BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Islam the true religion of God

Allah has created everything in the universe and in the heavens. There are strict protocols to follow as a Muslim but that is only to help us succeed in this world and in the hereafter. FOR EXAMPLE: A) Alcohol is the mother of all evils. Today, most people have to be sent to rehab and seek help because of this evil liquor. Most parents that do drink alcohol are abusive and may even abuse their own children. As you can see, Allah has given us a way to avoid ALL of this. B) Bacon is not healthy and Fast food restaurants can adhere too that. Although Bacon may be organic it also has saturated fats that can lead to heart problems. Allah has taught us to avoid this altogether. C) Porn is something that is disgraceful and a negative influence on the human body and soul. Those who watch porn and do so on a daily basis are more expected to act upon such an evil thing. It fills your mind with dirty things and can even effect your future. Most people who watch HARD porn on a daily basis are more prone to becoming rapists. Plus, this piece of junk degrades women for who they are and are used as material objects. Allah has raised the status of a women 3 times higher than that of a man. ALLAH KNOWS ALL AND THIS IS WHY WE SHOULD FOLLOW ISLAM.
Islam the true religion of God

Thanks Pro. C1. Bacon disproves Allah Bacon is the single most orgasmic food to have ever been conducted. It is single handedly capable of raising the dead and curing their hangover. Allah hates bacon, and allegedly put demons in it - however bacon is too delicious to be of demon origin. Because bacon is obviously of divine origins - it follows Allah cannot be the God in question that created it. C2. Beer Beer is awesome - it allows one to wash away their life's worries, grow pubic hair, and to induce involuntary nausea and amnesia with an act as simple as just consuming it. No rituals required. Given this transformation is akin to an old age miracle, and given that Allah hates booze - it follows that Beer too is of divine, yet not Islamic, origin. C3. Porn & Scarlett Johannsen Scarlett is obviously crafted of angels. Yet she is white, eats bacon, and is not Islamic. Ergo, Allah did not create her. If you follow Islam, you stand to love out on these divine gifts. All hail bacon!!
The Cogito is absolutly Certain

With only 30 minutes left to post my round, I'm going to have to (unfortunately) forfeit this round of the debate. I don't want to be penalized conduct points, considering my opponent has also forfeited a round... but given that I post last, this will seemingly turn into a one-round debate. Many apologies to both my opponent and the audience. I bit off a bit more than I could chew participating in 5 debates at once, and moreover, we only had 24 hours to post our rounds in this debate (which is a little silly). Again, many apologies and I look forward to reading Pro's case and writing my final round tomorrow.
The Cogito is absolutly Certain

Cogito Ergo Sum This is often phrased in English as "I think therefore I am" This debate will be about the certainty of self-existence I will be arguing for its Absolute certainty. Con will be arguing against it. Bop is on me Terms of acceptance 1. Appeal to authorty or references are NOT replacements for Arguments. 2. Principle of Charity=Conduct 4. The Most informative, precise, reasonable definitions are to be taken over others. Principle of Charity -respecting the most likly meaning of the debator. -giving the best representation of opponest arguments. -Assume your opponent to be rational and intellegent. -Vague language is to be avoided. -no semantic Games. -or playing to the definition(playing to the a particular definition of a word and not the subjected of detain Important definitions: Rational/reasonable: To think incoherence with logic. First round is acceptance. Opponent can start first round but then they cannot give an argument in the last round. Choice is theirs.
Restaurant bill's including automatic gratuity (tip)

It saddens me that my opponent could not continue this elaborate dance with words as dancing alone doesn't produce the kind of feeling which many enjoy. Alas, extend all of my arguments. Bottom line: My opponent has provided you with a good enough reason as to why restaurant bill's should coerce automatic gratuity (tips). On the other hand, I've pointed out the errors behind the very ideals in tipping and have shown why the procedure should not be obligated. Thus, you should vote in favor of my case. However, I understand that many of you wish to treat this as a mere poll. You're free to do this, but considering the new format this website is insured, I doubt you'll be able to do this for long. Anyway, thanks for reading. Hasta la vista, baby!
Restaurant bill's including automatic gratuity (tip)

Greetings. I would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate and would like to thank the voters for reading and choosing to vote based on who makes the better argument. With that said, let us proceed. First, the entire idea of tipping is basically an appeal to pity. Many consumer come into the restaurant thinking "Oh, he/she is only getting paid $2.13 per hour, so I think I'll show how good of a person I am by going out of my way to provide him/her with extra money." Unfortunately, the consumer fails to realize that consumers are the very reason tipping has become so mandated within our society. The REASON the employers even pay their employees that much is because they know a majority of the customers are going to fall for that guilt trap (or fall for some other superficial aspect) and pay 115-120% of their meal's price on average. However, if we (as the consumers) were to protest against this guilt trap, restaurants would have no choice but to start paying their employees minimum wage or more. Furthermore, studies have shown that most customers don't even determine their tips based on the quality of the actual service. New York Times: "Rather, customers are likely to tip more in response to servers touching them lightly and crouching next to the table to make conversation than to how often their water glass is refilled - in other words, customers tip more when they like the server, not when the service is good. (Mr. Lynn's studies also indicate that male customers increase their tips for female servers while female customers increase their tips for male servers.)" (1) For the most part, these "workers" aren't really even earning most of their income. By the way, if you further read my cited article, you'll notice that 26 BILLION dollars goes into tipping every YEAR in the United States alone. That's a lot of money for shooting the breeze with customers, flirting, and being well groomed, don't you think? =D My opponent makes the claim that most restaurants automatically add a 15-20% tip to parties of 8 or more. First, I would like him to back this up with credible statistics. Second, I would like to know whether or not he means that restaurants should make this mandatory for all parties of 8 or more, or merely parties in general. Some clarification during round 2 would be nice. Finally, it is the restaurant employees who CHOOSE to work at restaurants; they come in knowing the gamble they are taking. We (as the consumers) should not be OBLIGATED to fall into the restaurant employer's traps created to swindle the consumers out of their money under the guise of "pity." If a customer wishes to tip, that is fine. However, based on the information that I've presented, if a customer is FORCED to tip, it is unjust on the restaurants part. In spite of the information I've presented, it is my opponent's job to prove that gratuity (tips) should become automatic. He has yet to do this and I assure you that he will not be able to do this in round 2 either. Source: 1) http://www.nytimes.com...
Restaurant bill's including automatic gratuity (tip)

When someone goes out to eat at a restaurant usually the person waiting on them is making $2.13 per hour. They rely solely on the customer's tip to servive. If most restaurant's automatically add a 15-20% tip to parties of 8 or more, why not be universal and add it to all bills? There needs to be some assurance for these people that at the end of the week, like the rest of working American's, that they can pay their bills.
Globalization is good.

This is also bad for the workers in Mexico and China, who are being paid very little. These workers usually have to keep the jobs anyway so they can provide money for their families. Ultimately, it will deliver a worse product to the consumer because less skilled workers will be making the product. So, this "race to the bottom" hurts American workers, hurts workers in poor countries, and hurts consumers. [3] http://www.epi.org... [4] http://www.carnegieendowment.org... [5] http://www.factcheck.org... [6] http://query.nytimes.com... As for argument B, FTD statistics show that in 2008, our balance of trade deficit was at $677 Billion. [7] Trade deficits do not help out the United States as it is not trading the same amount of goods that it is receiving. This hurts American business. Unfortunately, my opponent hasn't been able to partake in this debate. Hopefully, I will be able to debate with him in the future. The resolution has been negated. All I had to do was show that it was not beneficial in some aspect since the resolution was worded with such broad language. I have shown multiple reasons for why globalization is not good.
Globalization is good.

My opponent is unable to finish the debate. I hope to be able to debate this topic with him in the future. In the meantime, I will continue my arguments. I will expound upon argument A: According to a study done by the Economic Policy Institute, NAFTA "displaced production that supported roughly 660,000 (manufacturing only) and 1.0 million U.S. jobs". [3] This means about 660,000 manufacturing jobs were outsourced. CAFTA is another trade agreement that has outsourced jobs. There are differing statistics, if you want to look at those. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace claimed 525,000 American workers lost their jobs. [4] America has lost 3.1 million manufacturing jobs since 1994, when NAFTA was implemented. [5] Although these jobs were usually replaced, workers whose jobs were outsourced tend to earn less in their news jobs. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics reports, only one-third of displaced workers "held new jobs two years later that paid as well as those that were lost". [6] The trade policies of globalization have been shown to hurt the American worker. Globalization basically encourages companies to compete in a race to the bottom. It is not in the interest of companies to have their products made in the United States if they can get cheaper labor elsewhere. This helps increase their profits, but ultimately lowers the quality of the product. Having less skilled persons produce goods lowers the quality of the good. The "race to the bottom" has been shown in the clothing industry. Mexico and China have competed by lowering workers' wages to attract the clothing industry. Both have been successful in the US market, but it has forced the United States out of competition. Countries with higher minimum wages can't possibly compete with the low wages of Mexico and China. This is just bad for many people. It is bad for the American worker, who can't compete with the workers in Mexico and China.
Globalization is good.

I hate to make this debate semantical, but "Globalization is good" is just too much of a generalization. Pro defines "good" as "beneficial". According to Merriam-Webster, "beneficial" means "conferring benefits: conducive to personal or social well-being". Also, I have a problem with the definition of globalization. All I have to do to negate the resolution is show aspects of globalization that are not beneficial. Despite the economic growth stemming from globalization, the income inequality has remained at high rates. This shows that although it benefits the rich, globalization does not help the poor. The GINI coefficient is used to measure income inequality. The closer to 100 the number is, the more unequal the distribution of wealth is. The closer to 0 the number is, the more equal the distribution of wealth is. The GINI coefficients of China, and Mexico stand at 47 and 47.9, respectively. [1] Also, forty of poorest nations have had no economic growth over the last 20 years. [2] Globalization reinforces this inequality because it helps the employers and investors in those countries while exploiting the working class. Many companies seek cheaper labor and countries like China and Mexico lower wages in order to accommodate those companies. This hurts the workers. I will continue to show other bad parts of globalization. Unfortunately, the debate only allows 2,000 characters. I will provide these arguments and expound upon them in later rounds: A.The trade policies of globalization encourage companies to seek cheaper labor elsewhere, which hurts skilled workers in countries like America. This hurts competition since workers in American cannot compete with workers in China. It also decreases the quality of the product. B.The trade policies of globalization have created huge deficits for the United States. [1] https://www.cia.gov... [2] http://www.africaeconomicanalysis.org...
Globalization is good.

I believe that globalization is good. The following definitions are provided for clarity from http://dictionary.reference.com... Globalization: to extend to other or all parts of the globe; make worldwide Good: beneficial ================== Contentions ================== I. Globalization helps advance the smaller, third-world countries. Also it helps technologies such as medicine travel around the world to the people who need it. Through globalization, groups such as Doctors Without Borders are able to be created. This helps the people in third-world receive treatments for diseases and physical needs. II. Through globalization, big companies such as McDonald's, Samsung, LG, and many other have flourished. This is true because newly developed countries offer more possibilities, such as jobs and consumer goods. This is good because the companies help the countries' people to reach a higher standard of living. III. Knowledge has been spread through globalized communication and therefore globalization has contributed to our current level of understanding technology and the world. This is true because groups working cooperatively is bound to get farther than individuals working alone. This is beneficial because globalized communication has helped develop and further our understanding of the world. I will now await my opponent to commence his argument.
School Uniforms

"Limiting freedom," as you just said, is unconstitutional. Thank you for proving my point. Clothing is not a direct effect on what kids "focus" on. When you find a reliable source proving that clothing does not let children focus, then try that point again. Once again, it is not the clothing which promotes violence. It is the children doing it to themselves. If they were not to wear "gang" clothing, they would just get tattoos or some other form of identification. If children are in gangs, they will be with clothing or no clothing associated to that specific gang. Instead of teaching children to not wear certain clothing, teach them morals and what is right and wrong to not get involved with such groups. Once again, if the PERSON THEMSELVES consent to not wearing things that they wish ie. private schools, that is fine. It is when the school forces students is when we know it is a problem and a freedom violation. You have no evidence tying any kind of clothing into "bullying," until you do, leave that point to the side. You are speculating, wearing a certain shirt does not simply lower one's self-esteem. You are talking like things like this happen very frequently and it is a MAJOR problem. When in reality, it is not. When was the last time you heard about a kid hurting themselves over clothing? There is a difference between dress codes and uniforms. That is a whole different debate. Please do not tie the two together because it will get us nowhere. Please refrain in the future from using personal experiences that may, or may not be true. I want to see facts. If there are none, come up with a different point. How does a piece of clothing make children feel "left out?" If anything, students express themselves and who they really are through their clothing and freedom of speech, leading them to find like mind individuals and be more confident in their shoes overtime.
School Uniforms

It is not striping away their freedom, it is simply limiting it in order for kids to focus and receive a great education. We are talking about the futures doctors, lawyers etc. . Not everyone lives in this rich neighborhoods. There is some ghetto neighborhoods, where violence is present everyday and if there were to be free dress, colors would be worn to categorize kids into gangs or "cliques". Causing violence between "Rivals". Which many parents would not approve of. Kids go to school to learn, to receive an education. At the beginning of school, forms are sent out, stating the Uniform policy the school has. So technically it is not against the law if the parent signs that consent form. We are not all the same. Some students are afraid of bullies and will not fight back even if they had the chance to. You have to be able to put yourself in the shoes of a kid and realize that some are sensitive, and bullying can lead to them harming themselves. Although you might think we should teach them to defend their selves, not all children minds think alike. Some of them actually begin to believe what bullies say is true, bringing their self esteem down. . We are not speaking of the clothes that can be worn in public, yet we are speaking of an area where many kids are present everyday. Exposing clothing should not be worn in a school. Think of an International school, that i currently attend. We have grader 6-12 here. If you knew your 6th grader came to school seeing seniors in exposing clothing you would not approve of the schools idea of freedom of expression. Again we are speaking of children. Many children feel left out. They do not think the way older teens would think. We are not speaking of grown adults but of children again.
School Uniforms

Amendment one provides the freedom of speech, press, expression, and the right to assemble. The way one dresses is a form of free speech and expression. Requiring students to wear uniforms goes against the first amendment. Just because minors are in school, does not strip them of their amendment rights. People are fully accessible to 100% of the same rights they have in and out of school. Forcing students to wear uniforms is technically against the law. Instead of teaching the youth to not wear clothes in fear of being "bullied," how about stopping the bullies themselves? This relates to many other topics. You would not tell a women to stop wearing exposing clothing because she is deemed as a "slut" or "prostitute" or "free property etc." to others, would you now? We teach our youth generation to be themselves and express themselves with confidence. This would send the wrong message and would be contradictory to what educators said in the past. The difference is, not all jobs require uniforms. It is the person's choice to choose to join such a job that requires a uniform. If all jobs required that, then it would be a completely different story. But that is just not the case. Schools that force students to wear uniforms give them no choice in their own amendment and freedom rights. It is a different story to have uniforms in private schools because the students consent to the wardrobe, and can just transfer to a public school if they are not happy with it. Feeling "left out" or "different" is another way one says that people are dressing to their own style and fashion. And if that means that a group of kids wear one article of clothing, and other group wears a different article, it is completely fine. One group is no superior to the other, and in reality, nobody is being "left out" or "dis included" when they are given the option to their freedom of expression.
School Uniforms

School Uniforms enhance ones ability to learn where they do not have to worry about what others think of their clothes because they are all wearing the same. It saves time in the mornings, where you do not have to decide what your going to wear. Many kids can get bullied for not wearing designer, expensive clothes. So wearing the same uniform as others will prevent bullying. School uniforms prohibit one from feeling left out or different. It creates a feeling of oneness. It also prepares kids for future jobs that include uniforms along with the jobs.
Dogs or Cats

You say that cats hiss growl bite and scratch, but don't dogs growl bite and snarl too? You have to walk your dog, you can let your cat go outside on its own. You have to take your dog out to poop then clean it, when your cat either does it outside or in a litter box. Your dog barks at people and cars as they go by keeping you awake at night while yiir cat just stares at them.
Dogs or Cats

I have to notice that a dog has never in my line of knowledge left a dead thing on their owners doorstep where i have met many people who have been unlucky enough to find or even step in these "gifts". A dog doesn't assume you are coming back when you leave and forgets about it ten minutes later maybe even less. Yet when you return it is always excited. No matter what.The cat just kind of sits there not showing any interest in your triumphant return.
Dogs or Cats

Sure a cat will scratch you in your sleep sometimes. Only because it wants your attention. Cats stick there claws in and out when they are happy. They don't know they are hurting you. Cats also give you constant companionship just in there own way. They also keep you warm at night curled up in a nice fluffy warm ball beside you sleeping. Cats are also cute. Dogs slobber and only look cute when they are begging for your food. Cats don't beg dor your food. They are perfectly happy with dry cat food the occaaional bowl of wet food and maybe a few treats.
resources THEN AND NOW

Although I do not live in Canada, I do however see Humanity with its Advancement in technology has lead to the possibility of a big Impact. From what was once just a nation using the fabric of day to day needs (Food, Water and Wood for houses), Has lead to a Diverse open source of Materials where as if I so seek, Me as a person could establish a Large mass of Land in order to open up a Factory with only the Requirements of Money and Permits to do so. My Factory could be Up and Running within 15 months of Construction, Depending on if its from scratch or from a pre existent building (FYI If I don't respond to my next Argument its because I am currently in need of sleep and will however be able to respond in 8 - 9 hours)