the other side again, she happened to see another blonde on the opposite river bank. She tried calling to her."How can I get to the other side of the river?" she shouts loudly.The other blonde replied "What for? You are already on the other side of the river!"
Jokes vs. Jokes

A man and woman were on their honeymoon after a long and very happy courtship. On their honeymoon, they decide to go for a horse ride through the beautiful mountain passes of Europe. As the horses were crossing a small stream, the wifes's horse mis-steps and jostles the her. Once across the stream, the man dismounts, walks over to the horse, and stares into its eyes. Finally, he states, "That's one." The man remounts his horse and they continue their ride.A bit further down the path, the wife's horse stumbles when stepping over a fallen tree. The man dismounts, stares the horse in the eyes, and boldly states, "That's two!" He returns to his saddle and they move on.As the afternoon sun began to set, the wife's horse once again lost its footing on a mossy slope. The man dismounts, moves to the wife's horse, and helps his wife out of the saddle. Moving to the front of the horse he stares it in the eyes and firmly says, "That's three," removes a pistol from his jacket, and shoots the horse dead.The wife, quite upset at seeing the beautiful horse killed, says to her husband, "That's terrible, why would you do such a thing!"The man stares at his wife and firmly says, "That's one!"
The Lord of the Rings movie series in superior to the Star Wars movie series.

This debate will consider the strengths and weaknesses of the Lord of the Rings movies (the three original films as well as the Hobbit prequel films), and compare them to those of the Star Wars movies (the three original films plus the prequel films). This debate will not take the seventh Star Wars film into consideration, as it has not been released at the time of the start of the debate. I argue that LOTR is better than SW for the following reasons: 1. LOTR films were far more elaborate. The massive sets: battlefields, cities, landscapes, etc. were far more impressive; costumes are more detailed; overall, the movies are much more grounded and the characters are relatable. The detail pulled into the original LOTR films surpasses the original SW films by a mile. 2. LOTR story is better. Obviously there is an advantage to being based on a book series, but the overall writing (dialogue, broad concepts, etc.) is better as well. 3. The acting is at a much higher level. Emotional reactions and realism in LOTR are at least a few steps (if not miles) above SW. 4. The stakes are greater in LOTR. If Sauron wins, the world is destroyed and everyone dies. In SW, if the Empire wins, a few planets are occupied by a tyrannical dictator, but people still survive, and can escape to other planets and galaxies. 5. The Hobbit prequels are not great, but they're less bad than the Star Wars prequels.
The Earth orbits the Sun

Early scientists once held the geocentric position that the Sun orbited the earth. Later, Copernicus introduced the heliocentric model, Earth rotating the sun. This model was excepted and the other discarded and thought prehistoric and pretty much as stupid as the Earth being flat. My question: What PROOF do you have to confirm the heliocentric model? Because I have proof that completely debunks it. And please mention the pendulum.
If weed was leaglised teenagers would not be taking Mephedrone

My opponent has failed to define terms and present me with arguments to refute, so I will bring up the first points in this match. This is a topic based largely on common sense. Assertion 1: All drugs are bad. Reasoning: Isn't this obvious? Clearly, my opponent has not reaserched well enough to debate this on solid ground. Marijuana is dangerous. So is the other drugs. An overdose of Marijuana can kill you, as shown by an incdent when a mother baked marijuana into cookies that a five year old girl ate. She ended up eating over a pound. Addiction to marijuana over a long time an lead to lung or throat cancer. Evidence: SF gate, Growing up a Teen in America Assertion 2: The drug was sold legally online. Reasoning: The kids had access to it. It was online, and it wasn't even illegel. You have not brought up the fact that we should just ban meow altogether. Then this incident wouldn't have happened. Evidence: Daily Mail Assertion 3: Changing the law will not have much effect. Reasoning: Many teenagers still take drugs. They still do it, even though the law forbids them to. How do we know that meow usage will not be continued? Allowing marijuana is simply unhealthy for them. It makes them addicted, crazed, and makes them emotionally unstable. Evidence: The Daily Life magazine To top it off, all drugs are bad. Allowing any type of drug won't help the situation. Although drugs are outlawed, many still use them, and I wait for my opponent's rebuttal.
it is hard to get interested in school

Social skills- You can still learn social skills by talking with neighbors, hanging out at a mall or park etc. Summer isn't a hiding time, now is it? Bullying- Well it could have went the other way around for you, you may have became a bully or allowed yourself to be run over. And this is used as an excuse by our teachers for not taking adequate action against bullying. 'deal with it yourself' sometimes doesn't work out. Talking- So, if teachers stop us from talking in class, then the time talking with friends is reduced. I would have met my people somewhere else rather than school. Homework organization- You may be lucky then. Our subject teachers give time for homework according to the time needed only for 'its completion', and so if we get more assignments that day from other classes its humanly impossible not to skip one of them. I can't give myself 45 minutes, I have to make do with 10, for I return at home 4-30 pm and sleep at 9, so I have approximately 4 hours, out of which I need to do other things like eat, change, debate on this site(lol), play football etc. which reduces my study time. 'also, the curriculum for school are made to be easy to understand, easy to comprehend and made so its at your grades average level, none of the work is forced into you, every subject can be fun if you apply yourself.' No, every child has a different level of intelligence, and also a different level of interest. I think that interest is like pouring 1 liter of water into 10 glasses. Sure, some may have 1.5 capacity and more want to learn, but I think that for each subject you are a bit more interested in, give a bit more effort you reduce the effort you will put in another subject. All of the work is forced upon us, we really can't choose subjects yet, and its impossible to be wizard at all subjects unless in primary. How can you be sure the curriculum is made keeping in mind the average ability when no student's opinion is taken upon it?? ' if you don't like a certain subject you can just not take it on your chosen subjects in year nine and after. as for the "homework plague", again spreading your workload helps a lot in giving you time to enjoy. I told you, most subject teachers don't co-ordinate with each other when giving homework, and thus we get overburdened. As for choosing subjects in year nine, I saw that our form was rigged( it required us to choose at least 13 subjects) and we are already studying only 17 subjects. I certainly dislike more than 4 subjects, what shall I do?
it is hard to get interested in school

touche firstly you cant learn social skills from online, there's no body language or eye language involved which obviously doesn't provide good social skills. as for the bullying issue lets say you kind of "evolve" and learn ways to stop or even prevent bullying, I know this by firsthand because I used to get bullied a lot when I was in primary (elementary) but eventually learned how to stand up to bullies. Sure, some teachers might not allow talking in class, but have you ever thought why. Teachers usually stop talking because the desired amount of work isn't being completed and try to HELP the students catch up by removing a distraction which was simple, so if you want to talk do your work to. And you not being able to "chill" at home because of homework doesn't really make sense, teachers give you homework with a reasonable time limit for completion. you not being able to "chill" means your not spreading your workload and organizing things, such as giving yourself 45 minutes of free time for every one and a half hours of studying and homework. It could also be that you don't complete schoolwork at school , which then get transferred to your homework (that's how it works at our school). also, the cirriculum for school are made to be easy to understand, easy to comprehend and made so its at your grades average level, none of the work is forced into you, every subject can be fun if you apply yourself. if if you don't like a certain subject you can just not take it on your chosen subjects in year nine and after. as for the "homework plague", again spreading your workload helps alt in giving you time to enjoy.
it is hard to get interested in school

First of all, I didn't actually mean to abstain from school. No, this is about whether many children can get interested IN school or not. All your friends go there- Well, most teachers don't allow us to talk during classes. Of course we always break that rule, but all the same studying gets important, so we get bored. You can find friends in neighbors, online or many other places for that matter, so your social skills will be fine. Some teachers have a good sense of humor- Well, most don't for me. Even if you crack a good joke, they start shouting at you for 'disturbing the class'. Back-stabbed or bullied- Yes, but suppose your trusted best friend betrayed you, then will you be able to focus that day? No, you can't be ever immune to backstabbing or bullying. Suppose if some group gangs up against you and hurls insults all day for a week, what will you do? Even after reporting they continue, then what? Moreover, whatever subjects we study in school can seem boring to a person who has a medium interest of learning. The over-intake of information all day has gave me headaches, and even at home I can't chill due to homework. Abundance of knowledge- That IS the problem. What if someone tries to shove all the things they know into you, and you don't want to know it all? The result is forced learning, and will cause disinterest to grow, for the river of knowledge given by school never stops except for a while at holidays, and even then homework plagues are known.
it is hard to get interested in school

Wrong, school is actually a very pleasant experience, all your friends go there, some teachers have a good sense of humor, a change in environment, and mainly an abundance of knowledge. think about it what do you know now that you wouldn't have known if you hadn't gone to school for your whole life, sure you could get a tutor or get home schooled, but wheres the social skills aspect, wheres the emotional struggles that teach you how life works? I'm in high school and I should know, getting back stabbed or bullied just makes you stronger and give you more experience on life.
The Bible morally contradicts itself

There are many practical flaws in our present day Christian bible. I believe that denying that there is no higher power is a hard idea to explain, and this is not my personal beliefs. However I find the belief of the actual historical accuracy of the bible as well as its many moral contradictions an even more far-fetched idea to find truth in. This debate will focus on the contradiction of free will. I'm not going to sit here and just post scripture the entire debate. if the need arises then I will. however I'm sure whoever is interested in accepting this debate will be well versed in the biblical stories that I refer to. I would like to refer to the story of Moses freeing his people from Egypt. before every plague is set into motion Moses first asked the pharaoh to let his people go, and every time it clearly states that the lord hardened pharaohs heart. now unless you can pull some sort of translation mix up to light with the phrase "hardened pharaohs heart" the only logical interpretation of it would be that the lord made the pharaoh insensitive to the proposal of freeing the slaves, and by doing so the lord took away the pharaohs free will. the lord continued to influence the pharaohs decision making until finally all the Egyptians first born sons lives were forfeited. the all knowing god influenced the pharaohs decision making knowing that it would end in the loss of innocent life that had nothing to do with the fate of Moses' people. the main point is that god directly interfered with a human interaction, and by doing so contradicts the notion of free will.
The Bible morally contradicts itself

free will in the bible Leviticus 22:18-Speak unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them, Whatsoever he be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, that will offer his oblation for all his vows, and for all his freewill offerings, which they will offer unto the LORD for a burnt offering; Joshua 24:14-15-"Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD. And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. these scriptures show that all men are to have free will, in serving the lord, as well as choosing to follow something not of the lord. since the hardening of pharaohs heart was what drove pharaoh to deny the slaves freedom it makes it very important that it is his choice to harden his heart. if it at any point it was not his choice to harden his heart then pharaohs free will to make the choice to keep the slaves, or not to keep the slaves was manipulated. I have provided the con with the scriptures that show not only gods intent to harden the pharaohs heart, but also the exact scriptures that say that the lord did it on several occasions. the con fails to bring to light any scripture that says the Egyptians had not right to free will, and simply depends on denial and deflection to argue his point. in closing, pharaoh was presented with the choice to set the slaves free, or to deny them freedom. through the first six plagues pharaoh hardened his own heart, however after the sixth and through the conclusion of the plagues the lord plays a direct role in hardening the pharaohs heart as he said he would do before Moses entered into Egypt. in doing this the lord manipulates the pharaohs free will so that the slaves would stay in Egypt longer and the lord could multiply his wonders in Egypt (I have provided the scripture that says exactly this as well). denial is not a valid argument. deflection is not a valid argument, and failing to find scripture that can provide an applicable argument to the story of Moses and the pharaoh is not a valid argument. all quoted scriptures are from the King James Bible