BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jesus had 2 dads and he turned out ok

Jesus had two dads, God and Joseph, and many contend that despite having two dads Jesus turned out ok. Many gays actually use this phrase to champion Gay Rights, but I think they are all wrong that Jesus turned out okHere are my arguments why:1) He got crucifiedClearly having two dads f*cked him up somehow and badly enough to make people nail him to a wooden cross and hang him til death. If your kid literally gets crucified then he clearly did not turn out 'ok' 2) He was a hippieHelp the poor, feed the hungry, take only what you need? What is this communist Russia? If your kid is a hippie then you f*cked up somewhere along the line, and Jesus was one of the biggest hippies of all time (hell he walked around everywhere in sandals!) Clearly having two dads made Jesus a little too liberal for his own good, which ties back to the whole crucifixion thing. 3) He was a failed architectArchitecture, the one thing any engineer can do in his sleep and that anyone who has no interest in learning can master in a matter of months, is something Jesus FAILED to do.... Its not like everything was built by Ikea back then! Hell everything was either wood, a stone, or a nail, how he didnt get a grasp on that is beyond me. The fact that he couldnt master a ridiculously easy profession indicates that he most certainly did not turn out ok. In fact if it werent for that whole 'son of god' thing he had going on, he probably would have gone nowhere in life4) He lived in the MIddle EastIf your kid is running around the Middle East trying to preach peace and all that crap, then he has no idea what the hell he is doing, and he is messed up in the head. Jesus did in fact have two dads, but from the arguments presented, he didnt really turn out ok. He was a hippie running around the Middle East causing trouble until he eventually got executed, and the failed architecture thing too
schools should not enforce healthy eating

oi vaclav that was not a very good comback or whever you call it. you have no idea about wat u r saying. i asked some other kids and they said they would HATE school if school enforced healthy eating. i think the kids are responsible for what they eat and if it's now the schools turn to take over what kids eat.. it's the end of the world( kind of anyway) would YOU yes i'm talking to YOU like it if your school or college or whatever you go to made you eat healthy? if the kid is fat then it the kids and parents fault if they are. i think that people blaming schools for making them or thier kid fat then it's a bad time to be living in
schools should not enforce healthy eating

schools should not i repeat not be blamed for child overweightness and obesity cause i think it's the parents and kid's fault if they end up as a fat blob that can't run or jog or do ANY phyiscal activity. my opponet the dreaded vasek is a guy who has absoloutly no idea aboput what to do i think he's turning into a fat blob himself! so Vasek you might wanna start thinking about ur weight yourself not blaming your school and friends for your weight. Vasek you are still pretty fit but i was just saying that you don't blame your school!1 blame your self and maybe.. just maybe.. ur parents... oh and errr Vasek please please please do not kill me ok?? plz don't i wanna live!!!
schools should not enforce healthy eating

harry you are stupid and i am smart so sucked in go fat food!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
One piece is a better manga/anime than Naruto

Welcome to DDO!As con, I will debate one piece is not a better manga than naruto. My first point, storyline. Though both mangas tells us a mainstream battle manga story. Naruto has more themes and depth to it. For example, the first few volumes of Naruto tells us the story of Naruto (the main character) has suffered from isolation and has managed to fit into the society whereas One Piece only tells us a story of a boy who has big dream and want to go on a journey which is pretty cliche in a mainstream battle manga.My second point, theme. Naruto depicts a theme of hatred, revenge, friendship, and many thing else which has a depth to the story plot. Again, one piece, though has a theme of friendship or comradeship, the theme itself doesn't have much depth in it. So One Piece is just one of your cliche battle manga, whereas Naruto tells us a story along with it amazing plotline.Third is character. Naruto has a more variety of characters from different factions that can be very important and has a lot of twist on whether they're the antagonist or not. This makes the plotline more unpredictable and fun to read, whereas, on One Piece, it is very defined on who's the antagonist and not very much twists. Readers can easily identify and predict what's going to happen on One Piece compare to that of Naruto.I am not saying Naruto is better than One Piece. I'm saying One Piece is not better than Naruto.
One piece is a better manga/anime than Naruto

One piece is a better manga/anime than Naruto. I am basing this more on character development and plot buildups throughout each anime (as I shall call them from now on). I don't really care about the style or basic attacks of both sides although I will happily accept better action sequences as an argument. (which i will rebut) No trolls please I am new to this website so first to come is first served as long as are not a troll.
Which is better, Rainbow Factory or Cupcakes in Creepiness

First of all Pinkie is. Second, everyone knows all about Pinkie's...eccentric side and like I have stated before, Rainbow Dash is least expected to do it. And also Pinkie Pie Kept a straight face. Acting like she usually does except for the fact that everything was 10x creepier. In Rainbow Factory, Rainbow Dash became a swearing person, filled with anger and resentment. I don't blame her thought because if I had to live in her conditions, I would be like that too.
That A Programmer Should Be Held Liable For What Their Software Does

Since Softpedia gives warning to visitors that the files are not hosted on their server and (if) they have disclaimed responsibilities in Terms and Conditions too, then the responsibility will be moved to the publisher who hosts the file, not Softpedia. So what if a lot of people in the world use antivirus products? They are not obliged to use antivirus products at all. Unless the antivirus seller says that they will responsible, otherwise, the software publisher that infected computer will still hold responsibility. Conclusively, the original publisher of the file holds responsibility as they are promoting the file behalf the original author. It is their responsibility to ensure that the file is free from malware for public use, unless they told in ToS that files hosted on their site are malicious. Antivirus makers should not be blamed because they are trying their best to minimise security vulnerabilities to reduce exploitation unless they have guaranteed.
That A Programmer Should Be Held Liable For What Their Software Does

If they can distribute it themselves, then they are in the wrong even more. If they distribute it themselves, then you can't hold the publisher liable, and only the programmer. Even Softpedia give a warning if the download is coming from a server that isn't their own. Also, lots of people around the world use antivirus products, and a large amount of them use free version of the anti-malware product. If the user isn't protected, then the malware author should be liable anyway, because some underinformed users don't know any better. I use a good anti-malware solution, but I would still turn to the developer if I got malicious code inside of my apps. Sometimes the malware definitions might not have been downloaded or installed, but you would have been protected anyway. In conclusion, The malware author is the only one to blame. The publisher would have no knowledge, the anti-virus might not have installed its patches, but it is still the malware author with the malicious intent.
That A Programmer Should Be Held Liable For What Their Software Does

Programmers could distribute the software themselves, why need the help of publishers? Publishers re-distributing the software, is no difference from recommending the world about the software. And, publishers cannot relay on the fact that all users would have an appropriate malware protection because not all users pay for an appropriate malware protection, or selfishly, users only have them as a precaution but not am obligation. --- As a user, I only look at the one who causes me to have malware, in this case, which is the publisher unless he disclaims all responsibilities. I am not going to help the publisher to trace the real source because that is not beneficial to me, I only look at the fact right now.
That A Programmer Should Be Held Liable For What Their Software Does

I believe that programmers should be held liable for what their software does. If a programmer writes a piece of code bundled within their software that has malicious intent, then they should be held liable for this. If they aren't held liable, then who will be? The host of the software? The publisher? It is obvious that it is the programmer who programmed it should be held, because there is no-one else that they can hold liable.
All games should be free

Video games cost money and time to make. Unless you want to see a heck ton of adds and in game purchases or starving dirt poor video game developers, you don't want that. I understand that many students cannot afford video games and that stinks, but it isn't the duty of game developers to risk their livelihood just so you can play their game. Rather students need to be given the freedom and opportunity to work. As of now anyone below the age of eighteen is basically property, if that can change the rest will fall to place.
Smoking should not be allowed in public places.

You're very welcome :) Thats great that you are a polite smoker but sadly not everyone is.. Basically in the first Paragraph my Con is going Pro.. By the way, its not smoking in general, its smoking in public places. In the 2nd paragraph he said that non smokers that the right to inhale it or not. ---> Honestly what do you want me to do not breath the whole time? Or leave because I don't want to be around them. If you say leave that is terible! I have the right to be there. 3rd point ---> its a good point but realize some are alergic to it. 4th point ---> Its good they put restrictions on smoking, maybe they'll save some lives. In the end the only reason we should put restrictions on smoking is to help you. The effects of smoking are terrible, we just want to help. It's sad... my mom wouldn't quit smoking even when I suggest. So, I cried infront of her and told her I wished I would get lung cancer from second hand smoke so you'll quit. She finally quit. So, I guess its true. It takes something extream to make people realize. Sorry arguments are so short. Haven't had a lot of time lately. :) Thanks for the debate :)
Smoking should not be allowed in public places.

I strongly agree that smoking should not be allowed in public places.. As a citizen of the United States I do believe our rights are important. We are given the choice to be a non-smoker or a smoker. I choose to be a non-smoker, but my rights are violated when I'm out in a public facility and I'm forced to inhale second hand smoke. By that and these three reasons, I think smoking shouldn't be allowed in public places to an extent. First off, I know the effects that come from smoking and just being around those who do smoke, and honestly it's quite terrible. Just from being around those who smoke your chances of getting cancer increases. Also, if you happen to be pregnant and you inhale second hand smoke your baby could be born premature and or have birth defects. The effects of being around those who choose to smoke are quite dangerous. Secondly the rights of non-smokers are violated. I hate it when I go out to eat with my family or go bowling with my friends and I have to inhale and smell cigarette smoke. One, I don't feel like getting cancer. Two, cigarette smoke irritates me, because of my allergies. There are many people that are actually allergic to cigarette smoke. I feel really bad for those who can't go to their favorite hangout or restaurant just because people smoke there. It's actually quite sad. Initially we can solve this problem. I know smokers have rights too, and violating their rights is wrong also. By that we should inform them about this problem and give a solution. The solution to this problem is to designate more non-smoking and smoking areas. For example, have a smoking and non-smoking area separated in the restaurant or facility. If some like want to smoke and hangout at the same time, create a separate area where they can do so. It's the facilities choice in what they think is best to do, so it's best to fallow their rules and regulations. In the end everyone can be happy and have their rights at same time. It's understandable when a non-smoker doesn't want to inhale cigarette smoke and it's understandable that a person has the right to smoke. Really, all we have to do is find compliance and a solution that fits most. We can do this by setting up town meetings or meet with business owners. Everyone can do something to help the world a little more; it just takes courage and strength.
Smoking should not be allowed in public places.

I'm so sick and tired of people saying that smoking isn't that big of deal. Millions of people die from it and you're spending A LOT of money on this killer substance. It's not like if you don't have it you'll die. You're better off with out it. Geeze I can not believe you people are saying that it's not that big of a deal. Teens every where are working to solve this problem because they care. So, why can't you!? Vote Pro... It's the right thing to do!
Smoking should not be allowed in public places.

Unfortunately due to time constrictions I am unable to keep debating. I've made the gist of my arguments and that is freedom and liberty. The government has no right to make money off smokers then pretend to care about our health. My time has been taken up by producing a podcast. I invite everyone to come listen as we will be talking about this and many more other aspects of Freedom and Liberty of the individual in America. Please come listen at www.freedomandliberty.mypodcast.com Please leave a comment and let me know that you heard about it here at Debate.om. Respectfully, Rick Pearlstein
Smoking should not be allowed in public places.

Basically all he said against my points were that they were nonsense. So pull those points threw because they were untouched. >>Thank you for your good intentions, but I DON'T WANT YOUR HELP! If I wanted to quit smoking, I would. Furthermore, it is not the government's responsibility to help me or anyone else quit smoking. <<< For those who want the help and want to quit can't. Smoking is a hard and dangerous habit. So, you shouldn't make this debate about you. the next paragraph. True. We may know the effects and even the fact what is in it, but think of this. You have kids. You smoke. You know the effects and know that it's terrible for you. But your childern see you smoke and they see you as their hero. They are very likely to take smoking up. That exmaple can work in the public eye. Childern see their favorite celebity smoking on tv or in the movies. They are very likely to do it. Thus, smoke shouldn't be allowed in public places. By the way. What are you talkin about. I didn't post aguements? I debate in a different way. I'm an LD debater, so im just taking this as one debate. So, basically i think we are debating differently. Again sorry for late replys, I have a lot of work to do to get ready for my big debate turnament. Thanks for the pacients.
Smoking should not be allowed in public places.

>>>In the end the only reason we should put restrictions on smoking is to help you. The effects of smoking are terrible, we just want to help. It's sad... my mom wouldn't quit smoking even when I suggest. So, I cried infront of her and told her I wished I would get lung cancer from second hand smoke so you'll quit. She finally quit. So, I guess its true. It takes something extream to make people realize.<<< Since everything before this point was nonsense, I'll address this then continue. Thank you for your good intentions, but I DON'T WANT YOUR HELP! If I wanted to quit smoking, I would. Furthermore, it is not the government's responsibility to help me or anyone else quit smoking. I am 40 years old and I have been smoking for 31 years now. I knew when I started smoking that it was bad for me and that I would probably have physical repercussions from doing so. My point is that it was MY choice. For anyone my age or even 10 years older, we have known since the beginning that cigarette smoking was bad for us. There is a warning on every pack, there have been billions spent on commercial advertising, print advertising etc. warning us that smoking is bad. For the government to come along and prosecute tobacco companies is hypocritical and just plain wrong. Not that that has ever stopped the government from doing something. Well, since my opponent failed to post any sort of argument this round, I'll wait and see if they continue the debate before I invest any more time in it.
star treck is better

I will begin to argue Star Wars is better. Death Star: Until you Trekkies petition to have the Borg Square built, you will lose since the fan base of Star Wars has actually petitioned the U. S. Federal Governemt to build a Death Star[1]. While it was rejected, around 35,000 signed it. The thing is, the Death Star is more well-known that your Borg. It doesn't matter how many there are. If an obscure film had 10,000 battle station double the size of these, would we consider them better? Lightsabers: Deflecting incoming fire right at the shooter is nothing to sneeze at. How would you like to be hit with you're own bullet? The Lightsabers is good in both short- and long-range combat. Movies: I do concede that the Star Trek franchise has produced more movies and TV shows. However, what really matters is the money. The new Star Wars movies, The Force Awakens, has grossed $1.98 million world wide [2]. The entire Star Trek movies combined have only grossed $1.91 million [3]. One movie has beat all the Star Trek films in terms of money. Fighting: Oh, please. The Federation is for exploration, not for fighting. This isn't going to be fair fight. Take any faction from Satr Wars and compare it with any faction from Star Trek. Star Wars is, obviously, about space wars. The Borges might be a little bit more of a fair fight, but still, they don't have the experience of fighting a real army Technology: It's hard to say how advanced each are. Star Trek focuses more on technology, but still, the Star Wars universe has plenty of explosives to keep anyone occupied. Graphics: The Star Wars graphics have aged well. Not too many movies from that time period are as well done. Plus, Voyager was made almost three decades after A New Hope. Please list a movie which we can compare. Voters, please decide for yourselves which one is better, and which one holds up today. Love: I completely concede to this point. Transport: Come on, there is so many different types of ships, that this isn't a concern. It Just Is: More people would say the Star Wars is better than there are Trekkies. 1. . https://petitions.whitehouse.gov... 2. . http://www.cinemablend.com... 3. . http://www.the-numbers.com...
star treck is better

10. Darth Vader has only one sphere, the Death Star. The Borg have thousands upon thousands of spheres AND cubes. (Geometric shapes seem to be a favorite among villans...) 9. Those light sabers are kinda primative compared to phasers. Why have a sword when you can have a gun? 8. Star Trek has four series (soon to be five) and a lot more movies. 7. The Federation vs. The Force. Skywalker wouldn't have a chance! 6. Star Trek's technology is much more advanced. What's so bad about transporters saving you life, anyway? 5. The graphics in Voyager alone are just as good as those in the re-made version of Star Wars. 4. Chakotay doesn't fall in love with Janeway and find out she's his sister. 3. People on Star Wars are mostly planet-ridden. Doesn't seem like there have been any ships lost for seven years to make it back home against all odds, no space stations that survive through constant battles, or anything else like that. 2. There is more than one way to get around...from star ships to shuttles to transporters...from warp to transwarp to slip stream... 1. it just is
star treck is better

So, the basis of my opponent's argument is that (please excuse the bad grammar) there is more good Star Trek movies than Star Wars. I'd like to argue quality vs quantity. The Star Trek franchise has produced more movies, but which is better? I fully apology to all Star Wars fans for this statement, but more people have decided to spend more money on Star Wars than Star Trek. That includes the prequels. TFA has made more money, meaning that people felt that it was worth their money to watch it. People don't spend money on entertainment that won't entertain them. I know many will say "We didn't know the prequels would suck" but what about all those rereleases? I come to the unfortunate conclusion that many people simply enjoy watching the Prequels. The many Star Trek films don't prove that it was incredibly good. It just means that it earned enough to make another movie. Conclusion: Pro has dropped pretty much every other argument I had in round 1. His only point this round was that Star Trek has more films, so it's better. I successfully showed that more films don't equal better franchise, but the money spent on it. P.S.: Voters, please forgive me for defending the prequels. I needed to for the sake of the debate.
star treck is better

I thank my competitor for his reasons now I will state the reason why star trek is better There's Way More Star Trek Than Star Wars...And Most Of It Is Better For starters, there's just so much more Star Trek to consume than Star Wars. Including the Star Wars prequels and J.J. Abrams' 2015 flick, that makes seven in-cannon movies. Throw a few cartoons in there, a couple of movies with Ewoks, and that's about it. Meanwhile, Star Trek has a whopping 12 films, five television series with a combined total of almost 30 seasons, and an animated series. Is every episode of Star Trek a five star powerhouse? Of course not. Can we agree that there are some pretty rough Trek movies? Definitely. But when you compare the win/loss columns of both franchises, Star Trek easily comes out on top with way more good stuff than bad. And at least Star Trek had the good sense to stagger its good and bad movies. Those Star Wars prequels were just a never-ending parade of Gungan-flavored suckitude. Read More: http://www.looper.com...