BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
WE should act now to stop bullying

Though we are in the 21st century there are a lot of problems. One them is connected to one of the most cardinal responsibilities of children. Today, the number of bullying is increasing. I believe that bullying should not be tolerated. This has become a major issue especially in well-developed countries. There are different types of bullying. In the 21st century there is a new different type of bullying. Cyber bullying has become a fashion for bullies these days because of modern technology. Cyber bullies use electronics to bully such as cell phone messages, computer e-mail, etc. Cyber bullying involves recurring or repeating harm inflicted through technology. The main reason why some bullies use this way is because in some places such as the internet, people are hard to identify. This will mean that the bully will be less likely to be caught. A study by Campbell of Year 8 students in Queensland, Australia found 14% had been a victim of cyber-bullying, 11% admitted to bullying, while 25% knew someone who had bullied. Evidence suggests that girls are more involved than boys as they are more likely to communicate regularly. It has been reported on the internet that cyber bullying may be influenced by videos that are uploaded on video sharing. Websites which contain offensive act or acts of bullying. Another interesting finding was that 10% indicated that another person has taken a picture of them via a cellular phone camera, consequently making them feel uncomfortable, embarrassed, or threatened.
killer whales kept in captivity

I agree with you but do you realise that you are supposed to be going for killer whales being kept in captivity and I'm against. did you know that the killer whales in sea world are so depressed that they repetitively hit there head on the wall to kill themselves this has resulted in them being given anti depressants, the same as humans. this makes me so sad, it is like being trapped in a bathtub for 25 years.
McDonald"s must stop discriminating against poor families in the North of England

I argue that discrimination by McDonald's is generally a good thing and contribute to the well being of the public especially of poor families.While discrimination is detrimental to McDonald's image, it is something that we as a public must accept as a positive development.Food at McDonald's are generally unhealthy and is proven to induce obesity. And when controversies like GMOs and discrimination arise, this sheds the disillusionment that people have with McDonald's and start to view their products, service and food with more scrutiny.McDonald's mistake is an opportunity to raise awareness of health issues in the local community, and promote local farm produce that are healthier, sustainable and one that contributes to long-term non-discriminatory employment.Needless to say, the world is better off without McDonalds. The faster they make blunders, the faster we can expect them to be erased from human history.It is at the end of the day just another corporation. It is a not a necessary fixture of human civilization. While there is no harm in seeking profit, companies like McDonalds have caused more harm than good with regards to health issues.The faster communities like in North England evict McDonalds and bear the issues to their MPs, the faster we see local governments and other corporations heed towards the real needs of the community in addressing sustainability and health.
McDonald"s must stop discriminating against poor families in the North of England

The greed and incompetence of London's investment bankers that caused the economic recession in Britain has had far-reaching implications for ordinary people in the North of England - decent, hard-working people who had nothing to do with the fraud and chicanery that caused the financial crisis - yet they are the ones that are suffering most. One of the effects of the recession is that many ordinary people up North can no longer afford to own decadent consumer items such as cars and have been obliged to revert to old-fashioned horses as their primary mode of transport. In addition, cash-strapped Northern families can no longer afford to eat out in fancy restaurants on special occasions and instead have to dine in fast food joints such as McDonald's for treats. However, when one woman and her daughter rode their horse and pony into the drive-thru at a branch of McDonald's in Whitefield, Greater Manchester, the snobby, toffee-nosed staff flatly refused to take their order, presumably judging them to be under-class scum because they couldn't afford a car, and they even called the police to escort them off the premises. Greater Manchester Police stated: "On Saturday, July 20, police from Whitefield received a call from McDonald's on Fountain Place regarding a woman on a horse using the drive-thru. The staff refused to serve the woman due to company policy". http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk... So what "company policy" is that then? Over in America, which is McDonald's homeland, a cowboy on horseback using a McDonald's drive-thru is an everyday sight, as these photographs clearly prove... http://imgace.com... http://www.flickr.com... Once again, it's one rule for gun-toting, tobacco-chewing, Stetson-wearing, rye whiskey-quaffing, Red Indian-fighting, Country and Western-yodelling, all-American cowboys and another for poor families in the North of England who can't afford cars, and it's time for McDonald's to put a stop to this blatant discrimination. Thank you.
Gay Marriage

Not everyone is religious. We all have different beliefs and have the right to be a part of which ever religion we want to. Being that not everyone believes in the same thing, when people take action on something that another person believes is wrong, it shouldn't directly affect you. Others peoples actions should not make one feel differently about your beliefs. If someone is strongly against gay marriage, but gay couple are being united in marriage, it should not bother them because they have no control out of it. People should stick to their beliefs and not be concerned of others doing what they believe is wrong. We all obviously have different viewpoints on everything, we are not expected to agree with everything. Therefore, gay marriage is one of those issue in which people who are against it should let it go and gays should be able to be united in marriage just as heterosexual couples are. We have all at one point in our lives been told to not stay hung up on others decisions. One should be solely worried about the life they live and not try to bud into others. It is now 2012 and we should have the right to marry who we want to. Gay marriages do not cause violence and do not harm anyone therefore it should not be restricted. In the end, a marriage is a marriage, and couples go into it for the same reasons no matter if you are straight or gay.
Gay Marriage

Simply because many people are against gay marriage doesn't automatically mean that a gay couple getting married is wrong. The people who are not for gay marriages shouldn't be worried about this issue because it is irrelevant to their lives. If a gay couple gets married, what difference will it make to one life? None. The marriage of a gay couple will not directly affect the life's of others in any way shape or form. Therefore, the opinions of those who are against gay marriage shouldn't affect this issue.
Gay Marriage

Marriage is already threatened with high divorce rates (between 40% and 50%) and with 40.6% of babies being born to unmarried mothersin 2008. Allowing same-sex couples to marry would further weaken the institution. Gay marriage undermines family values because it undermines the whole concept of marriage, which should be between a man and a woman. Most religions see homosexuality as morally wrong. Opposition to gay marriage based on religious conviction is entirely justified. Gay marriages confuse gender roles for children. Children who are adopted need a mother and a father, not two parents of the same gender, even if married. One of the main historical principles behind marriage is that a man and a woman commit to each other so that they can have children together, but a gay couple cannot procreate. Legalizing gay marriage further undermines the family values which hold society together and it encourages a gay lifestyle, which has been shown to be detrimental to people, with gay people having higher incidents of mental illness, suicide rates, problems with addiction etc.
Gay Marriage

People should have the right to marry who they want to. Gay couples share the same love as heterosexual couples. Nothing should be able to put a hold on their ability to get married. Many gay couples adopt children to raise as their own. Many kids are put up for adoption and since gay couples can't reproduce they're own, they adopt children who don't have caregivers of their own. This is advantageous because these kids are put into homes with people who will love and care for them. I have heard many stories of kids who have same-sex parents. One wouldn't even be able to tell that they had parents of the same sex; they aren't raised any different. If the couple lives together, maintain a household and raise children just as a heterosexual couple does, why can't they get married just like this couple. The only difference in this situation is solely that one person is not the opposite sex. Considering that there is not much to differentiate of the two couples, why treat them differently and give more rights and benefits to only one. The outcome of both marriages would have a minimal difference. They are both in it for the same reasons.
Gay Marriage

Gay marriage defeats the purpose of marriage. Marriages were built upon the idea of heterosexual couples uniting to raise a family. People who are pro gay marriage usually have the claims that marriage is about love, but this is far from true. If marriage is about love, then why is the state involved? They are involved due to some sort of interest. If the goverment cared about love, then they would attempt to regulate and control friendships or non marital relationships. The reason they regulate marriage over these other relationships is because marriage is where you are meant to produce a larger workforce.
Homosexuality with a twist

The argument of homosexuality is always Con using religion and pro using every thing else. In this the Pro side may only use religion (specifically Christianity) and the Con, I, cannot use religion at all. This is homosexuality in general, 8000 words, so its not specific, just themed with 4 rounds, and this first round as Acceptance. Be as broad as you like in which aspect you take up, I am currently looking into homosexuality in marriage in correlation to the current American debate and also homosexuality in more natural terms. Round 2 = Arguments Round 3 = Rebuttals Round 4 = Conclusions
Homosexuality with a twist

Gays should enter a union, not a marriage. Even the Merriam Webster dictionary says Marriage is for 2 people of the opposite sex [1]. This playing with semantics, there is a difference in the nature of the relationship when both of the gender, so there must be a different title. One should be able to sign whatever rights to whomever, but these terms are meant to be specifically broad terms such as animal, it covers many organisms, but plants can only take on that term in the form of a metaphor or simile to prevent confusion. Vote Con! (Though I concede his rebuttal was vastly superior to my own) [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Homosexuality with a twist

Rebuttal: My opponent makes claim that Jesus said to accept all, this is true, but Jesus' purpose was not for condemnation, "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." John 3:17. He came to give the message "'The neither do I condemn you,' Jesus declared. ‘Go now and leave your life of sin,'" John 8:11, as to say we must repent for what is an error in the sight of God. The ways of sinning were already established, Jesus only came to forgive, not to abolish the laws, and to show men that they do not have the power, God is the final judgment, and as the following states, sinners will never enter Heaven. 1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God." Desmond Tutu and Al Sharpton statement is based on the assumption that homosexuality occurs naturally, and does not take the differentiation of nurture into account, for which a black cannot be turned into a White (Michael Jackson not included). The nature vs. nurture argument for homosexuality is still in tow. There is no definitive proof, for elvroinn's comment is the concept that will guide the research, but not the research itself. If it's a lifestyle and not a life itself, there statements become invalid as is it is the same as saying we should acknowledge serial killers and rapists because it is how they want to live. On the other hand, if its nature, it still goes back to the serial concept because the research is may become theory soon, as serial killer minds are being found to have and oddity in the frontal lobe of their brains in comparison to the mass populous. The beatitudes were to make claimant that the humble will be rewarded, not the flamboyant. This goes back to my previous paragraph, its making claim that this is a natural occurrence which has not been proven yet. It definitely can be proven one way or another, but our technology needs to be stronger so that we can read the builds up of the genome accurately. Homosexuality is being oppressed, but it is not weak unless you take the nurture argument and say: "They are weak, so they must be gay as homosexuality is effeminate submission," which does not cover the effeminate stereotypes, which is that lesbians are trying to take the role of the man.
Homosexuality with a twist

Marriage: Tax incentives for marriage were designed to encourage having children in an America that was rapidly giving females rights beyond the household, for women were being encouraged to attain jobs. Females would either hold off on having children or refuse to have them in general so that they could seek individual success that had always been restricted to the males. In a relationship by which natural children cannot be conceived, it breaks the purpose of marriage at the national level. One may argue that infertile marriages nullify this, but if a heterosexual marriage was blocked by the fertility of couple at the national level it gives the government the power of intervention in which hinders free will, but a homosexual relationship cannot induce conception so there is no precedence for the government to intervene, they are simply not giving the incentive. A government that does not give incentives differentiates from one that intervenes, for offering a reward to a heterosexual relationship is different than setting up camps to check fertility if the law was based around the fertility of the relationship. A governments' job is to the future through protection and the slightest of guidance when necessary, not to the happiness, the people make their own happiness through the freedoms encouraged by the government. Evolution: As Elvroinn_vonn_trazem stated in the comments: evolution has not been eliminated through natural selection, I wish to acknowledge this, and request it is read prior to the following: Natural selection does not choose the advantageous traits, it is completely random mutation with the assumption that the better traits will survive. Starting in Greek culture, civilization became a lot more stable in comparison to the tribes in the Fertile Crescent. There was war and famine, but the people had rulers with a set military protecting them. Natural selection for survival became less pertinent, it was more important for reproduction, which holds survival aspects in mating. This holds up in the United States even more, as mating has become a social game in which the males confidence is tested more than their survival capability. Moving further into evolution, its purpose is to create genetic diversity through the mating of heterosexual couples, which is impossible through homosexual relationships. Particularly when the citizens with the higher capacity to remember or comprehend concepts do not reproduce and continue their genetics, whether it is through homosexuality or a refusal to have children because of their individual success. To conclude my argument, homosexuals can marry into civil unions under national terminology, but they should not receive the same benefits as a heterosexual marriage since there is no prospect for children. Which also ties into the detriment that occurs in the evolutionary process as the number of genes reduces as the smartest, more powerful females choose to marry a female because they seek to be the dominate. Also, as this is my first debate, if you want to leave feedback in the comments or the opening of the next round, I would appreciate receiving such.
Gay Marriage should be allowed

My opponent has failed to respond and thus failed to uphold his own position or argue against mine. This means my points still stand. Just as a brief clarification, in the last round I stated the Constitution as being the document that proclaimed "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" were the unalienable rights. This was an incorrect statement, as it is the Declaration of Independence that proclaims these freedoms. My argument still stands, however, as does my point. Thank you.
Gay Marriage should be allowed

I apologize for short or non-elaborated arguments. I hadn't realized that this debate had a 1,000 character limit. Thanks for the debate. First of all, in the Constitution we are granted 3 unalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Marriage between two men in no way invokes upon other's right to those rights. By not allowing marriage to this class does, however, invoke their right to the pursuit of happiness. There are legal benefits that suit situations in which couples will be living together, sharing income, etc. that are only available to married couples. It is unfair to disallow this based on sex alone, as two men are just as capable of providing for society and a family as a man and woman are. Marriage is a way of showing your love to another person in the form of not only a legal title, but a social title as well. There is no logical reason as to why two men/women can't share this title as opposed to a man and a woman. So little space... :(
Obama's mouth is as big as he has lips and ears

He claims that Donald Trump is "unqualified" to be president. This is a guy that: - never ran a successful business - never had any meaningful accomplishments as a US senator - never had any meaningful accomplishments as a state senator - first promoted (false) hope and change, then following election simply promoted pushing forward. - was never qualified to even be a Mayor and handle a city, let alone a country - (here's the elephant in the room) he only got voted into due to "progressive" thinking that maybe a black guy could make a difference plain and simple, Obama has been the worst case of affirmative action in history. His biggest qualification for the Presidency is being black and getting virtually all the black vote. Under his rule, we can't even get this bathroom situation straight regarding mentally unbalanced people. what in the world is he thinking by criticizing a BILLIONAIRE?
Abortion as birth control should be illegal.

When asked directly for a "reason to reject either Roe V Wade or the 14th Constitutional Amendment," none has been provided. I have even offered to include any closing remarks from pro in with my own. Closing Remarks:My case was not actually in favor of abortion being a good thing, yet it remains a necessary option for many women, for a host of reasons men will never have. As men lack the ability to understand what the woman is going through, it should not fall to men to declare what a woman is or is not allowed to do to her body (notice the lack of changes in the male body during pregnancy, and men having never had to write their wills once pregnancy was discovered). Pro's resolution is thoroughly rejected.
Abortion as birth control should be illegal.

In short:Unenforceable.In detail:Abortion is a complex issue to which even the opposition to it tends to agree that it's a valid medical procedure, unfortunate, but sometimes necessary. This is compounded by the number of things that are likely to go wrong for the woman during a pregnancy, to include: Anemia, Depression, Ectopic pregnancy, Gestational diabetes, High blood pressure, Hyperemesis gravidarum, Placenta previa, Placental abruption, Toxemia [1].Such problems are further compounded by high cost of medical care even if nothing goes wrong, which one expert summarized as: "So how much does it cost to have a kid without insurance? According to my experience, just about $12,638.31" [2].Attempting to have no exceptions to allow abortion, leads to the level of negative intelligence seen in the United States House Committee on Science, Space and Technology's "legitimate rape" comments [3].However once decent and logical exceptions to allow it are in place, it becomes foolish to try to over regulate under what circumstances a woman is allowed the procedure... For sake of clarity, such reasons shall be laid out in the rebuttals, and use cross examination.Rebuttals:"Clinics ... should only give abortions to people who would either risk their lives to carry, or who were victims of rape or incest."In the case I rape I wholly agree she has a right to an abortion, due to the growing tissue inside her being a continuance of the initial violation.For rape or incest (both illegal in the USA), would a conviction be required before she gets the procedure, or a mere accusation? If a conviction: our legal system is very slow, possibly setting the abortion only being finally allowed sometime after the third trimester. If an accusation: innocent people would likely be accused, similar to the current problem of paternity fraud."The message we send to our kids about respecting life and making good decisions."Good decisions include financial decisions. Pregnancy as proven above, is very often a bad decision for such."If a man wants their child to be born and has means to support it, is it right the mother can still go have an abortion?"In such cases she could easily claim it's a different father. If any man claiming to be the father was enough to prevent (or delay until genetic testing is done) an abortion, there would probably be nutjobs activists going in and claiming to have fathered the child of any woman entering an abortion clinic (yes this would be fraud, but seeing how they've already done murders and kidnappings over the issue, I believe it's a fair prediction of their behavior)."There are other options, such as the morning after pill, condoms, withdrawal, IUD's, and etc."No option is guaranteed. Further getting into these moral areas, some states have inflicted the social experiment of teaching abstinence only, leading directly to increased pregnancy rates among the already financially disadvantaged [4].Sources:[1] http://www.womenshealth.gov...[2] http://www.babybankruptcy.com...[3] http://www.cnn.com...[4] http://thinkprogress.org...