BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The marijuana, evolution, gay marriage debate take 2

1. I'm glad you were entertained. Sadly though, all of it is true since they made it legal in Colorado. Alcohol has been around for as long as anyone can remember. It would be impossible to get rid of it all. At least with marijuana we still have a chance to make sure it stays contained so we can get rid of it. Water is limited where I live. The person that stared growing the marijuana bought the property and everything else under false pretenses. They said they just wanted an isolated place to raise a family. Then all of a sudden guns are being pointed at people's face if they even take a step in that direction as I said in the last round. It has caused families that actually have kids to be wary and scared that one day their kids might be shot just for playing around that area. Keeping it illegal will prevent that from happening everywhere else. Marijuana can kill you just as other drugs can. At least food, drinks, and sports don"t end up with having guns in your face. You cannot smoke marijuana forever and still be able to take care of yourself, like I said in round one, it can cause mental health problems. Then what? 2. I agree that all children deserve a good and loving home, but what kind of example does that set for them? That they can marry any sex they want, despite how immoral it is? I do not think homosexuals are icky, they just have a messed up view of marriage. Sure if you love another woman and you are one, why can't it just be sisterly love, instead of marrying each other? The same with men, why can't it just be brotherly love? They just need to open their eyes and realize that their having sex with their own gender, which was never how it was supposed to be. They have this illusion that they love each other but it isn't a spouse kind of love. 3. If you want science to disprove evolution, then by all means, I will provide it! Evolutionists always say that evolution goes too slowly for us to see today, that it takes millions of years. Apparently the evidence is in the fossil records of the past, but no fossils include a single undeniable transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving. The theory of evolution is still a theory for a reason. Just as a dog can't become a cat, apes couldn't have become a human because of DNA. DNA can't be changed. Continuously breeding different dogs together will create another breed, but it won"t create another animal. No species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way. Please read full article for it would take me a while to actually summarize everything: http://humansarefree.com...
junk food should be banned from schools

It should be said that not only junk food can cause illness. For example,as in our canteens in Kazakhstan there are unscrupulous people who use expired ingredients for cooking or not cook until the end her that often lead to contamination of children, and the risk of food poisoning from a lot more than to eat fast food, it does not unnecessarily requires much intelligence to be prepared. from my own experience, I was etched from eating in canteen in school 3-4 times per week . After that, my parents gave me money to buy bread rolls or chocolate bars, because I was afraid of hot food from there. So, I can conclude that junk food can be even useful than other food in schools.
junk food should be banned from schools

But you have at least one big break, and you can spend it on eating a meal, even if you're late for classes then. The other reason is that it's proved that wrong nutrition also brings people to different psychological problems, such as different types of depression, bad mood, evident woman premenstrual syndrome. The person that that people who eat junk food feel the leakage of their power and tiredness. This happens because junk food is often low-cal or low carbohydrate, so your organism doesn't feel active, but feel tired. The main "audience" in schools are often children, growing organisms, so they need right nutrition. That are major reasons why junk food should be banned at schools.
junk food should be banned from schools

from my personal experience, because of high school stress on the brain, the body requires replenishment from the outside and also because of lack of time, you buy food or fast food and snacks. You eat them on the way, do not waste time by left standing in the queues and the process of eating at the table with plates, especially when you are in a hurry. and in addition, children don't bring vegetables to school voluntarily and they won't eat them if they don't want. as a general rule, this is the case.
junk food should be banned from schools

In the US scientists made an observe and found that every year amount of children that suffer from obesity is rising up because of wrong nutrition, mostly their junk food is from their schools. In the period between 1976-1980 and 1999-2002 the number of overweight children doubled. This situation can refer to our society in several years. That means that with our small breaks, no matter in what amounts you eat it, you also spoil you organism and lead it to illnesses. It's better to take some fruits and vegetables with you and eat it, and then after coming home, eat ordinary meal.
junk food should be banned from schools

Nowadays there is a lot of junk food and also machines with junk food at schools. Junk food is defined as "a popular term for any food which is low essential nutrients and high in everything else - in particular calories and sodium." Junk food is often highly salted, high in refined carbohydrates and high in saturated. To this list we can apply crisps, chips, candy, drinks, chocolate, cakes. All these things bring our children to wrong nutrition, so to illnesses also.
PC gaming(pro) vs Console Gaming(con)

**So I will present my arguments this round. My opponent will present his arguments in this round (after me)** Here we go: There are more Games for PC and Include More Variety So first off, I would like to point out that there is a huge selection of games for PC, much more than there is on console. Console games are generally geared toward hardcore players, whereas on the PC, while there are many games for hardcore players, there exist many games for casual players as well. Indie Developers If you are an indie developer – you’re game is going to be released on PC. It’s just that simple. Most times hit indie games are imported onto console, as can be seen with games such as Minecraft and Terraria. But for both these games, the PC version is a lot better because it’s the version that has the most amount of content. Modding On PC games – there is a LOT more modding. Truly the community for modding is amazing. In popular games like Skyrim and Minecraft – there are TONS of mods that can be used to enhance the game. This is not to say that it isn’t possible to mod on consoles… But it’s definitely a lot more popular and better done on a PC Pricing My opponent may want to claim that the price of a Gaming PC is a lot more than that of a console. Well I have 2 main arguments for that. First, while a Gaming PC would start at a high price it would last though a gaming generation or 2 with minimum upgrades while to upgrade though console you buy the next one. Eventually they phase out a system while PC's don't. Second, simply buying the PC is enough for a PC to run. In order for a console to run you would also need a T.V. The average T.V. price is $435[1]. Add that along with the price of a console… and a console won’t seem that cheap either. More Precision and Movement Using the mouse, a player will have much more precision and movement when playing. [1] http://business.time.com... **Since my opponent is a new debater – I want to go a little easy on him, So I will conclude my arguments here**
smoking should be made illegal and not just discouraged

First of all, thanks for the accepting the challenge. Alright let"s get to the point. 1)True. Smoking is their addiction it"d be next to impossible to get the heavy smokers off their addiction. But what about the people of tomorrow. If smoking is not banned and all of the supply of cigarette is not completely stopped, those people will actually want to try cigarette. I"m not worrying about those heavy smokers(well, a little bit) but I"m more concerned about the next generation. you said that if they don"t smoke, they"ll go crazy. True but do you want this to continue. That"s why it should be stopped now so that the next generation won"t go crazy as they haven"t even tried cigarette. prevention is better than cure. 2) when you said "Did you ask those people if they want to stop smoking? Some people say yes, some people still love to smoke. You don't have the right to stop them from smoking. It's like me coming to you and saying: you can't drink any alcoholic drink from now on, as it does bad to your organs. You would be mad, and rightfully so.". the answer is no I haven"t asked them. Yes it"s totally none of their business. But it totally becomes theirs(the government, local people etc") when they start on disturbing people with their smoke. Not only will they disturb them but it will have a negative effect on the environment. Not to mention the disease caused by those smoke are incurable. So, did they(non-smokers) get those diseases because of their own actions? Of course not! They got all those diseases because of the smokers and because of them, they need to pay for their hospital fees, which is a hell a lot, their life span will be reduced and all other negative effects. Because of one smoker, more smoker will be there(influenced) and because of them, thousands of people will be harmed. The cycle will continue for as long smokers are there. The only way to stop this cycle is to ban cigarette and stop the supply permanently. 3) as you know, our resources are depleting rapidly and lately, the government have been trying so hard to conserve. That"s why there are those billboards and signs about recycle and all. how long do you think it will last? If cigarette manufacturer are still there, wasting their resources on making toxic, polluting the lake, rivers, increasing the rate of resource depletion even more and increasing their rate of production every day, harming the lives of even more people every day, increasing the rate of the destruction of ozone layer. This have a negative effect on every single thing on earth. I can list down all the negative effect but I got to go with my parents right now. 4) also, from your last paragraph, you said that If I met a smoker in the bar, I could just tell him to go outside. And I presume that the summary for the first paragraph is that smokers have bad temper. Do you think such people with such negative attitudes and behavior would want to listen to a nobody like me? The only thing I"ll get is a fight/a quarrel at the very least. Also, they can"t get outside because they came to the bar in the first place for a reason you know.
smoking should be made illegal and not just discouraged

Firstly, thank you for challenging me. This should really be fun. Here we go. So you say that smoking is bad, and shall be banned completely. To smokers, cigarettes are their addiction. If they don't smoke, they start to go crazy. Studies have shown that when people don't get the dosage of the substance they are addicted to, there is increase of violence, tone of voice, and can lead to serious health and psychological problems. They don't seem related, do they? Still, a person addicted to cigarettes in extreme cases can go crazy. To test that, if you drink coffee everyday, try not drinking coffee for 7 days. It will start causing headaches, stress and excessive anger. Of course, drugs have worse effects than those of coffee. Did you ask those people if they want to stop smoking? Some people say yes, some people still love to smoke. You don't have the right to stop them from smoking. It's like me coming to you and saying: you can't drink any alcoholic drink from now on, as it does bad to your organs. You would be mad, and rightfully so. The answer is not to take it away from them, but warn them of what they will go through, and what the negatives and health repercussions it will have. If they still do it, that means they want to do it and don't care at all. It's their right to smoke. Actually let me talk about rights and freedom for a second. We are free. That means you, and i, and everyone else reading this debate is (probably) free. Me, you, can do anything we want, because we have the right to do what we want. And when do our rights stop? They stop when our freedom infringes another man's freedom and rights. So, by that, anyone can smoke, they have the right to smoke, as long as they don't infringe the rights of others. If you go to a bar, and a smoker is smoking next to you, you have the right to breathe clean air, so you have the right to tell him to go outside, or put it out. You have absolutely no right to stop any man or woman from smoking, I am waiting for a strong round 2 !!!!
There should be laws in place to limit/eliminate inheritance

I simply believe that it is unfair to take away someone's money just because they have passed on. If a person worked in their life to build up enough wealth, the state doesn't deserve any of it. Even if some of it is enough to set them for life, the heirs should get all of it unless a person states otherwise in their will. If it sets them for life, what if they want to help out their children in the future? They might not have enough to help their child. Also, if a person does inherit a lot, they will be likely to donate some of it to charity to help others. Or they could use the extra to help a friend if they got really sick. Whatever way, I don't believe the government deserves any of the money.
There should be laws in place to limit/eliminate inheritance

Here's the thing. The United States already limits inheritance for the wealthy. The system is known as the Federal Estate Tax. It applies to less than 99.86% of the population (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, August 19th, 2013). Heirs to estates don't have to pay any tax on the first $5.3 million left to them. The rest is taxed fairly heavily. Keeping this in mind, we know that this system has been in place for years now and has functioned quite nicely in that time period. Rationally speaking, if you're dead, and your wealth is large, it doesn't really matter if some of that wealth (or even most of that wealth) goes to the government. Your heirs will already receive an amount of money that is unnecessarily large and will likely set them up for life. There is no reason to to remove the laws already in place to limit inheritance.
There should be laws in place to limit/eliminate inheritance

This is an interesting thing someone brought to my attention the other day, should the state limit inheritance? I talked to two friends about it, one of them believes that the state should take all of a person's money after they die. The other believes that there should be a limit of $1 million on inheritance. This of course, is more likely to be an issue for wealty people, so I'll focus on them. Now, his reasoning is that people who inherit all their money are useless in society and don't contribute to society at all. So, he believes there should be a limit so that people have to work. In my opinion, I think those people had a family member or good friend who cared about them enough to leave them that money, so the state has no right to limit it. Also, I believe that those who inherited all/most of their money still contribute to society quite a bit, they pay bills, pay taxes, spend a lot of money, helping the economy. Also, the wealthy invest their inheritance quite a lot, helping the stock markets, they also provide jobs to personal chefs, and other people of that nature. So, I believe that the state shouldn't limit how much money someone leaves to someone, and that people who don't work and have inherited all their money still contribute to society. Also, if a person worked in their life and became successful and wealthy, I believe that the state should have no control over what they wish to do with their money.
FNAF2 is a Sequel to FNAF1

"At the ending of Five Nights at Freddy's two, a newspaper says it closed down and hoped for a smaller budget to start up the company again. The Freddy Fazbear corporation quite possibly lost all its funding and had to close down for good. It probably closed its doors for good and sold it to another business. In Five Nights at Freddy's three, a new company owns the Fazbear restaurant."This is true, however, they did not use the restaurant. They made it into Fazbear's Fright. Also, in FNAF 1, there is a new restaurant."The Fazbear's pizzeria at Five Nights at Freddy's two most likely did NOT later create the Fazbear's pizza at Five Nights at Freddy's one because the robots were simplistic. Although the newspaper at the end of Five Nights at Freddy's two said that the robots were scrapped and the corporation hoped to run on a smaller budget, it would have been cheaper to have kept the robots originally used than to make new ones."Yes, they ran ON A SMALLER BUDGET. There were about 7 to 9 animatronics in FNAF 2, and in FNAF 1 there were only 4 (not including Golden Freddy.)ARGUMENTS:At the game you get this paycheck in FNAF 2 for a regular work week. Compared to FNAF 1, where you get this paycheck for a regular work week, with more money. Why is there less money in FNAF 2 compared to FNAF 1, when they worked the same amount of days? Because in 1987, the minimum wage was $3.35. Times that by 30 (work hours) and you get, 100.50 dollars. If you take $120.50 divided by 30 (work hours) you get about $4 an hour. This means that the minimum wage was higher in FNAF 1 than in FNAF 2. The minimum wage was raised to about 4 dollars in 1991. Since FNAF 2 took place in 1987, it is a prequel. FNAF 1 took place around 1991.Also, how is phone guy still alive in FNAF 2? He clearly died in FNAF 1 on the 4th night. It makes no sense why he would just come back all of the sudden, he's dead. FNAF 2 is a prequel.
FNAF2 is a Sequel to FNAF1

At the ending of Five Nights at Freddy's two, a newspaper says it closed down and hoped for a smaller budget to start up the company again. The Freddy Fazbear corporation quite possibly lost all its funding and had to close down for good. It probably closed its doors for good and sold it to another business. In Five Nights at Freddy's three, a new company owns the Fazbear restaurant. The Fazbear's pizzeria at Five Nights at Freddy's two most likely did NOT later create the Fazbear's pizza at Five Nights at Freddy's one because the robots were simplistic. Although the newspaper at the end of Five Nights at Freddy's two said that the robots were scrapped and the corporation hoped to run on a smaller budget, it would have been cheaper to have kept the robots originally used than to make new ones.
FNAF2 is a Sequel to FNAF1

Five Nights at Freddy's two has newer animatronics that are used more often. While the new animatronics are cleaned and used regularly, the older ones were left to rot along with their spare parts. This being the case, the old bonnie from Five Nights at Freddy's one became very withered and old and is featured on Five Nights at Freddy's three as one of the oldest animatronics. Although bonnie has a face unlike Five Nights at Freddy's two, evidence suggests that the person who assembled the withered bonnie suit might have used a spare mask which was originally stored in the parts and services room in Five Nights at Freddy's one.
FNAF2 is a Sequel to FNAF1

In Five Nights at Freddy's two, there is more advanced technology. There are things such as facial recognition to see if there are any criminals in the Pizzeria. The cameras are hooked up with flashlights which you can control. "Also, how is phone guy still alive in FNAF 2? He clearly died in FNAF 1 on the 4th night. It makes no sense why he would just come back all of the sudden, he's dead. " -Opponent The phone guy claimed to be done with his job near the end of the work week. He probably retired on night 4. It didn't necessarily mean that he was going to leave on the last day of the work week nor did it mean he was there for both Five Nights at Freddy's one or two because he was a "veteran" at his job. In Five Nights at Freddy's three, the mask for the FNAF 2 Bonnie suit looks very new, no dust visible whatsoever. That being the case, it most likely was used recently. That suggests it might have been used before Freddy Fazbear's pizzeria closed its doors for good. In the last minigame of Five Nights at Freddy's three, you see the purple man going in the old bonnie suit. SPOILER ALERT: PURPLE MAN DIED INSIDE THE SUIT AND ITS CORPSE WAS STILL STUCK IN THE SUIT. Yet, he was in the Fazbear's Pizzeria at the time, when its doors were still opened. That must have meant some animatronics were active. From the looks of the environment in the minigame, it was during the time of FNAF 2. If FNAF 2 was the prequel, then the Purple Man's body would have been a mere skeleton in the golden bonnie suit but instead, you can see parts of his brain, arteries and flesh still entangled in the suit.
Income taxes should be abolished. Flat/Fair tax should be in.

First off a flat tax and a fair tax are two very different things. Secondly, the income tax is just a way for the government to piss away more paper money from the federal reserve. We need to get rid of it, and replace it with nothing. It was only supposed to be there for a short period of time to fund the war. Like I said flat tax would be better, fair tax would be worse. I don't support either because the government needs to get it's spending undercontrol, and the only way to do that is to give them less money.
Income taxes should be abolished. Flat/Fair tax should be in.

Fair/Flat tax is probably a great idea. It has less control for government, the government would still get money, people would not have to pay for their hard earned money and the United States Government should know better to spend money. Besides stopping income tax would make it so reccession would probably end, the dollar goes up, people can pay for mortgage, health insurance and etc. Our government was built so it would guide us and help us. They wern't meant to take money from your income and to stop the rights of bare arms and etc. Government shouldnt have to much power like they are now. Placing flat/fair tax would be a big step in this progess.
Income taxes should be abolished. Flat/Fair tax should be in.

I'm going to ignore the arguement for teens under 18 paying taxes, because this debate is about the replacing of the income tax with the flat/fair tax. I am completely against the fair tax, that would be worse in many ways then the income tax. As for the flat tax, it would be better, but i'm still not in favor of it. Why should we replace it with anything? The income tax was put in effect after an amendment was made to the constitution to allow it. This was proposed by Senator Nelson Aldrich, an uncle to John Rockefellor. The income tax was only placed in effect so that the U.S. could borrow more credit from the Federal Reserve. We need to desperately change our monetary policy. We shouldn't give the government any more money until they spend reasonably and put in effect a monetary policy that is constitutional. Money that is controlled by the U.S. congress, not fiat money that is controlled by foriegn greedy bankers. I probably shouldn't have taken this debate because I have too many right now, and not enough time for all of them. So I thought i'd keep it short.