BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should children be learnng more survival skills than mthas and english

Once again, you are posing hypothetical situations that have a much lower chance of happening than the inevitable need for a job. Why would you even get dropped out of a helicopter? One does not simply fall out of helicopter unless hit by a projectile, in which case an explosion will be likely, and there is a good chance that one might die from it. In addition, falling from that height, there is a better probability of fatality than otherwise, and the overall chances of surviving more than a few minutes from the initial hit, along with the particular situation actually occuring, are just too low to give any real consideration into investing into survival education. The most likely cause of losing your home would be foreclosure, and that is caused by the homeowner failing to pay the mortgage, which can be averted by *ahem* getting a job, and being educated about debt and money management, rather than yet another hypothetical situation in which perhaps terrorists take over your home, in which case, well, call the police.
Only affaires de coeur should be considered adulterous

We all know men and women are built differently, both physically and emotionally. One of the emotional differences is our respective attitude to sexual relations. Usually, sex will be a physical expression of the love a couple feel for each other. However, sex can sometimes be based solely on physical attraction, with no emotional attachment between the sexual partners whatsoever. This decoupling of physical desire from emotional attachment that we sometimes call "lust" is more commonly associated with men than women. Men are far more likely to seek casual sex than women, which is why men wearing tight-fitting clothes do not tend to stand on street corners waiting for female punters to pull up, wind down the window and ask "how much, darling?" It is perfectly possible for a caring and honourable husband to be head over heels in love with his wife and still have sex with her best friend on ad-hoc basis because he has no inappropriate feelings of affection for the girl. Furthermore, he might only keep this extra-marital activity confidential for fear that his wife would not view the matter in the correct light and become upset as a result, and it should be considered very thoughtful of him to protect her in this way. It is my contention, therefore, that only when it can be proved that someone has become emotionally involved with a third party that they should, for example in divorce proceedings, be adjudged to have committed adultery. To put this issue in perspective, I invite any voters that are not currently having an extra-marital affair (or have not had one in the past) to take the following interactive test to see how likely it is that they will in the future. http://www.bbc.co.uk... Thank you.
The Minimum Wage should be abolished.

I affirm: The Minimum Wage should be abolished. [Contentions] Contention I: Free Market Cycle In the cycle of the market both employer and employee benefit. Why? Because each sacrifices for what they value more. E.g. A person may come looking for a job and the employer offers $2. The person refuses. Apparently the person values his own time, more then the money being presented. Flip this. A person offers to work for $5. The employer refuses, because he values the money over the time of the possible employee. The cycle of the market dictates what a person values or not. A person does not have to accept the offer of they do not want it. Visa Versa, the employer can reject a person as well. The minimum wage just puts pressure on a company to pay more then what may be necessary. Contention II: The Minimum Wage Increases Outsourcing According to Barron's, the Minimum Wage only increases outsourcing to foreign nations. E.g. China and India. Why would a company want American people were it is necessary to pay a minimum? They could easily send their jobs to China were people work for $1 a day. The Minimum Wage only takes jobs wawy from the US, which further hinders the market. [Rebuttal] "I think that the minimum wage should not be abolished because I think everyone deserves a fair wage." My Response: What makes a wage fair? If my opponent can't answer this question, then he should not win this debate. Furthermore, I theorize that the fairness of a wage should be determined by the cycle of the market and the free market itself rather then the government. Whenever the government butts in on issues of the market, they usually only make it worse. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Battle Of The Bands II

SOLO PROJECT In 2010, Alex Turner went solo briefly to release an EP. The EP was called "Submarine" and was the soundtrack for a movie of the same name. Rise Against's Tim McIlrath has never gone solo, proving that he either can't manage outside of the band area or he's just uncomfortable working on his own. This is bad, because nowadays most lead singers of bands like to experiment as solo artists, and Tim McIlrath doesn't seem like he can.TOURS Arctic Monkeys has huge tours too, but not almost every night because they actually have lives. One of my other favorite bands, The Vaccines, gained their popularity by opening for Arctic Monkeys on three different legs of the "Suck It And See" Tour (North American, North American II, and United Kingdom). The Vaccines have some pretty successful songs, such as "Post Break-Up Sex", "Teenage Icon", and "Handsome". Arctic Monkeys has also toured as the opener for Indie Rock band The Black Keys. The AM Tour brought some more fairly popular guests, like Mini Mansions and Saint Motel, with The Vaccines returning for support on a few dates with this tour. So that's a total of four bands Arctic Monkeys has helped grow famous: The Vaccines, The Black Keys, Mini Mansions, and Saint Motel.___________________________________SOURCES:http://en.wikipedia.org...; http://whatculture.com...;
Battle Of The Bands II

sorry for the delay in posting my response, i worked past my shift last night and was too tired to debate. HUMOR Rise against will play tricks on fans during shows, they also like to read some of the signs out loud and even played foosball with green day at Area 4 Kidness to fans Rise Against usually gives away albums at shows, and when they discontinued their tour with Linkin Park after a broken leg, Rise Against refunded everyones ticket and provided everyone with a code for 2 free items at the Rise Against store Tours When Rise Against goes on tour, they tend to go big. Shows almost every night, usually with bands such as Linkin Park or Killswitch Engage.
Battle Of The Bands II

AWARDS: While Arctic Monkeys has won and been nominated for several big-name awards, Rise Against has only been nominated for a handful and won even less. Notice how most of Con's examples for Rise Against's awards say "but lost". They only won two in Con's list, and Con's list contains a total of five examples.CHARITY: Con mentions how Rise Against is a charitable band. So is Arctic Monkeys, even more so than Rise Against. Arctic Monkeys donate to Oxfam, which helps to find lasting solutions to poverty, suffering, and injustice. They also advocate for the fights over Disaster Relief, Human Rights, and Poverty.HUMOR: The band is known for having a great sense of humor, especially how they dressed up as characters from "The Wizard Of Oz" for the 2007 BRIT Awards. Alex Turner played the Scarecrow. Matt Helders (drummer) has further shown his good humor by opening a pub called "The Cautious Horse" JUST A FUN FACT: The band doesn't take insults from anyone. After English band Radiohead's frontman Thom Yorke insulted them, Matt Helders replied with "I nearly fell asleep at the wheel after listening to a Radiohead album."_______________________________________SOURCES: Charity: https://www.looktothestars.org... Assorted Facts: http://www.nme.com...
Battle Of The Bands II

I will also continue to build my case for Rise AgainstSIDE PROJECTSTim Mcilrath has done many side projects. He played in .Baxter., Transistor Revolt, and The Killing TreeAwardsIn 2006, the song "Ready To Fall" was nominated for a MTVu Good Woddie award, but lostIn 2008, Rise Against won the Rock On Request AwardIn 2009, Rise Against won the best animal friendly band award by PETAIn 2009, the song "Re-Education (through labor)" was nominated for an MTV music video award, but lostIn 2012, the song "Ballad of Hollis Brown" was nominated for an MTV music video award, but lost Contributions to societyRise Against is a regular supporter of PETA, and offers street team members free tickets, they also participate in punkvoter.Fan ClubAlthough not an official fan club, Rise Against has a portion of its website dedicated to posting photos, videos, and tatoos of anything Rise Against
Battle Of The Bands II

Thank you, Con. Now its time to make more arguments for Arctic Monkeys:SUCCESS: There is a whole Wikipedia page listing awards and nominations received by the band. I will leave the link to it after my arguments. They've so far won seven BRIT Awards, including Best British Group and Best British Album. They've also been nominated for three different Grammies, and have won many other awards from lesser known award ceremonies in England. WatchMojo listed them as #9 on the Top 10 Decade Defining Musical Acts: 2010-14.FAN CLUB: Arctic Monkeys has a fan club (I know because I'm a member of it), and on their site they allow their fans to participate in forums, chats, updates, and more. Plus, while some bands charge you a certain amount every month to be in a fan club, Arctic Monkeys lets you do it completely free. You are never charged, ever. The band has also often remarked about how thankful they are about their fans, and how they couldn't have amounted to anything without them. MUSIC VIDEOS: Arctic Monkeys has some pretty rad music videos, too. For example, "Snap Out Of It" is aout a woman going insane. ( ). Others such as "Arabella" go from shots of the band playing to a story told on its own. SIDE PROJECTS: The band plays secret shows in a supergroup called The Death Ramps. Some of The Death Ramps' songs have been re-vamped as Arctic Monkeys b-sides. Frontman Alex Turner also sings for another band called The Last Shadow Puppets that has released one album. Former bassist Andy Nicholson and drummer Matt Helders are also in a hip hop/indie rock band called Mongrel. They released their first and only album, "Better Than Heavy" in 2009.-------------------------------------------------------SOURCES:http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.arcticmonkeys.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Battle Of The Bands II

It's not as political as Anti-Flag, but some songs do contain a political message. Lyrics will talk about disadvantages, love, loss, pain, understanding, letting go, and many other topicsPERSONALITYRise Against does a great job in showing the fans their personalities. From a few documentaries to jokes and lfie stories between songs, you feel like you really get to know themStabilityThe band has consisted of the same lineup for the past few albums, with the only major shifts being lead guitar, and drums in their early history. Music VideosThe music videos contain switches between shots of the band playing, and a story settingi tried to link some music videos, but i got blocked by the school filter :(
Battle Of The Bands II

I will start this debate by providing arguments in favor of Arctic Monkeys.LYRICISM: Frontman Alex Turner is, with no doubt, one of the best modern songwriters. All of Arctic Monkeys' music is maserfully written, and every album of theirs has a sort of theme to it. Their albums are:1. "Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not" (2006): Themed around rebellion/angst2. "Favourite Worst Nightmare" (2007): Themed around danger/ambition3. "Humbug" (2009): Themed around memory/regret4. "Suck It And See" (2011): Themed around confidence/anxiety5. "AM" (2013): Themed around love/desperationRANGE: Arctic Monkeys experiences with a wide range of genres, including: Indie Rock, Post-Punk Revival, Psychedelic Rock, and Garage Rock. Their singer Alex Turner's voice is typically Baritone, but he can do hgh notes without any problem. Two songs where he makes his voice go higher are "One For The Road" and "Knee Socks". I will put these songs in. As you can see, they make their lyric videos quite theatrical and pleasing to the eye.____________________________________________________________________
Battle Of The Bands II

This is my second band-battle I've had with my friendly opponent, brandenschirpke117. RULES: -Neither of us can use the same band as last time. I can't use The Killers and he can't use Anti-Flag. -No solo artists (i.e. no Justin Timberlake or Justin Bieber) -Band must be popular now (i.e. no classic rock like Chicago, Styx, The Doors, etc.) -Debate structure must go like this:ROUND 1: Acceptance/Statement Of BandROUND 2: First Arguments/First RebuttalsROUND 3: Second Arguments/Second RebuttalsROUND 4: Third Arguments/Third RebuttalsROUND 5: Fourth Rebuttals/Concluding ArgumentsThe band I choose is Arctic Monkeys:
Obama's plan to tax the rich would do little to solve the debt problem.

Even though Con's arguments are copied, I would argue them if they were relevant to the debate. The point of e copied argument is that it is unfair to tax the rich as proposed. The debate topic is not about that, but rather how much revenue is likely to be raised if the Buffett Plan were enacted. con's case does not address the topic.If Con thinks I mischaracterized the Con position, it is appropriate to argue that in the debate.My arguments are extended.
Obama's plan to tax the rich would do little to solve the debt problem.

Apparently someone created an account to kill this topic. The account was created one minute before accepting the debate.In any case, con's arguments are a word-for-word copy of an article posted on American Thinker, http://www.americanthinker.com... since the source is not acknowledged, this is a conduct violation.The undited copy-and-paste produces the wall-of-text style problem,My opponent has not won any debates, so is in violation of the rule requiring an experienced debater.The first round is for acceptance only. Con violated the rule by spamming in the opening round.The argument presented does not address the resolution. The article copied argues that increasing taxes on the rich would be unfair, a conservative viewpoint as one would expect from American Thinker. the debate is solely about how much revenue the Buffet Plan would raise, not whether it is fair or unfair.The revenue is at most 3% of the deficitAn optimistic estimate of the revenue generated is"In 2008, there were 236,883 tax filers reporting income of $1 million or more. The Patriotic Millionaires, a group advocating the repeal of the Bush tax cuts on tax filers making $1 million or more a year, estimated that their plan would raise $500 billion to $600 billion over 10 years." [P2. http://blogs.wsj.com... ]That includes implied savings in interest on the national debt. "the tax would actually raise $40 billion to $50 billion a year: equal to about 3% of the annual federal deficit." [P2]The revenue would actually be substantially less than the optimistic estimate, because the rich are able to evade taxes by not taking capital gains and by moving money to offshore accounts.The revenue raised would be trivial compared to the magnitude of the deficit problem. The resolution is affirmed.
0=information=nothing

1) Any number divided by zero equals infinity... Why? Take for example 3 divided by 1, that equals 3.. 3 is the initial number, 1 is the divider number, the second number 3 is the resulting number Okay, let's take 3 divided by 0.1, that equals 30... 3 divided by 0.01, that equals 300 3 divided by 0.001, 3000 What conclusion can we take from this? As the divider number gets smaller, the resulting number gets bigger... Number A divided by number B equals number C, but the same number A equals a bigger number than C if divided by a smaller number than B... Since 0 is the smallest number around, any number divided by the smallest number possible should equal the biggest number possible... So as the divider number gets closer to zero or the smallest number possible, the resulting number gets closer to the biggest number possible What is the biggest number possible? Is it 9999999? Or 99999999999999999999999999999? Try mentioning the biggest number you can imagine, there will always be an even bigger number than it .. So scholars have come up with something we call infinity.. Therefore any number divided by zero equals infinity ... ******************************************************** 2) 1+0 is indeed 1. You're correct because technically nothing is added in that mathematical expression ******************************************************** 3) 6*0=6?? No, 6*0 is 0 To explain that, let's go back to the defintion of multiplication... when you multiply a number by another number, there are a certain amount of copies of the first number added together. How many copies, look at the second number... so 2*2= 2+2 ... Because there are two copies of the same number added together 2*3= 2+2+2 because there are three copies of the same number added together 2*1 = 2.. Because there is only one copy of number 2 added together So logically, 2*0 means zero copies of the same number added together ... So no numbers are added, That means 2*0 is 0...
Nuclear weapons are necessary for a state and each country should be allowed to own them

You are welcome, and there is no need to apologize. "I will argue that these weapons are necessary in that it is now to late to eradicate them. " This is a weak argument. If it is late to remove a problem, does it mean that the problem should be strengthened further, rather than being weakened, although not eradicated? "Therefore, we must allow each state to own them so as to keep a balance of power in the world. " What kind of balance would there be? Somalia with nuclear weapons would not be able to attack Russia, in most cases. South Africa would hardly hit any country on any other continent (besides Antarctica) than its own. The countries with nuclear weapons are also the countries with some of the most powerful militaries in the world. Even if all countries in the world started possessing nuclear weapons, there would still be a disadvantage. The militarily powerful states would not only be able to attack more effectively, but they would also stand strong in defense. Moving on, my opponent expands on his argument by setting up a hypothetical scenario. However, his argument does not get much stronger. The fact is that even if China attacked a country that does not have nuclear weapons, it would most likely be attacked back by its allies and the international community. If China attacked Denmark, then USA, which possesses nuclear weapons, would step into the fight because it has a defense treaty that belongs to NATO. Therefore, there is no need for every country to have nuclear weapons in order to create a balance between the states. To conclude, my opponent has made interesting points, but they are nevertheless not very strong. He has not refuted my arguments either. On top of that, I would like to add that a country does not need nuclear weapons in order to be mighty. SFRY (former Yugoslavia) did not possess these weapons, it did not have ties to NATO or the Warsaw Pact, yet it didn't get invaded by either side, and it has one of the most powerful militaries in Europe, even in the world, disregarding nuclear weapons. The resolution is negated.
Nuclear weapons are necessary for a state and each country should be allowed to own them

I will argue that these weapons are necessary in that it is now to late to eradicate them. By this I mean by this that the best solution possible is to totally deactivate and destroy these deadly weapon, however, it is perhaps too late to do that. Therefore, we must allow each state to own them so as to keep a balance of power in the world. Let's say that country A owned nuclear weapons and B did not. In this hypothetical scenario, there would exist an imbalance of power between the states. A would exercise too much power and perhaps cause a threat to B because of its ownership of deadly weapons. Entering into country A's thinking, one may find such ideas as "I have a greater military power over my neighbor B, I can harass him, cause fear and almost control it". B's mind will be filled with such thoughts as "Yes, B can destroy me, I am militarily incapable of defending myself against A if he were to attack me. While this is not a perfect picture, I dare to say that this is the world in 2011. States with Nuclear power, namely US, Russia, China, etc, exercise threatening power over those states that do not own nuclear weapons. There is a problem akin to the A/B countries scenario. To solve this, it would be good to allow each state, A and B, the ability to own and make Nuclear weapons--this would balance the power and bring leaders of all states to act sensitively in relation to other states militarily. When all have these weapons, B states can now feel more secure. And A can act be more sensitive as it is now more worried about its well being. I suggested that all states should own these weapons not because I am fond of nuclear wars. It is a know fact that Nuclear weapons is an issue, it has created tensions in the world. This is because some states have them and some don't. Those who do threaten those who don't. Giving each state freeway to handle these weapons could create a more secure world. Each state would be equally insecure and equally safe.
The worst type in pokemon

I will now address the contentions made in R2. No new arguments will be made, only rebuttals. "Bug type pokemon, are officially the worst type of pokemon in the game (excluding heracross, he's bug/fighting, sooo. .. ). . http://www.thetoptens.com...; The source is, in no way, official. It may offer some insight into a popular opinion about the subject but is not endorsed or supported by those who produce the game. "Overall, people just straight up hate them, including me. " "As you can see, other people also agree with me. " The idea that the amount of people alone make an idea correct, plausible, or anyhow encouraged is a logical fallacy. This is called "An appeal to popular vote". If we all decide that slavery is A OK, does that make it right? I hope your response is "No". "They have horrible HP, bad attack(except for megahorn), horrible defense, bad sp attack, horrible sp defense, and bad speed. " In comparison to the other type averages, the bug type does have lower average stats. However, it is only 45 points, at max level, lower than the type of Fighting. That is one of the biggest gaps in stats. This difference is a small difference over all the stats, showing that the stats arguments is invalid. In addition, the Pokemons speed is above average as well as its evasiveness. "Bug type pokemon, to a pokemon gamer, are just a challenge to try to train them to be their best, but end up getting creamed by the fire elite four member. I once fought somebody with all of his pokemon being bug type, and creamed them all with a lvl 32 charmander. Good enough for u? " While I do find your feat impressive, i cannot take this as evidence because it is anecdotal evidence. One example that you provide cannot reinforce every instance. Scientists do not perform just one trial or test; they perform multiple tests to see if their own error could of skewed the results. My opponent has not demonstrated an objective reason why Bug pokemon are worse than any other type. i apologize for the forfeit, and will concede all conduct points for this debate.