BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Golden Compass Boycotters Are Ignorant.

Catholic Schools, I agree have every right to do so. However, it's Anti-Christian to stop someone from voicing their opinion. God gave every human the right to say what they please, heretical or not. As much as your comment of doomed anti-Christians is funny, it has no merit what so ever, because you have no proof of Heaven or Hell. The Children do not kill God, they kill Metatron, who in Jewish doctrine is an angel who betrayed God because he posed to be Him. So if anything the book is Pro-Christian, because it stops false Gods. You only gained your views from people who lead you. Thus that makes your view point ignorant.
The Golden Compass Boycotters Are Ignorant.

I'm assuming that you mainly are talking about the Catholic Church as they have banned the book from their schools. As a Catholic school they have every right to ban whatever books they choose from their libraries. Also as Christians we are allowed to boycott any book or movie we would like. An atheist probably wouldn't want to go see a book or movie all about GOd and if you don't have God in your life you are doomed. I don't want to see a movie or book by an author who has claimed that he wrote the books in hope that parents will take their children to see the first , as it is the tamer and eventually take them to the last three in which the children then kill GOD . AS and American I have the freedom to see any movie or read any book I would like and not see those I do not wish to see. That doesn't make me ignorant. Just my views.
Linux is better than Unix

Open source development has major advantages over corporate based development. This can be seen easily in such examples as how "Both of the operating systems are vulnerable to bugs but Linux is far more responsive in dealing with the threats. Linux incorporated many of the same characteristics and functions found in UNIX, including the segmentation of the user domain in a multi-user environment, the isolation of tasks in a multi-tasking environment, a password system that can be encrypted and/or located remotely and much more. As Linux is an open system OS, the bugs can be reported by anyone in the user/developers forum, and within days it can be fixed. But for UNIX, this is not the case, and user has to wait for a while, to get the proper bug fixing patch. The open source community delivers faster because it does not have to go through the endless development cycles of commercial-based operating systems." [1] It is a lor easier to keep a supported version of Linux than it is for a Unix variant. You have said that ". Linux have inconsistencies b/w versions and no strict standards for tools, environment and functionality." Certain tools and standards can be adhered to by specific distributions of Linux. Also, Linux is much more available for desktop environments. This can be seen in the many different distributions of it, which are there to fulfill the purposes of every single user. [1]http://www.diffen.com...
Linux is better than Unix

Unix is superior to Linux in every way. To define Unix: Unix is an expensive custom written OS used for on company servers as a multitasking, multiuser program. UNIX maintains consistency b/w different versions. Have a published standard that they follow for their customer. Linux have inconsistencies b/w versions and no strict standards for tools, environment and functionality. In UNIX commands, tool and utilities etc. are rarely changed over versions. Hence it is easy to for administrator to update their skills. Moreover tools and application can be used on new edition of OS without a large body of testing. In Linux commands, tools and utilities may change over time. UNIX is usually custom written for each system, making the quite high, but having the benefit of being exactly what you need. This means that performance, stability, and usability have the potential to be PERFECT! Thus Unix ultimately has higher performance than Linux!
Global Warming

Rules: 1. This debate will be on science: Were leaving out politics and scientific consensus. No Al Gore or Oregon Petition please. 2. Understand the mechanics of Global Warming Have a basic understanding of the science before accepting this challenge. Like I said before, quotes won't cut it here. We need good scientific arguments. 3. Prove me wrong, not my credibility Don't ignore my arguments and say 'You don't have enough evidence, therefore I don't have to respond' Whether or not you believe I don't have enough evidence doesn't matter. This is a debate on the science of global warming and often I will explain the science behind my arguments, rather then just quote random reports. Let's make this a debate between you and I, and not our sources. 4. Quotes aren't fact I'm not looking for quotes from reports. You can use them, but they aren't fact. Many reports lie and explaining your logic and science, behind a scientific debate, is far more important then using sources that are probably biased and incorrect. Skeleton of this debate: Sources, logic, and evidence will come later. This is just the basic argument of global warming that I would like my opponent to refute: 1. The green house gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are: * water vapor, which contributes 36–70% * carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26% * methane, which contributes 4–9% * ozone, which contributes 3–7% 2. The green house gases cause the Greenhouse effect, which is: An atmospheric heating phenomenon, caused by short-wave solar radiation being readily transmitted inward through the earth's atmosphere but longer-wavelength heat radiation less readily transmitted outward. 3. Humans have and are increasing the levels of carbon in the atmosphere 4. This is causing the greenhouse effect to 'block in' more long-wave radiation, causing the earth to warm
Cornwall should have a devolved Assembly/Parliament

...But he doesn't choose to give his permission, does he? Granted, this comes from Wikipedia, but there is no mention of the Prince of Wales (also the Duke of Cornwall, by the way) having that power at all; it seems to be a blanket ban; "An injunction that disallows MPs raising any questions in Parliament that are in any way related to the Duchy." But perhaps your source is better than mine. Please cite it. Ideally, Cornwall would be independent. However, it is too small and too close to the United Kingdom for this to be feasibly, in the near future at least. But it should have greater legislative independence than, say, neighboring Devon, because it is made up of people many of whom were never English, only ruled by the English. You seem to have trouble believing that the Cornish really resent the English in any way, and whether they are still a separate people after the loss of their language. I've been to Cornwall. I've ridden a train from London to Penzance. It's not England. Any place in the Anglo-Saxon dominion where you can grow subtropical palms outside easily is alone, I think, worthy of special consideration. Consider the United States system. I believe that the states have fairly considerable power, yet they are subordinate, if not constitutionally then in practice, to the federal government. But you ask whether I think a "quasi-autonomous" Cornwall would be freer than it would be with British laws? The answer is yes. I always believe in less power for the central government, here is an opportunity. You seem to have a pessimistic view of Government; you say that a smaller jurisdiction makes for less liberty for the inhabitants, because nationwide laws have more people to protest them. Is there something I'm missing here? That doesn't make any sense. The government of the UK, and the government of the United States are in most cases trying to make the country better, in their own misguided ways. That may lead to less liberty in the long run, but I'm convinced that ending the central government's stranglehold would have the opposite effect on Cornwall. Look, I ask you, at Ireland. Certainly its economic explosion in the past half-century would be far less of anything had Ireland still been paying taxes to the Crown. Ireland is, also, one of the freest nations on Earth. And yet it is a far smaller jurisdiction than the Crown. How does that work, hmm? I think your "smaller government, less liberty" argument makes approximately zero sense.
Cornwall should have a devolved Assembly/Parliament

The act of laws being made for smaller jurisdiction has a known history of reducing the liberty of the inhabitants, it is much harder to suppress various liberties if one must enforce the law in question over a vaster territory, as one has more dissidents to deal with. You state that Parliament is forbidden to give Cornwall "More freedom-" I ask you, how on earth do you expect an quais-autonomous Cornwall to be a freer place to live than one with only the laws that can be enforced across the entirety of Britain? Is Cornwall full of budding libertarians? I was unaware of this, I'd like to see a source :D. Wales, and Scotland, for example, have not to my knowledge suddenly become freer places as a result of regional autonomy, indeed, the Labour party (the party of the two largest which comes down closer on the side of totalitarianism both economically and, recently, socially http://conservativehome.blogs.com...) gets more votes there than in England. As for the "indignity" of being a "Celtic nation" under "English rule," this notion, frankly, smacks of racism or some subset of the same category. It is of no relevance to one's qualifications to govern Cornwall whether one is of Cornish or English origin- it is only relevant what one will do with that power. I should also note, it's not technically forbidden as an absolute to discuss Cornwall in Parliament- it merely requires the permission of the Prince of Wales.
Cornwall should have a devolved Assembly/Parliament

By Cornwall, I mean the southwest extremity of the United Kingdom, the Duchy of Cornwall. It is officially part of England, but is actually one of the six "Celtic nations." There was a Cornish language, similar to Welsh and Breton, but this only exists in a reconstructed form. It is, however, not part of England, and thus deserves its own Assembly, as Wales and Scotland have. Even if it remained part of the UK, the Cornish should be spared the indignity of remaining the only Celtic nation still under the rule of the English. By "devolved" I mean local. The English parliament has six Cornish MPs, but the status of the Duchy is--get this--not allowed to be spoken of. I'm serious. The English parliament is forbidden from giving the Cornish more freedoms, even if they wanted to. Thus, the impetus of this must come from forces inside Cornwall, such as Mebyon Kernow and John Angarrack. I realize that not many people know anything about Cornwall, and fewer care. However, if you do--even if you agree with me--please accept the debate. Otherwise this debate may sit in the "Challenge" period for a long time. Enjoy! Sola Gratia Cornwall is one of the poorest regions of the UK, qualifying for EU funding.
Religion has caused more violence and divide than would otherwise be without it

My points remain ill-refuted by Con, I would like for all voters to vote for me, as he has forfeited. However, to conclude: 1. Religion is far too malleable to truly be trusted, though it remains an individual's right to practice whatever faith [or lack of] they desire. 2. Religion has been the source of many world conflicts, particularly observed in less stable regions. 3. Religion has been used to justify discrimination for many years (i.e sexuality and race). 4. Religion can be used as a tool for getting away with certain behaviors otherwise seen as inhumane and unjust (i.e rejecting service to someone).
Religion has caused more violence and divide than would otherwise be without it

While examples such as 9/11 and the cruasades have commonly been used as examples of how much unnecessary violence religion has brought, the fact of the matter is that historically wars and violence are almost always due to a contention between, land, resources, influence, money or power. Whether religion existed or not, mankind has and always will be able to find an excuse for violence in search of personal gain and interest. An analysis of all the terrorist attacks in recent times has shown that terrorist attacks are from a universal discontent of western troops present in their homeland, killing and destroying family members, countrymen and the infrastructure of the country. Most of these people had been religious their whole lives, but it was the atrocities of western troops that motivated their violent actions. As for the Crusades's, if a natural feud between christianity and islam truly was the motive then it would have begun way earlier in say the 7th or 8th century when the religion started exploding. Instead it didn't begin til in the 12th century, when the seljuk turks made pilgrimage a lot more difficult for christians and defeated the byzantines who then requested aid from their fellow christians, to which the pope accepted in hope of perhaps the orthodox christian byzantines might accept him as their pope. However, there was no feud between christianity and islam for the first 500 years of the two faiths co-existing. Most probably because the rashidun, umayad and abbasid caliphates had no problems with christians so long as they paid their taxes, which is understandable because they provided so much revenue from their pilgrimages anyway.
Space exploration should be banned

Indeed, whats your arguments on this matter? You don't even have a stand and any argument to back up your claim..in this final round, i will start by exposing your weaknesses in this argument..1.you talked of private industry. Now if space exploration has private industry why are they owing the world bank? This shows your claim are fallacious..2.you talked of planets been discovered. My question is this, this planets of what use is it to us? I guess so we can run there is problem arises? Like i earlier said, this space ship cannot carry about 1opeople and do we know the population of the world? Indeed it is waste of energy, resources and it endangers life.. Having rebouted some of your arguments, i move into my own arguments..1.this space exploration exposes us to diseases.do we know that the has which is deposited from the space ship is harmful on human health when mixed with sun? Do we know that there are various chemicals which can expose astronauts to cancer on space? Indeed, it should be banned..2.wastage of resources.i have emphasized on this, this space exploration costs a whole tons of money which we ought to use and develop our nation instead of exploring the space only to discover dead amoeba .truth is bitter, but its bitterness wil not stop it from being told space exploration should be banned..my stand still remains, that space exploration should be banned because it endangers life and it waste a whole lot of resources thank you
Space exploration should be banned

Firstly those that venture out into space are highly intelligent people that know risking their lives for space exploration is essential to our futures. You are right about one thing, space exploration is highly expensive but both the people and multiple governments around the world believe that the cost is well worth it. You seem to be under the impression that these missions cost the taxpayers billions of dollars but perhaps you were not aware that space exploration has become a private industry as well. Companies around the world are spending fortunes on space programs which means that cost will go down as competition will drive the market. They are working on shuttle designs to transport many more people into space at one time and with developing fuel source alternatives the cost again will go down. Space travel is just like any product that is sold, when it first comes out it is going to be much more expensive than it will be in a couple years. As the technology evolves it becomes more efficient driving the cost down. This is basic economics. As far your statement about other planets being toxic this is partially true there are many that are not habitable but there have been over 30 earthlike planets discovered only in the last few years. That means that there are over 30 planets that could be habitable as they are. It is a fact, if you put all your ducks into one basket you run the risk of losing them all but if you spread them out your chances of keeping at least some is increased.
Space exploration should be banned

I love your last weak arguments in the sense that i will start by reboutals..let me start by answering your question, so we should ban testing of new medication because they are handful to lives? Indeed, haven't you heard of one a scientist who produced drug for aids and gave himself hiv and aids in other to test his drugs? Do you know what happened to him? He died of the disease..thats not withstanding, i never said we should not test medications because medications are never handful to our health what am still saying is this, space exploration should be banned because astronauts faces danger and it costs a whole billions of dollars or pounds..you equally said there are threats like asteriods. Now let me answer you this question by saying this, we can only guage the threats if we explore the space lets check the date the stone falled into the world, it felled into the world because astronauts have explored the space damaging some certain things which holds it..moreover, you said that its better we know about other space in case if there is problem we can go to other planets.let me ask you this, do you know how much it will cost to build one spaceship? Do you know how much it will cost you to launch it? Do you know that it cannot carry about 10people? Check the population of the world and tell me how many spaceship that will be built in other to carry half of the world to other planets if needs arises.. I move into my argument by saying that this space exploration takes a whole lot of money and endangers our lives..reacting to what my co-debater said about multiple planets, let me tell you, do you know that there are toxic, chemicals in other planets which endangers life? Indeed, this space exploration should be banned for good..addressing my second issue about wastage of fund, it cost billions of dollars to build it, and it cost millions to lunch it when i say billions, i mean only one space ship and this money could be used for other things that will benefit it.....so space exploration should be banned
Space exploration should be banned

"it still risks life and should be banned" By your logic we should also ban testing new medications because it too risks human life. First they go through animal testing and then they are put into human trials which have taken lives. To date space exploration has taken the lives of 21 people. That's not even one person a year. "Since the age of human spaceflight began 50 years ago, space missions have led in the accidental deaths of 21 explorers, some American astronauts and others Russian cosmonauts, while inside their spacecraft." http://www.space.com... There are threats in space that could threaten our survival as a species such as asteroids that need to be tracked and monitored. Suppose for whatever reason the earth is no longer a habitable place for humans to live, since this is the only planet we inhabit we would face extinction. If we inhabited multiple planets our chances of survival increase exponentially.
Obama should appoint Cheney to negotiate with North Korea over hostages

The North Koreans have seized two American citizens for the apparent purposes of aggrandizing Dear Leader, Kim Il Jong, and for extracting a ransom in the form of concessions for their release. http://www.breitbart.com... Past negotiations have followed the pattern of Dear Leader getting the attention he sought, receiving payment through various concessions, and then reneging on his part of the deal. One option being discussed among pundits is to send former Vice President Al Gore to negotiate. Gore was identified in the 2000 campaign as "an inspiration to the millions of Americans suffering from Dutch Elm disease." He thus could be counted upon to avoid confrontation. The two women seized were reporters for Al Gore's TV network. But, a pundit asked, what should Gore say when he went to North Korea? There is no easy answer to that. The same problem would exist if Vice President Biden or Governor Richardson or Secretary of State Clinton were sent. Nothing they could say would fail to be interpreted as a form of groveling concession, again fulfilling Dear Leader's ambitions. The best approach is to send former Vice President Cheney. One thing Cheney could say is: "Nice setup you have here. It would be a shame if anything happened to it. We want our citizens returned." That would be more effective than anything Gore or Biden could say, but it is not quite the right diplomatic tone. Instead, he should say, "President Obama has sent me express his very deep concern over the situation in which two American citizens are being held in error by the government of North Korea. It is difficult to express the depth of President Obama's concern, but he has told me that this could lead to a dramatic worsening of relations between our countries. Therefore, I hope that you will act quickly to resolve this situation." Or words to that effect. President Obama has taught us that the words used to say something are not nearly as important as who says them and how they are said. Unfortunately, Darth Vader is unavailable to do the present job, so Vice President Cheney will have to suffice. What Cheney would say is not substantially different from what any other representative would say. The message is in who is saying it. The move would have the greatest potential for resolving the situation peacefully by causing Dear Leader to back off. The resolution is confined only to negotiations for the release of the two Americans currently being held captive. Broader negotiations should involve South Korea, China, and Japan, but holding American citizens is narrowly a concern for Americans. This move by Obama would also promote the bipartisanship that he espouses and would serve to improve his image of being too apologetic. The resolution is affirmed.
The Whole World Should Vote On The US President

first of all other countries already are not allowed to vote. So really they don't get a say in who leads another goverment they are a part of. so now i assume you are referring to illegal immagrants. illegal immigrants should not vote, however if they have been accepted as a citizen they should because they have accepted our laws and chosen to live by them. unless the case comes to them committing crimes i totally dasagree with them having voting privilege. Then there is american born people who have come from other countries. they too should have the same right as any other american being part of our society.
The Whole World Should Vote On The US President

Only US citizens should vote as they are the ones that are fundamentally subjected to government treatment - all the decisions made by the US president have a direct effect on the American people; the government is supposed to "govern" its people (ie. it should have a direct tie with the people and reflect the general peoples' decisions, as ultimately it serves to "serve" the people). US citizens should be the priority of the US government and president, they should have the sole right and power to choose their leader, as they have their inherent rights as US citizens. If you allow other countries to vote on your president they might aim to weaken / destabilize your country's institution - their priority would be to achieve their wants in terms of your country's foreign policy, wouldn't it?