BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Plastic surgery in Islam

As said in Islam, It is forbidden to do plastic surgery, because it may seem like you are not happy with what your God created you as. But i still don't get why other muslims still get plastic surgery. They call themselves muslims, but still, they get plastic surgeries! Why? Take for an example this article from Fashionista "How entrepreneur and beauty sensation Huda Kattan handles Instafame", Huda both states "I have gone under the knife. I've never said I haven't had plastic surgery. I've talked about fillers" and "I'm Muslim and I get a lot of mean comments from people. (...)" Some people judge her daughter by her mustache, and Huda just says "When she's 19 she'll laser it off, it's fine." The same goes with drinking. Why are muslim men allowed to drink and party in their religion without it being frowned upon, but when women do it, it is terrible, and they should be ashamed of themselves? I have a religion assigment on plastic surgery, and I was supposed to explain Islam's point of view when it comes to plastic surgery. But i still have to explain, why muslims sin anyway.
The Minimum Wage

Well, I am glad to see that you have nothing to say about my previous argument after I spent so long typing it. So, I will just continue by replying to your points. 1. Just because the minimum wage was higher (when indexed for inflation) in the past does not mean that it was a good idea then. Just like it is not a good idea now. If you would like to know why it is not a good idea, refer to R1. 2. Not a monumental pay raise? Really? You are talking about raising the minimum wage a whopping forty percent. Plus, everyone making between the minimum wage and 10.10 would also get a pay raise. That is a lot of extra money spent on payroll. Furthermore, what about the people making 10.20 dollars per hour. Do they get a raise too? No. They have worked hard, paid their dues, and in turn would have nothing to show for it. 3. I find it hard to believe that after R1 you still believe that the minimum wage would help either the economy or the individual. When people are unemployed because of the price floor, see how that effects aggregate demand. 4. The majority of people on the minimum wage are either young or retired. Not everyone working a minimum wage job is impoverished. Minimum wage jobs were never designed to support someone's family. They were designed to offer an on-the-job training to young people to introduce them to the workforce and allow them to move through the ranks of society one step at a time. This is something that will simply not happen post increase in the minimum wage. 5. So what? Eighty percent of Americans no nothing about elementary economics. We should not rely on ignorant/stupid people to make decisions for us.
The Minimum Wage

The resolution is whether or not the minimum wage ought be raised. To 10 $ 1. In reality, the minimum wage should be at least 10 that is if the federal minimum wage was indexed to inflation and to our times. However the issue is it is not. (1) 2. That’s first order. 10$ isn’t exactly demanding a monumental pay raise. It’s more of just keeping what should be. The Federal minimum wage hasn’t been raised in over six years, given that if it had kept up with inflation since its peak in the 1960s it would be well over 10$ an hour.(1) Many fast food workers have been protesting and calling for a 15$ minimum wage-Not to say I endorse or support this – just stating this is more inline with what civil rights activists demanded in the 1960s (2) 3. improve the economy. Contrary to falsely held views, research very strongly supports and indicates that given it passed , it would likely help businesses through augmenting demand , lowering turnover , increasing prices and thus significantly improving the economy , due to greater spending money for consumers. (3) (4) 4. It would catapult millions out of poverty Full time minimum wage works in our current economy earn a mere $14,500. That is $3,000 below the poverty line. The wage simply isn’t nowhere near enough to pay a suitable rent in any state. Just a bump to 10 bucks, would catapult 6 million out of poverty. 5. Americans are overwhelmingly in support of it. A poll reported that 80 percent of Americans support raising the minimum wage to $10. (5) Sources 1. http://thinkprogress.org... 2. http://thinkprogress.org... 3. http://thinkprogress.org... 4. http://thinkprogress.org... 5. http://www.occupy.com... 6.
Gun Control Doesn't Prevent Violence at all.

Gun control would probably prevent some mass shootings. But overall, it does not decrease overall homicide rates and how many people are killed by others, in many cases increasing that number. In most western countries, the more guns per residents, the safer the country is. Some examples of this are Switzerland, Sweden, and Norway, having 30-45 guns per 100 residents. All these Western countries rank on the top 17 safest countries on the Global Peace Index. Also, those countries all have less than .24 firearm related homicides per 100,000 residents per year. Lastly, one can see that countries with less guns, like Honduras where there are 6 guns per 100 residents, there will likely be more gun violence, like Honduras with nearly 67 homicides per 100,000 residents. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...
Gun Control Doesn't Prevent Violence at all.

Well, to say gun violence is not affected by how easily one can get their hands on a gun seems a little rushed. Gun control may not prevent crimes, but it's a lot harder to instigate a massacre when you are armed with a knife (Assuming we're discussing a hypothetical complete firearm ban) compared to the type of guns legal in the united states (such as the M134 general electric mini-gun or several assault rifles in certain states). Granted, Britain's crime rate did rise after the ban, but if you believe gun control makes things worse, would you support full legalization of any and all weapons, since banning them only makes it worse? Additional argument: It's no secret that the majority of lone-wolf shooters are mentally ill in one form or another, and those with that type of disability would be hard-pressed to make the connections required to procure a firearm in an all-out ban.
Gun Control Doesn't Prevent Violence at all.

Gun control does not prevent violence. It will either do nothing or make things worse in most circumstances. I understand that gun control does not equal banning guns, but in places where guns have been banned, after the ban rates of robbery, assault and sexual assault have gone up. But say guns weren't banned. Say there were just strict laws put in place. Well, in Canada, when strict gun legislation was put in place, their homicide rate went from 7% to 35% of the homicide rate of the United States. Also, gun control doesn't even prevent people from getting guns. Actually, in England, when handguns were banned, firearm use doubled! Lastly, for more proof that gun control doesn't even control guns, look at China and The Philippines, where guns are virtually banned but can be easily accessed through street vendors. Gun control either does nothing or makes things worse.
Pick your topic : Team Debate

Team Pro 1.Mikal2.WhiteflameTeam Con1. Genghis Khan2. WyltedThe resoultion our adversaries chose is underlined. They are con on this debateShared BOP on all topics. 1) Commoditizing citizenship (Pro)2) Mandatory vaccinations (Pro)3) Ration end of life care (Pro)4) Prohibit genetically engineered babies (Con)5) Artificial Intelligence Should Be Treated as Life (Pro)6) Gun Ban (Con)The full resolution is as follows. Resolution - The MMR vaccine should be mandatory in America. MMR Vaccine - The measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccineMandatory - required by law or rules; compulsory.America - United States of AmericaRules:1. Forfeiting results in a loss of conduct or possibly the debate2. Any citations or sources must be used within the character limit of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling or semantics6. No K's of the topic7. My opponent accepts all of the following definitions and waives his/her right to challenge these definitions8. The BOP is shared9. First round is acceptance only. This debate has been set to be impossible to accept, so if you wish to do so, say so in the comments. If you find a way to accept the debate without me approving it, you will FF the debate. 10. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss of a conduct point and due to the severity of the breach may merit an entire FF of the debate.Structure Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Pro's case, Cons CaseRound 3: Rebuttals, Rebuilding CaseRound 4: Closing, Final Rebuttals, Finalizing ones case
Freddie Mercury is the Best Singer of All Time

Thank you for your opening statements. Yes, judging singing capability is somewhat subjective. While you may like someone I don't like, the other way around, both of us hating them, or, our situation, both of us liking them, then that is subjective, but only on how much you like them. But range isn't subjective. Like I said in my opening statements, Freddie Mercury had a range of between four and five octaves, which means he must have been able to control his voice so he could, of course, sing. So yes, there is, technically, a parameter for measuring voice. Also, relating to how we rate media, many people cite best movies of all time. The history of film is much shorter than music by all means, but who knows, there may be an independent film, a foreign film, or something we simply haven't seen yet. While you may say this is breaking my own argument, I'll bring something up: IMDB top ten movies [1] 1. The Shawshank Redemption 2. The Godfather 3. The Godfather: Part II 4. The Dark Knight 5. Schindler's List 6. Pulp Fiction 7. 12 Angry Men 8. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King 9. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly 10. Fight Club These movies are all considered the best movies of all time. But how do they determine that it's the best movie? How can you say The Dark Knight is better than Pulp Fiction? I think it's compare and contrast, in many respects. What do they do that's unique? What do they excellence at? What do they have in common? I've seen both The Dark Knight and Pulp Fiction and they are very different movies, even though they are both, technically, action. The two best things about each movie (Dark Knight's Joker and Pulp Fiction's dialogue) are both completely different, but one can still choose one over the other based on their own merits. The same can be said for singers, like comparing Mercury to Lennon, Carrey, or Dylan. They all have one thing in common: they all are musicians. Really, that is the only basic thing they have in common. When you compare all four, you can measure all on their own merits, like with film. Their range, unique voice, charm, stage presence, and personal presence can all be acknowledged to give you an opinion of the artist. Let's compare Christina Aguilera and Johnny Cash. Even though Aguilera can hit the high notes that Cash can't, Cash has a better voice and more charisma than her. With the example, I would say that Mercury stands out as a fantastic figure of his genre and with his combined range, voice talent, stage presence, and so on, he rises above all. Thank you. I look forward to your rebuttal.
Freddie Mercury is the Best Singer of All Time

I happen to be new on this website so I didn't knew that I had to post my arguments in second round (My apologies for that), so I am re-posting that- First of all naming ANYONE the best singer of ALL time, that's preposterous, because unless you have a gigantic group of humans who are like 2000 year old or something having photographic memory, it's just not reasonable. The history of Music goes thousands of years back so we just don't know that there might be someone better than Freddie Mercury. I certainly believe that Freddie mercury is an exceptional singer but best singer of ALL TIME, that's absurd. Then judging someone's singing capability is extremely subjective like, I like someone, Somebody else likes someone else, hence comparing them needs a parameter and there is no parameter on which we can judge a singer 500 years back and Freddie mercury so that's my basic point against naming anyone best of all time. we don't have to forget that in the span of these 200 years itself there were John Lennon, Bob Dylan, Mariah Carey and many others. I don't say that they were better than Freddie mercury ( I am personally a fan of Freddie Mercury) But someone might feel that they were. I have said it time and again that I am familiar with his contribution in music industry but my question is - Is it rational or logical to name anyone the best singer of all time? So I would like conclude by saying Freddie Mercury is great,hands down, but BEST of ALL TIME you might wanna reconsider that.
Freddie Mercury is the Best Singer of All Time

Thank you for your acceptance. Sure, I would've liked to see the argument in this round, but it's just fine. Personal insult is just unprofessional, so none will be used on any side of the debate. I'll start with my arguments. (Some of these paragraphs are taken from another argument I made about Queen. All of it was written by me. For full assurance, you can check my 'Queen is the Best Rock Band of All Time' debate. Just letting you know.) Aside from being one of the most iconic singers of the 20th century, Freddie Mercury had quite a lot of experience. In Queen, he did the lead vocals, some backup vocals, and played the guitar and piano. Even though he had a baritone speaking voice, his singing range included F2- E6, to F6 and F5. Mercury had over a four octave range while most people have only a two or three octave range. Mercury also wrote a majority of Queen's songs. This includes 'Bohemian Rhapsody', 'Somebody to Love', 'Don't Stop Me Now', 'Under Pressure', 'We Are The Champions', 'We Will Rock You', 'Another One Bites The Dust', etc. I can go on forever of all the songs he's written for Queen! These are some of the most memorable songs of all time. Also, his stage presence was truly fantastic. Mercury wore strange outfits confidently and pranced around the stage with tremendous vigor and energy. It was incredibly contagious. Just listening to the live recordings with no visuals assured you that he loved every minute of it. It was amazing that Mercury still performed when he was in excruciating pain inflicted by AIDS. Not only did Freddie Mercury take on rock and its different genres, but he also did an opera album called Barcelona with Montserrat Caball". This was his first time doing anything like this, but it was a successful attempt and many praised Mercury for his second solo album. Sadly though, this was his last solo album before he died of complications from AIDS. In conclusion, Freddie Mercury sang and wrote some of most iconic songs in history, had a memorable and incredibly energetic stage presence, and did an outrageous jump from rock to opera that proved to be successful. Thank you. I'm looking forward to your rebuttal.
Freddie Mercury is the Best Singer of All Time

First of all naming ANYONE the best singer of ALL time, that's preposterous, because unless you have a gigantic group of humans who are like 2000 year old or something having photographic memory, it's just not reasonable. The history of Music goes thousands of years back so we just don't know that there might be someone better than Freddie Mercury. I certainly believe that Freddie mercury is an exceptional singer but best singer of ALL TIME, that's absurd. Then judging someone's singing capability is extremely subjective like, I like someone, Somebody else likes someone else, hence comparing them needs a parameter and there is no parameter on which we can judge a singer 500 years back and Freddie mercury so that's my basic point against naming anyone best of all time. we don't have to forget that in the span of these 200 years itself there were John Lennon, Bob Dylan, Mariah Carey and many others. I don't say that they were better than Freddie mercury ( I am personally a fan of Freddie Mercury) But someone might feel that they were. So I would like conclude by saying Freddie Mercury is great but BEST of ALL TIME you might wanna reconsider that . P.S.- Don't resort to personal insult or anything like that, because that will prove nothing but the fact that you don't have any points.
WW3 will not be a nuclear war.

Pro has forfeited this round. Please extend my arguments. --- Last Round: This will be my last debating round. I have agreed to forgo the last round, because the debate was "FRA" (First Round Acceptance) and, unknowing of this, I posted my argument in the first round. Pro has agreed that this nullifies any conduct violation. As such, I will be presenting my summary this round. --- RFD Summary: Conduct: Clear Con vote. Pro forfeited a round; Con did not. Further, Pro and Con have agreed to ignore Con's first round posting in return for forgoing next round, which Con will do. As such, Pro has the only conduct violation. Grammar: No vote. Neither debater was significantly different, for better or worse, in their spelling and grammar. Arguments: Clear Con vote. Pro did not prove that WW3 is necessary, that a non-nuclear WW3 is necessary, that Pro has perfect knowledge, that WW3 is likely, or that a nuclear WW3 is unlikely. Con proved, with reputable sources, that a nuclear WW3 is not unlikely and, if WW3 is going to happen, possibly necessary to break the hard modern peace. Sources: Clear Con vote. Pro's only source was from RaptureForums, which is biased and flawed, while Con cited Senator Richard Luger's survey of national security experts and Joshua Goldstein of Foreign Policy.
WW3 will not be a nuclear war.

The impact of two or three 100 megaton Tsar Nukes can destroy the entire mainland of Europe within milliseconds. These rapid firing nukes, even if blown over the ocean which can cause sea life damage. If plankton were to go extinct , 15 years all the humans will be dead. You have so much smoke from these explosions and fire storm raging for hundreds of miles each way. Mass forest fires all create smoke. Smoke so much the sun will get blocked. Only for about a year or two, no more like a few thousand years. Not just -40 and below weather try -40 with nuclear snow. The welts will be so bad and the cancer wheww! The governments no this, they are not stupid, they understand. They have them for military muscles. If anything were to happen first thing an true official oath treaty or some measure to to stop that from killing billions of innocents and fight like real men because hey they draft people! I don't really like to use sources, these are opinion debates not factual, or do i have to say that in the beginning? http://www.raptureforums.com...
A hood is a hat.

I would like to counterattack your argument of definitions, and that they are in fact not the same; you state that a hat is a "shaped covering for the head, usually with a crown and brim, esp. for wear outdoors.", and that a hood is a a "soft or flexible covering for the head and neck, either separate or attached to a cloak or coat" And that you claim that these two definitions are relative to each other based on one condition; they both are shaped coverings for the head. Because one definition is relative to another, doesnt mean that they are the same things. A cookie a cupcake are both edible, but they are not the same. A book and a webpage can both be read, but are not the same. Los Angeles and Atlanta are both places, but are not the same. They are not exact copies, but share certain subcategoires; cookies and cupcakes are both foods (although at times oversweetened and fattening), books and (educational) webpages are both forms of literature, Los Angeles and Atlanta are both cities. Hoods and hats are both kinds of headgear, but are not exact copies. Hoods are not hats. Hats can be worn year-round. Winter hats in the fall and spring, baseball caps in the spring and summer. Hoods can be only worn when the cloak, coat or sweatshirt is appropriate; how many hoods do you see being donned in the heat of the summer? Also, the process of sale is different. Hats are sold individually, as their own product, nothing more. Hoods are sold in connection with the coat or sweatshirt, with the focus not being on the style of hood or hat, but on the torso-wear. How many single hoods do you see raking in profits? If so, let me know. Hats are hats. Hoods are hoods. Hoods are not hats, and hats are not hoods.
A hood is a hat.

Hoods and hats are two compltetely different forms of headwear. While both cover the head, a hood is primarily found on coats, sweatshirts, and more popularly these days, "hoodies". Hoods are merely pieces of other articles of clothing, mainly for colder weather, that assist in keeping the head warm along with the torso. Hats are a wider spectrum of headgear. Hats come in many different styles and shapes, while hoods are nearly always seen as amorphous blobs, made of the same material that its attatched clothing is made of. Styles of hats vary as such: Baseball caps Knitted winter hats Leather caps Cowboy hats Fitted caps Chef hats Skater hats Pork Pie hats Straw hats Newsboy caps Top hats Crotchet hats Cloche hats Stovepipe hats The list goes on. I will go deeper into this later, and await my opponent's first rebuttal.
Polygamy should be legalized in the West

. . . I've been very busy. ~~~~~~~ Rebuttals ~~~~~~~ ///1. Numerical superiority of females over males:. .. The right to marriage is a fundamental right of all human beings. It is just as significant a right as our right to freedom or our right to security. The bottom line is: if Polygamy isn't legalized, all these extra females will without doubt be denied of this fundamental right. Here is the justice in that? /// [Here my opponent misinterprets the meaning of the right to marry. It does not mean that every individual who wants to get married can not be denied the outcome of marriage. It means that everyone should have the opportunity to pursue marriage. To get married there must currently be two consenting parties. To summarize: My rights are not being violated if I want to get married but nobody wants to marry me. ] ~ ///2. Males are naturally polygamous:/// [I don't see how this contention applies to the topic at hand. Wanting sex has nothing to do with marriage as marriage is a legal process a couple undergoes to gain civil rights. Let's lagalize polygamy because men want sex is a non-sequiter. ] ~ ///3. Polygamy in the middle east:/// [My opponent did not source any information about how polygamy is successful in the Middle-East. I will leave this point unaddressed until he does so. ] ~ ///4. Polygamy has been around since the dawn of mankind:/// [Blatant appeal to tradition coupled with a lot of unsourced information. ] ~ ///5. Religion does not really forbid polygamy:. .. It has just turned out to be that way in the West due to church influence. /// [Who cares? This is a debate about matters of law and in the West religious preference as nothing to do with the law. Also, church influence is not the deciding factor with polygamy. ] ~ I look forward to my opponent's defence.