BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should a person die for killing someone? Including children.

I agree with Goldspurs. We shouldn't be having to pay for a murderer to eat 3 square meals a day, cable television, a gym, and whatever else they get. Children shouldn't exactly get killed for what they've done but they should still get the prison punishment. If you're unfamiliar with the Bible the 6th Commandment states: --> SIX: 'You shall not murder.' Also considering the story of Cain and Able in Genesis 4: 4:8. And Cain said to Abel his brother: Let us go forth abroad. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and slew him. 4:9. And the Lord said to Cain: Where is thy brother Abel? And he answered: I know not: am I my brother's keeper? 4:10. And he said to him: What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth to me from the earth. 4:11. Now therefore cursed shalt thou be upon the earth, which hath opened her mouth and received the blood of thy brother at thy hand. 4:12. When thou shalt till it, it shall not yield to thee its fruit: a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be upon the earth. 4:13. And Cain said to the Lord: My iniquity is greater than that I may deserve pardon. 4:14. Behold thou dost cast me out this day from the face of the earth, and from thy face I shall be hid, and I shall be a vagabond and a fugitive on the earth: every one therefore that findeth me, shall kill me. 4:15. And the Lord said to him: No, it shall not so be: but whosoever shall kill Cain, shall be punished sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, that whosoever found him should not kill him. 4:16. And Cain went out from the face of the Lord, and dwelt as a fugitive on the earth at the east side of Eden. I'm doing a project about the Death Penalty actaully. More people are for it rather than against it even though innocent people sometimes get penalized. But not so much in this generation.
Our system of voting leads to rigged outcomes

Currently our presidential campaign is a joke, two people who are running that no sane person truly wants. Our opinions of running candidates come strongly from how well they entertain us, Trump as an example. People sit at home waiting to be entertained by running candidates rather than to be led by true morals. I have to say that something new must come, America will not remain a great nation if it remains plagued with unethical leaders. Question to be answered: Should our voting system be changed? Be it the way it's broadcasted or who gets to vote (controversy).
We need to eat fish for their EPA and DHA omega-3s and optimal health

Yes, I will agree grass fed beef does have mostly ALA, but it does contain both DHA and EPA. "Most of the omega-3 content of grass-fed beef comes in the form of alpha-linolenic acid, or ALA. However, grass-fed beef also typically contains small-to-moderate amounts of other omega-3s, including EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) and DHA (docosahexaenoic acid). The range we've seen in recent studies is 20-720 milligrams for EPA, and 10-120 milligrams for DHA." [1] I will also tack on that the body does convert ALA into both EPA and DHA, as mention before albeit inefficient. Grab a good Omega 3 supplement and you are all set. I will concede pro"s point about fortification of food. I personally enjoy real food. "Macroalgea, aka seaweed, is super low in fat but does have small amounts of EPA and DHA " a 100g serve provides about 100mg of EPA, but little DHA." [2] Guess it depends on your source, but Seaweed appears to have both. I used the point about amounts of EPA/DHA in food to show; foods other than fish contain the required fatty acids. Whether a particular food item has more or less than another is worthless information. It only matter that the Omega 3s are there, for the taking. This debate isn"t about getting the most EPA/DHA or doing so efficiently. Getting DHA/EPA from fish doesn"t equate to more optimal health. The bottom line is, the human body cannot create omega 3s so they must be obtained through diet. Anyway you can get Omega 3s, get them, but you don"t need fish to do so. Vote con! http://www.whfoods.com... http://www.theconsciousdietitian.com...
We need to eat fish for their EPA and DHA omega-3s and optimal health

Well I never would have thought grass-fed beef would have any omega-3s let alone DHA and EPA. Let's fact check. "Moreover, the omega-3s in grass-fed beef are predominantly alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), not the types found in fish (EPA and DHA). ALA may have some health benefits of its own, and our bodies convert small amounts of it into EPA and DHA"but it can"t replace the omega-3s from fish. In any case, other foods, such as flaxseeds, walnuts, and canola oil, contain much more ALA than grass-fed beef." berkeleywellness.com [1] I don't think grass-fed beef is a good source of DHA and EPA omega-3s. I know this a Con argument but I don't want to win because I withheld information. "Vegetarian sources of DHA come from seaweed." umm.edu [2] "DHA - docosahexaenoic acid; found mainly in fish and seaweed" veganhealth.org [3] Still the amount of omega-3s in seaweed is small. Only 188 mg out of 100 grams. [4] Seems EPA omega-3 is the hardest omega-3 to acquire. As for fortification. "Several organizations such as the WHO, FAO, Health Canada, and the Nestl" Research Center acknowledge that there are limitations to food fortification. Within the discussion of nutrient deficiencies the topic of nutrient toxicities can also be immediately questioned. Fortification of nutrients in foods may deliver toxic amounts of nutrients to an individual and also cause its associated side effects." [5] "One factor that limits the benefits of food fortification is that isolated nutrients added back into a processed food that has had many of its nutrients removed, does not always result in the added nutrients being as bioavailable as they would be in the original, whole food."[5] In summary, if you eat a lot of seaweed you can acquire DHA omega-3. Looks like fish still win on EPA omega-3s. http://www.berkeleywellness.com... http://umm.edu... http://www.veganhealth.org... http://nutritiondata.self.com... https://en.wikipedia.org...
We need to eat fish for their EPA and DHA omega-3s and optimal health

Omega 3 fatty acids are essential fatty acids. The human body is not able to create them, and therefore they must be provided via diet. We both agree that DHA and EPA are essential for human body function and general health. "Hundreds of studies suggest that omega-3s may provide some benefits to a wide range of diseases: cancer, asthma, depression, cardiovascular disease, ADHD, and autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis." [1] It is simple; you do not need to consume fish in order to maintain a healthy balance of Omega 3. It is absolutely important to establish a recommended daily intake of Omega 3. "According to the Institute of Medicine, the Adequate Intake (AI) is 1.1g daily for women and 1.6 g daily for men"" [2] If I can intake the recommended amount of Omega 3 without eating fish, then I don"t have to eat fish to maintain optimal health. It is assumed that following the adequate intake recommendations will provide you optimal health. Here is a list of diet items containing Omega 3. Some have numerical values some do not, because I could not find them. Omega content in a 6oz serving of Anchovy is 3.4g. [2] Omega 3 fish Oil varies from .8g to 1.4 g. Quick Google search Omega 3 algae varies from .2g to .5g. Quick Google search Grass fed beef contains varying amount of DHA, EPA, and ALA Quick Google search Egg can be fortified with DHA and EPA. Quick Google search Veggies are a sources of ALA, which can be converted to DHA and EPA, albeit very inefficiently. While yes fish may be the easiest source, it is not the only source. I could spend my entire life and not consume one bite of fish and still maintain healthy levels of DHA and EPA. All need to do is eat a healthy diet, whatever that means, and supplement with one of the non-fish items above. http://www.webmd.com... http://www.med.umich.edu...
We need to eat fish for their EPA and DHA omega-3s and optimal health

I pro will argue that we need to eat fish for EPA and DHA omega-3s for optimal health. Con will argue that we don't need to eat fish for EPA and DHA omega-3s for optimal health. "Two crucial ones -- EPA and DHA -- are primarily found in certain fish. ALA (alpha-linolenic acid), another omega-3 fatty acid, is found in plant sources such as nuts and seeds. Not only does your body need these fatty acids to function, but also they deliver some big health benefits." WedMd http://www.webmd.com...
Non-sexual public nudity should be legal

Thank you. Con says in the first paragraph that "Nonsexual nudity wouldn't work, nudity to most of us is sexual and that's not going to change very soon." However, I'm not arguing that all nudity is sexual, nor am I saying that all nudity is non-sexual. There is a clear distinction between sexual and non-sexual nudity. For example, a naked person getting a tan or taking a walk is non-sexual. There is nothing emphasizing their sexuality or indicating arousal. On the other hand, a man walking around naked while stroking an erection is sexual, as is someone provocatively and blatantly showing their genitals to passerby in an attempt to arouse them. My argument in the previous round was that exposing more non-sexual nudity, and less sexual nudity, to teens would be beneficial to their self-esteem and body images. While you are correct in that there are many reasons for teenagers' trademarked body issues, isn't it better to eliminate one of these many causes than to eliminate none of them? Doubtless, body image is a major factor in many teens' self-esteem, and making non-sexual nudity more widespread through legalization would aid immensely in our teenagers' lives. Con then says again that "[Nudity] wouldn't mean anything," in a rebuttal against my argument that public nudity falls under the protection of the First Amendment. However, nudity can be used to express a great many things. PeTA has gained much attention for its "I'd Rather Go Naked than Wear Fur" campaign, which seeks to bring attention to animal cruelty. Almost any form of clothing (or lack thereof) can be used to express a sentiment or idea. Nudity can be used to protest the fur industry, the oppression of women by radical Muslims, the outlaw of public nudity, or a plethora of other causes or ideologies. It doesn't matter if, as Con says, "Clothing is a much better way to express yourself than being nude," the fact remains that nudity is a form of expression, and is protected under the First Amendment. Con does not attempt to refute my arguments that nudity is good for children, nor does (s)he say anything about my assertion that banning public nudity is a violation of the right to one's body. SOURCES: 1) http://www.peta.org...
Non-sexual public nudity should be legal

The thing is, I have nothing wrong with nonsexual nudity. But I do not believe it should legal. You say in your argument that teens are usually introduced to nudity through pornography and media. This is one reason why nonsexual nudity wouldn't work, nudity to most of us is sexual and that's not going to change very soon. You also say in your argument that "In addition, media such as pornography and magazines retouch most of their models, giving an unrealistic and unhealthy goal for teens." thus leading to low self esteem and that if nonsexual nudity were to be legal, it would "lead to a more well-rounded, secure population of teens." The problem with this is that a teen's self esteem is much deeper than just "I'm ugly."There are many reasons such as bullying, academic challenge, parents or other authority figures disapproving in your lifestyle or behavior, and the list goes on. In contention 2, you argue that nudity is a form expression, and I stated that it wouldn't mean anything, which I will state again. But this time, I shall tell you my reasoning.(I should have in the first place, sorry about that). In terms of expression, wouldn't you agree that clothing is a form of it. You see it everyday with people belonging to certain groups or denominations. Clothing is a much better way to express yourself than being nude. With clothing, I can get a glimpse into your personality. All I see you expressing when you're nude is that, well, you're nude. SOURCES: http://www.psychologytoday.com... http://peppermintstyle.wordpress.com... http://ezinearticles.com...
Non-sexual public nudity should be legal

CONTENTION 1: Con is quite mistaken in his assertion that "requirement to wear clothes isn't violating our rights in any way. " When you wear clothes, you are putting something on your body. The banning of public nudity is an invasive breach of privacy because it forces people to do something to their bodies that they may not want to do. Con does not refer to any sources in this contention, nor does (s)he list any facts or evidence. CONTENTION 2: Nudity is indeed a type of expression. If wearing a shirt with a message on it is a form of expression, why wouldn't being naked be a form of expression? Something does not need to "mean anything" for it to be expression, an therefore protected under the First Amendment. Once again, Con does not refer to any sources or facts. CONTENTION 3: Con states here that "Children should not be exposed to such things at a young age. " I must ask, why not? Con does not give any facts, statistics, sources, or even logical reasons to prove this point. In the previous round, I stated a sourced fact that children who grow up in non-sexualized nudist households are impacted in many positive ways. For example, these children view the bodies of the opposite gender in a much more wholesome, less sexualitized way, and are free from body image issues. In today's culture, where many children's first exposure to nudity is (very sexual) pornography, wholesome, non-sexual nudity positively influences their views on the human body. This is especially important in regard to our teenagers' increasing body/self-esteem issues. Teenagers often feel that their bodies are inadequate, which leads to issues in self-esteem. This is mainly due to the way teens are usually introduced to the human body: pornography and media. It is a well-known fact that the models for these media are considered "the best of the best" in terms of sexual attractiveness. In addition, media such as pornography and magazines retouch most of their models, giving an unrealistic and unhealthy goal for teens. If non-sexual public nudity were more widespread, teens would be able to see more realistic bodies to compare their own bodies to. This would lead to a more well-rounded, secure population of teens. However, if Con were to have his/her way, this scenario would not be possible. IN CONCLUSION: Con does not state any facts, nor does (s)he make any solid points. All my previous contentions remain intact, in addition to the augmentations I have made here. Thank you, once again, to Con. I await your rebuttal. SOURCES (May contain mild, non-sexual nudity) 1) . http://freebeaches.org.nz... 2) . http://idealbite.com... 3) . http://immortallife.info...
Non-sexual public nudity should be legal

I am going to be addressing these by contention. CONTENTION 1: Requirement to wear clothes isn't violating our rights in any way, you still have the right to your body, adding clothes doesn't change anything as it isn't part of your body. CONTENTION 2: Explain to me how being naked is a symbol of expression. If nudity became the norm, nudity wouldn't mean anything, therefor not expressing anything. CONTENTION 3: I actually half agree with you here, but clothes are a necessary evil. As generic a statement as it is, children should not be exposed to such things at a young age.
Non-sexual public nudity should be legal

Unfortunately, my last debate about public nudity ended due to my opponent's repeated forfeitures. As such, I will copy my first argument directly from my previous debate. Please post your arguments/rebuttals in the first round. CONTENTION 1: Banning non-sexual nudity in public violates the right to our bodies. The phrase "my body, my choice" is often repeated in the abortion debate; however, it also proves a good argument in the public nudity debate. It is simply wrong for a government to force its citizens to put something on their bodies against their will. This violates one of the most basic rights we have: the right to our own bodies. CONTENTION 2: Banning non-sexual nudity in public violates the right to freedom of expression. Another basic right violated by the outlaw of public nudity is freedom of speech/expression. This is a direct violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. CONTENTION 3: Nudity is healthy. Clothes, by their nature, restrict movement and blood flow in the human body. The ability to be nude in public also allows for increased intake of sunlight, resulting in higher Vitamin D production levels. Clothes even harbor the growth of fungi and bacteria on the body. Pants can lower sperm count in men, and clothes in general mess up the body's natural temperature-regulating systems. [1] Now, think for a moment. If Con were to have his way, all of these health benefits would be inaccessible to everyone. A government that bans public nudity is not simply disallowing a healthy activity, but forcing its citizens to do something unhealthy! Imagine if a government passed a regulation requiring the drinking of soda in public. That is simply not a government's role. Not only is nudity physically healthy, but psychologically healthy, too. Teens that grew up in a nudist camp were reported to be very well-adjusted in terms of body image, as well as thoughtful and happy. Children who grow up feeling no taboo about nudity are free of body shame and view the bodies of the opposite gender in a more wholesome, non-sexualized way. I cannot stress this enough. Any government that bans nudity is inadvertently propagating body shame, sexualization of women, and poorer health among its citizens. This is simply an outrage. That about covers my main points. I await Con's rebuttal. SOURCES: [1]- http://immortallife.info...... Report this Argument
Boarding schools are far better than day schools for the all round education of a child.

Are they parents for just name? No. A big no! It is their responsibility to look over their child no matter how busy they are. Being parents was their choice and if they were so stuck up in their daily work, they would have aborted the child. But, they cannot run away from their responsibilities by abandoning their child in a boarding school. They got to take out time to check over their children"s activities. Loving their children doesn"t mean they will let them do whatever they want to. They need to know what is good for their child and what"s wrong. Oh, O mg! So you think any warden or teacher is a better guide than one"s parents? Totally wrong! No one else would think of your good except your parents.
Boarding schools are far better than day schools for the all round education of a child.

Children nowadays face depression and stress because of their more usage of social networking sites and by getting addicted to TV programs. Most parents due to their busy schedules have less time to concentrate on their children. Most of them don't check what their children are doing. In their home students will do whatever they want. They have no control over themselves. Parents will allow them anything because of their love towards them. We have heard these types of news. Parents might give moral support but can't stop their children from these types of things. In boarding schools they can fully concentrate on their studies. And a less percentage of them have the chances of getting into depression. And to spend with their parents schools provide holidays. In boarding schools there are restrictions to use Internet. And also they can mingle with everyone of their age. They wont even feel bored. And there are good teachers and wardens to look after them.
Boarding schools are far better than day schools for the all round education of a child.

For children nowadays, who immensely face the phase of depression and stress, it is really important for them to get moral support, which cannot be provided anywhere better than in the person"s house. No other person than our parents wants our good. Before punctuality and discipline lies humanity. A child needs to be taught to be kind, to love himself, to follow his dreams, his passions. No other person than our families can teach us these values. Learning starts from home. And I must tell you, being abandoned by parents like this creates a sense of hatred among children for their parents, which means that they have failed to be great parents.
Boarding schools are far better than day schools for the all round education of a child.

Boarding schools are better than day schools for the all round education of a child. *The foremost function that is performed by a boarding school is providing discipline and a sense of punctuality. Generally, children who are naughty and disobedient are sent to boarding schools to change their attitude and have a sense of discipline. Boarding schools function on strict timetables and children are required to be punctual for all classes including academic and extracurricular ones. *Boarding schools are ideal for families that are separate or if parents are constantly travelling. Many parents today are continually on the move from one place to another and they have no time for their children. In such a scenario boarding schools are the best option for children. The students will be independent. They will be able to manage their own things properly.
Islam is a Bad Religion.

I disagree. My main problem is that more than 50% of Muslims are radical Muslims. This includes about 2.2 million radical muslims in America. These people include people who believe ISIS is okay, 9/11 was okay, honor killings of women are okay, and sharia law should be the law of the land. Now into the actual religion. In Surah (3:151) it states all people who don't subject to Islam are not innocent. Surah (9:123) says that anyone who isn't muslim shall be killed. Muhammed was also a very bad guy. He hung two girls for singing satirical songs about him Hisham (819). He also married a 12 year old and sexually abused her. He also married 3 times. In Quran (8:39) it says again to kill all non believers. And finally about looks. I don't think women should wear hijabs, burkas, etc. because it was made to oppress women by Muhammed. I hope you see where I'm coming from. https://www.youtube.com...... https://www.youtube.com......