BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage

Well this is how I look at it... Let's say that these two guys are together. One which gets in a car accident, or something of that nature, and he is in very critical condition and probably won't make it. His significant other cannot go see him in the hospital because they are not married. If you were in that situation, wouldn't you just hate yourself? You cannot say goodbye or even just see your other half that you love because you aren't married. Personally, I would really want to talk to my significant other before they passed.
The Communion bread and wine becomes Christ's literal body and blood

This debate will be on the Communion (or Eucharist, as Catholics commonly refer to it). I would ask that my opponent be Roman Catholic so that the position can be represented as accurately as possible.I would also ask that in this first round, the contender make their case for the Communion being Christ's literal body and blood, so that in my second round argument I don't strawman my opponent by mistake.Thank you, and good luck to whomever decides to accept.
Fight Clubs should be instituted in all prisons

Thank you for taking the time to participate in this debate, Now lets move on to round 2. You state that this is cruel and unusual punishment. How is this cruel compared to what a serial killer does to his victims, A rapist does to women, A pedophile does, To a child? This is more humane, A bare knuckle fight as opposed to a serial killer filleting his victims to the bone, A rapist beating up, Cutting up and dumping a rape victim in bushes? The killers have already murdered people, This is a form of redemption for a killer if he wins the match, The loser gets killed in the fight, He was going to be executed anyways. At least this way we made millions from the pay per view death match. People love to see violence, Carnage, Death. It sells. People watch the Indy 500 not for the cars to go around 500 times in a circle but for the big crashes. People love the MMA. Well this would be no different than gladiators in the past. But it would be prison inmates. It would be a form of paying for themselves to be housed, Clothed, Fed and given free education in prison. This is why we need fight clubs in prison, It's only a win-win for society, We generate millions in revenue from the pay per views of the prison fight club and we save money on lethal injection chemicals by having the inmates do the dirty work during a fight to death. Prison Fight Club (PFC) will be more popular than UFC!
Fight Clubs should be instituted in all prisons

The Parole Boards should implement fight clubs in prisons. Fight Clubs would be set up as UFC is set up in the general public, We can have betting, Pay per view and essentially make millions of dollars off, Of convicts who do not contribute to society but put a burden on the tax payers. An average inmate costs taxpayers $54, 000. 00/year to house in prison. This is a way to reduce these costs by having the inmates in a fight club. The killers on death row, Would be put in a cage to fight to death, This would be the pay per view main event, Since the death row inmates are going to be executed anyways, This way we get to see a great fight and it saves money to the system by not paying for the lethal injection or executioner costs, One inmate gets killed during the fight club fight and at the same time the pay per view subscription revenue goes through the roof as it would be advertised as "The Death Match" main event. The smaller offence matches would be the other events leading up to the Death Match. We can even have "Royal Rumble" maybe some Bloods or Crips vs Aryan Nation members in a winner takes it all match, Or 3 pedophiles vs a mob hitman showdown. Maybe one week we can have a 3 on 3 rumble "Robbers vs Rapists" showdown. Or "Fraudsters vs Molesters" battle at Attica prison. Or maybe "Serial Killers vs Spree Killers" showdown at Rikers Island this weekend. With the main event being "Green River Killer vs Dzhokhar Tsarnaev DEATH MATCH" or BTK killer vs Son of Sam killer Death Match promoted as "The Serial Killer Death Match of 2018" or "The Rumble in the Slaughter House" I see millions of dollars in revenue generated from these main events. We could have tons of card matches every week, It makes the inmates more productive and gives them a goal to reach as they prepare for the fights. We can televise these events and make millions in revenue from it and reduce taxes for an average taxpayer. This concept is also not new as in Thailand, Convicted death row inmates get a chance to fight to the death, With the winner being released from prison. Lets create prison fight clubs, There is only positive benefits to creating this form of tax relief/entertainment/source of revenue for otherwise a tax burden group of people. I am going to be the president of the Prison Fight Club, Aka as (PFC), We will be in direct competition to UFC, But I have a feeling death matches will outsell the MMA main events. PFC is coming to your local town shortly
Fight Clubs should be instituted in all prisons

I am proposing making money and saving every hard working tax payer money by instituting fight clubs to raise money which we spend million on to house, Shelter, Feed, And educate in our correctional systems. This is a win-win for the average worker as they will receive a tax break from the revenue generated through cable packages and pay per view from the fight clubs. So you don't mind the serial killer that dismembers their victims, The rapist who traumatizes victims for life, The pedophile who ruins a child's life and the violent bank robbers, Thieves and other criminals, You are fine with that, But a fight club in prison is an issue with you? I support torture in interrogations 100%. Criminals today know that they don't have to say anything and the courts will plea bargain with them for lighter sentences or make them become informants. 89% of convictions are plead down before trial. WHY? I say we torture suspects and beat or water board the truth out of them. Torture is the most effective method of getting information from a suspect. Criminals all have a choice before they commit a crime, Once you commit a crime, You have lost all your rights and deserve to be put in a fight club and or tortured for info. case closed
Labor Party Beliefs

My arguments from Round 4 are extended into this round. A little add-on to my original arguments: Point 1: We live in a first-world country. There are many jobs awaiting the looking consumer. This allows the person to shop around for the highest wage, best benefits, and best working conditions. This means that companies must be competitive with wages and working conditions. The better one company's salary, the more employees it shall have. But in third-world countries, this does not work. Rarely are the Capitalist like this, because most of their jobs are chosen for them, and two, the state, not the corporations, own most of the businesses, meaning that all grievances against working should be brought against the state, not the helpless individual corporation. The jobs that people have in third-world countries are therefore questionable at best. But when working for a big multi-national corporation like Apple or Walmart, you can enjoy more of the benefits of first-world corporations. Having a job with Apple in China is a blessing compared to some of the other jobs there. Point 2: The trade-union salary argument is the main reason trade unions are determinal in today's economy. They raise wages too much, thus forcing the comapny to go out of business, thus laying off all of it's employees. The trade unions decide everything. You are not allowed to fire a unionized worker without first going through the union, which is usually just a waste of time. Thus you have a cycle of many companies going out of business because of trade unions. And the sad part is that when unionized workers enter the business, they affect the non-unionized workers in the end when they both lose their jobs. Point 3: Minimum wage increases unemployment. 70-cent-an-hour increase in the minimum wage would cost some 300,000 jobs. Sure enough, the mandated increase to $7.25 took effect in July, and right on cue the August and September jobless numbers confirm the rapid disappearance of jobs for teenagers. [1] Unemployment in 2006 (teenage) was 4.4%, there was a steady minimum wage. In 2009, after a few minimum wage increases, teenage unemployment was 10.2%. [2] "Economists have studied the job-destroying features of a higher minimum wage. Estimates of the job losses of raising the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 have ranged from 625,000 to 1,000,000 lost jobs. It is important to recognize that the jobs lost are mainly entry-level jobs. By destroying entry-level jobs, a higher minimum wage harms the lifetime earnings prospects of low-skilled workers. " [4] . http://online.wsj.com...... [1] . http://www.americanthinker.com...... [2] . http://www.foxbusiness.com...... [3] . http://www.house.gov...... [4] Point 4: Since my opponent did not bring up any more topics he would like to debate under the "workers laws" category, I have nothing to add.
Iran presents a real threat to the welfare of the United states and the world

FACTS why Iran is not a threat: 1. They will run out of oil by 2014 or 2015. Oil is where they get their money to fund terrorists, etc. The lack of money will result in domestic unrest. See below: 2. There already is domestic unrest. It is from young people who favor a laissez-faire capitalist / liberal democracy. When we rattle their cage, they consolidate behind their corrupt rulers. When we let them be, they rebel against their corrupt rulers. Our cage-rattling = supporting the ruling class. Laissez-faire non-intervention = supporting the overthrow of the regime.
This debate is spam

-" It is a useless debate thus is a waste of pixels."- -It only takes up pixels if people are on the page.. the same pixels are used for every single page u ever view cause pixels are what ur screen uses to display pages; the pixels are not wasted because they are never used up.. just re-used to show a diffrent image.- -"While it is true that we're debating a fact, it is a useless fact"- -How could this debate be useless if it has a point? nothing is truely useless-
Facebook was talking about lowering there age requirements.

Well the why I saw it. It creates the illusion to parents that Facebook is a safe place for children and there are ways for parents to block Facebook for their children to use it. So, its not that easy if parents are informed. The question is if they lower the age they may not even question if it is truly safe. Reverse psychology does work in some cases but if you tell your kid it is okay to eat a cookie they'll eat it , if you catch my drift. Phones work the same but you know everyone on it.
Facebook was talking about lowering there age requirements.

Honestly it doesn't make a difference because of how simple it is now becoming to create an account and without a doubt there are under 13's with a fake account. kids may have older friends and family who encourage them to use it. also, trying to prevent something from going public makes it go public and I would like to employ reverse psychology by maybe lowering the age limit to see what happens. Also, these sites provide a great way to communicate with friends and family across long distances.
Facebook was talking about lowering there age requirements.

I don't really think they should lower the age restrictions even though some may say there are already some kids under 13. If they lowered it. It gives the idea that it is safe for young children but in my experience it isn't. Cyberbullying runs rampant on the Internet and Facebook, being a social networking site is filled with this. No parent can constantly moderator their children's activity and being a young child means they could get easier hurt.
Banking system of education is oppressive

"Those use the banking approach knowingly (or unknowingly), fail to perceive that the deposits themselves contain contradictions about reality. But sooner or later those contradictions may lead formerly passive students to turn against their domestication and attempt to domesticate reality. ( Freire 2.6). You mentioned forcing information to students as being negative. You helped me prove my point a little more. When you force information into someone, they form the ideas you want, but after a while they begin to realize the oppression. They will turn against you when they realize what you are doing to them.
Banking system of education is oppressive

That is true, the banking system is like educators depositing money, and without teachers reciting the information we will never know it, however are we truly learning or our we just memorizing what we are taught. The banking system does work but, its just feeding us information, how can teachers recite this information if they don't know if we can or will outside of the classroom?. Reciting information to us, as they banking system describe is students sitting and starring blankly. Teaching in this method can be oppressive and boring. How can the teacher be sure we are comprehending well?
Banking system of education is oppressive

The banking system of education can be explained very simply. We can say our education is money, our educators are the ones responsible for depositing the money and we are the bank. The depositor is responsible for giving the money to the bank and holding onto it. At any time, they can fed us information at any quantity or quality they choose. Without any money, a bank is not of use. With the ability to deposit money (or education) whenever they feel necessary as well as the quantity, educators have control of what we learn.
Banking system of education is oppressive

a student that is learning something is what the teacher is suppose to do, if the teacher were to give more background information the students could be more interested and actually use information that benefits then inside and the classroom rather than being a memorizing tool. Giving students a "that's all you need to know" discourages questioning lile "what if" and "how come" the students could be told anything and believed it. The teacher is required to open the student mind and allow them to explore new information and new ways of thinking and looking at things. The students are possibly willing to go the extra mile when it comes to their education and its depth
Banking system of education is oppressive

From what I read, it seems like you are arguing the the banking system is indeed oppressive. I did not see anything boosting the value of the banking system. One more quote to support to oppression of the banking system from Hirsch. He talked about having background knowledge on the things we actually learn. His example was knowing the difference between two different words. You know how to identify the words based on things you know, but you have no other knowledge outside of that. You may know the big word but what is the power behind the word? We only know what we were taught. Anything learned outside of that seems very oppressive to me.
Banking system of education is oppressive

Friere and Hirsch say that the teachers may know everything while the students are awaiting to be taught. Since students are being taught in class and the students aren't interested , then they will never know the background information and may not grasp the concept of whats being taught to them, Although they are being fed the information and listen, it doesn't quite mean they are retaining the knowledge.They may just be listening ands not fully engaged in the lesson.
The aliens are great

Yes everyone, Con is correct. Its the phones ignore the alien threat and recieve the giffffts dont listen!.STOP FIGHTING YOU INFERIOR CREATER OF FLESH AND BLOOD! YOU FUMBILE IN YOUR IGNORANCE>>.. ic annn fight .1 JJJJEFI i caanot. Ohhh I.... DOnt kill Kahl.....NOOOOOOOHaha disregard that sirs. All is fine.
The aliens are great

Actually mate, we are not controlling you. Yes, the "aliens" are great, but what type? Theirs the time lords,daleks, and manlyphones. I believe its the manly phones that are controlling everyone else. I, am a time lord. I am telling you that the daleks or or manlyphones are not great at all. (Its either the daleks or manlyphones to blame). They are a corrupt race. Do not fall into their trap.
Bananas are a fruit!!!

Good evening ladies and gentleman. In today's case, the job of the contender will be to negate the instigator's resolution to the fullest extent. Since this is a one round debate, my opponent has no means of clarifying on his case, thus I am allowed to take control of what is to be considered the "definitions." First, lets look at the topic. It states "bananas are a fruit." One thing comes to mind: Is there such a fruit that is called bananas? The answer is no; there is a fruit classified as a banana, but there is no fruit classified as a bananas. Now, if my opponent were advocating "Bananas are fruits", then his position would seem to be correct. Second, my opponent provides you with no clear definition of "bananas" and demands that you do his research for him by going to dictionary.com. However, the fact of the matter is that the burden of proof belongs to him; it's his job to prove his case, thus he should be the one to do the research. Not only that, but having reviewed dictionary.com, it does not classify bananas as a fruit. It classifies A banana as A fruit, but there is no such single fruit that is called bananas. Thus, going to dictionary.com would only help my case. Third, my opponent's only argument in the round "Bananas are a fruit because they are a fruit." This is the "begging the question" fallacy at work; his premise assumes his conclusion is true. Fourth, there are many things that are classified as bananas. For instance, certain "sizes" of male genitals are often referred to as "bananas." http://www.urbandictionary.com... Human anatomy is not classified as fruit based on the website my opponent tells you to go to. Furthermore, on the definition page, this is how "bananas" are defined as: "Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This baï¿½nanï¿½as /bəˈnï¿½nəz/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[buh-nan-uhz] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective Slang. 1.crazy; deranged: All that chatter is driving me bananas. 2.wildly enthusiastic: The crowd went bananas when the music began." http://dictionary.reference.com... In simpler terms, it's an adjective used to describe behavior. One's behavior certainly cannot be defined as "any product of plant growth useful to humans or animals." ( http://dictionary.reference.com... ). With all of the above taken into consideration, my opponent's case has been thoroughly refuted. Thus, I urge that you vote in favor of my case. Thank you.
God exists

So I have been spreading this rumor around that I left Islam and became an atheist lately mostly to play the devil's advocate. These did not happen and I will never become atheist but I was merely trying to collect as many as rebuttals as possible.I will be arguing in this debate that the case for God is extensive and is most often underrated. I will be using science, philosophy and logic to form the foundations for my arguments for God. I am a Theist and my opponent should most likely be an atheist who denies the existence of God.Definitions :Universe - all of space, matter, time and energyGod - The necessary, uncaused, omnimaximal, timeless, spaceless being.Exists - to have an objective being or existence.Rules :-no trolling-no forfeits-no semantics (tweaking definitions of the dictionary)Rounds :Round one - acceptanceR2) argumentsR3) Rebuttals + argumentsR4) RebuttalsR5) RebuttalsBOP : Burden of proof will be shared. The opponent (who is most likely an atheist) will have to demonstrate that God does not exist. Since claiming that the natural reality is all that exists and that there is no supernatural reality is a claim. Whoever claims that God does not exist is making a negative claim and therefore should prove it. Proving a negative claim is possible because you can prove that there are no muslims in the U.S. senate, there are no dinosaurs on the face of the Earth, the sun does not orbit the Earth. all of those were negative claims that should and could be proven. The most logical position taken if you reject the claim that there is a God would be an agnostic, who claims that he simply does not know since you would still have no evidence for/against either sides. No arguments against religion shall be made since you could disprove all religions and you still would not undermine or even address the reliability of God.
Say NO to online social networks.

I'll start with your argument about exploitation. I hate to say this, I really do, but the exploitation kind of comes with the territory. Sure, users can be smart, and not give out information, but, like you say, some will slip up, and let information out there that is personal to them. However; this is a risk a lot of people are willing to take. Why? Comparitively, it doesn't happen that often. Sure, there are hundreds of cases every few months of people getting cyber-stalked, and people losing money, but compared to the millions of people that have information out there, this isn't a significant problem. Part of this is alleviated, by the use of specialized networks, because everyone knows everyone there. I can see where you are comng from regarding the hardcore user thing, but still (and I understand you brought up studies), that's still a personal opinion. You're resolution is to say no to online social networks, by claiming they are a waste of time. No one has a right to say that, except for the user themselves. Casual users don't really become hardcore users, they generally just have accounts, and may end up being online a cumulative 15 hours a week. This is affirmed by the fact that a lot of people that have Facebook, are leading members of their community, and their school. If they were hardcore users, they would not have time for such endeavors. Also with the hardcore thing, it may in fact be better for them to have a life online. They may be ostracized from their peers, and may be unsocial in real life, but online, they have a social life. Again, your view of a social life isn't necessarily theirs. If suicide rates were really how you say they are, then there would be A LOT more suicides, because there are in fact a lot of people that thrive online. As for specialty sites, there are a multitude of networks that people can join, to meet other people like them. vampirefreaks.com - Not sure how you will view this, because I'm not sure how you view the goth subculture, but this is a site for people that are into death metal, and for people that are members of the gothic subculture. It allows them to talk to other people just like them, without the repercussions of the real world. purevolume.com - This is a pseudo-social network, giving users the ability to sign up as musicians or listeners, and upload/listen to music. It can connect a lot of people through music. specialopspaintball.com/brigade - This is a network where paintball players can discuss the sport, as well as meet in real life to have matches. These sites are not a waste of time to the users. Again, I'll reiterate that one of your few claims against these networks is that they are a waste of times. Maybe they are for you, but the ones that use them, generally see them as a good use of time.
Say NO to online social networks.

The term "Online Social Networks" here refers to -- A web service that uses software to build online social networks for communities of people who share interests and activities or who are interested in exploring the interests and activities of others. For example -- Facebook, MySpace, Orkut, SecondLife etc. Online Social Networks (OSNs) are waste of time for a major percentage of online users; except a few those benefit by advertising their products and spamming everyone else. The information provided by users can be exploited in a multitude of ways; I can elaborate more on those as we proceed through the debate.