BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
this should be the outline for reforming social security

if social security isn't reformed in the next couple decades, everyone will be forced to take a twenty five percent cut. what should we do about it? if we take as a premise as most people do that we should salvage the program, you run into a basic math problem. we can either ration it, or we can raise revenue, or both. as far as the rationing side of things, we can either let grandma get her check reduced, or we can focus on those who make more than they need. why are we paying trump and the richest men in the world over thirty grand a year? if we have to ration, ration towards the top and work your way down. really we should prioritize cutting these excessive payments before we even consider raising any taxes. liberals like to say raise the wage cap on what is taxed for higher income. but this only solves the problem for a couple generations. nothing to sneeze at of course, and most people don't get their tax increased. but this is just throwing money at the issue, and not fundamentally or permanently reforming the program. we also rational as need be, and restructure the program. as far as restructuring, we can make the program more of an insurance program, such that you get money if you are poor or not well off, and taper off benefits to those who are rich. we could give them something, though, so that everyone receives some benefit and all are affected. they considered doing it as insurance when they created the program, but wanted everyone to be involved, understandably, so some of this can be kept too. as a last thought, there's also the more conservative ideas of privatizing social security. the major reservation i have there is mostly for the poor and not well off. if they had to rely on what they were able to get in the market with what they invest now, they wouldn't do all that well. social security does a better job than the market for these people, if you can tolerate a little redistribution, like most people can. as far as privatizing some of it, id be concerned about ensuring we have a guaranteed minimum that people receive regardless of the market. so maybe we could go with investing say half of your tax in accounts that are well regulated, and perhaps taxing the richest accounts if need be to ensure a proper redistribution. this has the potential to raise everyone's benefit and be a win for all. we'd again though want to ensure enough is kept as a minimum for those who are not well off. it's winter, but it must not be all that cold outside, cause those of my political persuasion are still willing to put our hands in other other people's pockets instead of keeping them where it's warm, in our own. ha
The UK should renationalise its railways

Choo choo! All aboard the debate train! Although some parts of the UK railway are under state control (Network Rail), the UK's railways were largely privatised in the 90's. I will argue that the railways should be renationalised, CON will argue against this. 1st round acceptance only. Please note I've tried to do this debate 3 times before and had the opponent FF all three times. Twice after I did a large source filled R2 post and most recently without my opponent even posting their R1 acceptance. Please only accept if you're not going to get scared off by a meaty debate.
Evolution Has No Supporting Proof, Only Evidence Against It.

This is my first debate. I understand that the first round is acceptance. So let me give some definitions Normally, people don't realize that evolution can be divided into two: Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution. ALL experiments Darwin did were all for microevolution. He never touch macroevolution, only assumed it. So this debate will be focused on the only type of evolution that has controversy surrounding it: Macroevolution. I accept that Micro.evolution is a well known fact, but my position is that Macro-evolution has no proof, and actually has overwhelming evidence against it. So Macro.evolution: the change in allele frequencies that occur over time within a population.[1] This change is due to four different processes: mutation, selection (natural and artificial), gene flow, and genetic drift. Macro-evolution: change that occurs at or above the level of species. Increase (not just variation) of genetic code, new genetic code is made. Macroevolution basically says that ape like creatures evolved into men through the generations, dinosaurs into birds, and so on. All life on earth has a common ancestor While microevolution says that foxes evolved into dogs, that zebras and horses have a common ancestor, all felines have a common ancestor, and so on. If you have any doubts or questions about the definitions, say so in the comments. If you want, we can touch the topic of abiogenesis, which if often brought up when talking about macroevolution. I have no problem with that. I will be giving arguments against macroevolution, and will demonstrate why it is impossible for it to have happened on this planet.
Resolved: Tobacco should be made illegal

C1: Drugs can be regulated and controlled My opponents argument here is poor, as it revolves around the thought that illegalization is the only way to control a substance. As I have stated there are ways like price control that an lower tobacco users as well, without the all out ban. he majority of tobacco brands advertise on price. [1] As we know the tax would raise price, and then the advantage buying cigarettes would decrease. [1] And lower users. Also other ways to control smoking are effective, such as putting the pictures on the carton. [2] The basis of my opponents argument is highly fallacious. Her way basically is attempting to ban them, and thinking that is the only way to decrease users. This is false, as I ave showed ways where tobacco is legal and the ways to lower costs without abolishment are many. The argument is void as there are other ways to lower tobacco users. Also legalization has helped many countries in other countries. Lets relate this to drugs. When Portugal decriminalized all drugs users actually decreased. [3] Sure illegalization may lower users, but there are other ways to control it and legalization in some cases is support. My opponents argument is false. C2: The economy can still function My opponents argument is here a fallacy. She is assuming firing millions of people will not hurt the economy, and is assuming they can find other jobs. One thing she misses is doing this many people will go into withdrawals as then cannot access the drug except illegally. This will form a whole generation of irritable people who enter crime to obtain the drug. Second she forgets my tax argument, how local governments rely on these taxes. This would increase deficits, and therefore hurt the public workers as well. Millions of jobs are from tobacco directly and indirectly. [4]Banning tobacco would mean many jobs would be lost and other indirect insustries would be hurt. Bannign tobacco would hurt the economy.[1] http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com... [2] http://www.who.int... [3] http://www.time.com...[4] http://fujipub.com...
Resolved: Tobacco should be made illegal

I would most certainly be in support of making tobacco illegal in the United States. My opponent has conceded the idea that tobacco is unhealthy, so it would be rather redundant for me to write an entire contention explaining the effects of lung cancer, emphysema, second-hand smoking, etc, so I will move on to other arguments in my case (and all resources of my arguments can be found in my next rebuttal):Contention 1: Drugs can be regulated and controlled. Drugs in general can be controlled if the correct strategies are implemented into effect in the country, comparing the control to marijuana in the United States, which has been effective for the United States acording to Dr. Robert L. DuPont, the former director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse:"Contrary to the beliefs of those who advocate the legalization of marijuana, the current balanced, restrictive, and bipartisan drug policies of the United States are working reasonably well and they have contributed to reductions in the rate of marijuana use in our nation. The rate of current, past 30-day use of marijuana by Americans aged 12 and older in 1979 was 13.2 percent. In 2008 that figure stood at 6.1 percent. This 54-percent reduction in marijuana use over that 29-year period is a major public health triumph, not a failure. .. Reducing marijuana use is essential to improving the nation’s health, education, and productivity. New policies can greatly improve current performance of prevention strategies which, far from failing, has protected millions of people from the many adverse effects of marijuana use. "Illegalization can actually reduce the rates of drug abuse as he reports, as well as previous reports from the United States Department of Justice. Contention 2: The economy can still function. People could probably enter into other jobs and enter into other corporations that could expand in order to make the economy function. Please excuse the poor argument.
Toyota is better than Honda

No refutes? Only 2 points? Sigh. .. .. Point #1: Resell value Don't like the new Prius you just got? Then resell it! The values are high. Consistent higher-resell values then Honda over many years, "Toyota, along with its premium division Lexus, was named tops for residual value overall by Kelley Blue Book for the third year in a row. The other agency, ALG, said Toyota had the top resale-value vehicles in eight segments, more than from any other automaker. Both always issue their predictions on the eve of the media preview of the Los Angeles Auto Show, which starts Wednesday" Is Honda #1 at this? NO! Point #2: Reliability I live in Calgary and Calgary is a busy place. Sometimes we need taxi's to get around the city. Now, do you ever find Honda taxi's? Nope! But you can find hundreds of Toyota taxi's! Rankings have shown that Honda is less reliable than Toyota. I found a website with the 20 most complained-about cars. 6 of them were Honda's. Only 1 was a Toyota. That was from 2010 but today the list is almost the same! A short but interesting debate. Thank you. . http://hondaquality.wordpress.com... . http://www.usatoday.com...
Toyota is better than Honda

We meet again Darth! I want to keep this debate short and sweet, so it is only 1 round. State 2 points with evidence and NO REFUTES. Argument 1: Electric Cars I will compare the Honda fit and the Toyota prius. Honda fits are 100% electric where as the prius is only partly electric, and partly gas. Definitely not as eco as the Honda's. Also, the price of a prius starts at $26 105, where as the Honda is $259 a month for 3 years. If you do the math it means that it costs, after 3 months, $9 324. Argument #2: Recalled Toyota's "If the front passenger seat occupant sensing system is out of calibration, the front passenger airbags may not deploy or they may deploy inappropriately for the passenger's size and position. This could increase the risk of personal injury during the event of a vehicle crash necessitating airbag deployment." This problem is with the 2009-2012 Tacoma, 4Runner, Camry, Camry Hybrid, Prius, and RAV4; model year 2009-2010 Avalon, FJ Cruiser, and Highlander Hybrid; model year 2010-2013 model year Corolla, Sienna and Tundra; model year 2009-2013 Highlander and Venza; model year 2012 Prius V; and model year 2010-2012 Sequoia. They are recalling these cars because they have a serious safety problems. Thank you, Jacobe1121
kids having phones

7 years old? Way too young. What does a 7 year old need with a phone? At 7, they should be going outside and playing tag or sports, not playing with their phone. Second, at seven, a child's brain is growing rapidly. Not only can a phone screen slow that growth down, but it can also harm them. [1]Finally, who pays for it? A seven year old is not responsible enough to buy their own phone, and would break it anyway. I believe that 11-12 years old is an appropriate age for a phone. They would have a use for it (school or friends), and be responsible enough.[1] http://www.sciencedirect.com...;
God is an atheist

"God had a family and a dog" What does that mean? "...All knowing and all powerful, cannot believe" You do have a point there. However, logically-speaking it is impossible to be able to do everything. "If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?" One cannot prove this, only test it when someone DOES hear it. "Draw a four-sided triangle." Impossible without changing the definition of a triangle. It is impossible to know anything that happened before birth, unless you are given a sign of the past. Signs include history books, parent conversations, photos, etc. There wasn't even a mention of what happened before Gen 1:1. There was no mention even on why he created the universe. If God does exist outside time, that means it would be impossible for Him to communicate with Adam, etc. Speaking words requires time. Therefore God does not exist outside time. Then, He and the Universe must have been "created" spontaneously if he had no higher being. Similar to the Big Bang, only God is the start, not life. It is just as logical to say Animals and Humans are the start. Anyway, I did not expect this debate (I did not even know that debates could be requested.)
God is an atheist

I understand your point completely, but it has no rational basis. I could then speculate, under your assumption, that God had a family and a dog. Its simplistic and generalised and you have not dealt with any of my argument, but keep to yours, which I have already undermined to the extent that it is no longer feasible a basis to push your motion. Your youtube video is not only uninformative, but completely without wit and humour or good animation. I could not watch it past a minute. To this end, your argument is broken in its concept.
God is an atheist

Pro's argument is a fallacy from the start. Pro assumes that God can be compared to human. In truth, you cannot assume that God can be human, any more than you can assume a sofa is a barstool and, thus, assume that it can only hold one person. This assumption is riddled throughout religions, from Nordic to Christian theology. Many logical flaws in these religions would set the precedent that their concept of an all powerful creator, alpha and omega, is also flawed to an extent. One could take an educated guess that pro follows one of these religions and, therefore, is of the idea that God would even be capable of such a mortal action. Can I assume that a person is a lion and then expect him to be able to live with a pride in the Savannah? No, a person is simply not a lion. Even if he could understand a lion's instincts and even befriend them, he would still be a human and unable to consider the world at a purely instinctual level. Pro is assuming that God thinks on a human level and is, therefore, capable of believing concepts. In truth, God would be all knowing as he is all powerful, and would, therefore, be simply unable to "believe". The mere speculation that God was created by another God would simply be an expansion of what God is. Pro said that one "could" be designed via intelligence due to human complexity and God would follow in his respective design, already acknowledging that this may not be the case. In addition, although there is an argument for intelligent design, that design is scientific and evolutionary. Again, one sees that pro, despite arguing for the existence of "belief" in an all knowing being, indicates that he understanding of that being is in a very limited human approach, almost assuming that God is simply a magical matter creating being that travels alongside us in a three dimensional, linear pattern. The notion that Pro considers the fact that technology is simple and humans are more sophisticated suggests that technological progression shall not exceed human's, in complexity, is simply a lack of foresight. The fact that he also uses this as an arguing point is a fallacy. Pro's conclusion is, therefore, undermined in its generalised idea and subsequent speculations. Furthermore, Sects of Christianity do no define what God is, but even Biblical passages would maintain that God was the only one true God. That all other God's were false and that he knowledge is perfect. I do not personally believe these doctrines, your contradictions to the Bible undermines the arguments you base on the Bible.
God is an atheist

Let's assume God is a "person" and not just a force. God does not believe in a higher power that created him. He is alpha and omega. That is the same as Atheism, that the universe started on it's own. One could say that a human was designed due to its complexity. It is similar to how our computers were designed by Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, instead of being formed by chance. Our bodies are even more complex than computers, therefore they must have been designed. However, the designer must be designed if that were the case. The animation was designed by the computer, was designed by Bill Gates, was designed by God, was designed by what? God made no mention of what designed him, therefore he is an Atheist. In some versions of Christianity (Mormons), God does have a God, but as far as I know, there is no mention in the Bible about God's God (or God's God's God).
Newspapers are Outdated

It is always said that what is old is gold. So I would like to start my debate by saying that No Newspapers are not outdated as there are many advantages of using newspapers. And if a person is not using a newspapers to update himself then he/she will be using any device to do so, such as television, internet, smartphone, etc.But I believe that newspapers are the best option to get yourself updated and the reasons are:-1)IN TERMS OF COST Today also 12,681,472 newspapers are printed everyday in UK (according to ABC figures for the nationals in November this year and for the regionals in the Jan-June period this year).The 68 English regional dailies (mornings and evenings) together sell 2,085,116. The nine Scottish dailies sell 735,002; the six Welsh sell 183,131; and the three Northern Ireland titles sell 137,230So is there any reason to print so many newspapers per day. Yes, because they are the cheapest source to get yourself updated but devices are not cheap. We can buy them in thousands but a newspapers can be bought for not more than 5 rupees.2)NO WORRY FOR EYES If we compare devices with newspapers then obviously newspapers will not harm the eyes as an electronic devices such as smartphone and television will.Because TV set emits "cathode rays" which damage the eye directly.http://skeptics.stackexchange.com....3) NO NEED OF ELECTRICITYTo read a newspaper you don't need anything else (ELECTRICITY).But you need to recharge a device to read or to listen the news. But what if you want to read/listen news through devices but they are not charged and you have no source to charge them then in that case I think that a newspaper will be helpful.So at last I think that newspapers are not outdated.
Sneakers are better than high heels

Sneakers may be more comfortable but you can't wear them everywhere. Sneakers are casual shoes, while high heels are more suited for formal occasions. High heels make you look taller, possibly sexier, they look a lot better than snekers. Whould you wear sneakers regardless of the occasion? Would you wear sneakers with a fancy expensive dress ? You are getting married. High heels or sneakers? I really feel Pro is comparing apples with oranges. Both types of shoes have their uses, otherwise they wouldn't exist.
Sneakers are better than high heels

I am representing sneakers. Whoever takes up the challenge will be for high heels. Please commit to this debate and do not forfeit. If you forfeit then i know you are not a serious debater. Sneakers are a soft shoe with a rubber sole worn for sports or casual occasions. Sneakers are also known as Tennis Shoes or Running Shoes. I believe that sneakers are better for many reasons. One of my reasons for believing that sneakers are better is because they are more comfortable. Now, I know that not all high heel have shard pointy toes and they aren't all painful, but more often than not, after a long day, they do hurt your feet. Sneakers however have cushy soles and they don't squish your toes together. You can walk around in sneakers and not have as many sore feet afterward. Another reason that sneakers are better is that they are easier to walk in. Sure, if you're used to wearing high heels than you have better balance, but it's harder to walk on stairs and nearly impossible on uneven or rocky ground. In sneakers, it's about as easy as being barefoot. You can walk and run in them without tripping. A third reason that sneakers are better is that they are far more practical. High heels are not good for running or walking quickly. If you had to get away from someone, say a mugger or something, than you couldn't run away very well in heels. In sneakers you'd be fine. Sneakers are better for hiking, jogging, walking the dog, sports, going to the gym, and even just plain yard work. You're not going to wear you heels with the heels stuck in the dirt while pulling weeds. Overall, sneakers are better than high heels.
Scientific rap battle

Your so old n' crippled, even microbes don't think you fit the mold! (1) Your so old that you know exactly where Joseph the Hebrew was sold! Your mamma so fat, she didn't use plates, she used plate tectonics! Your mamma so ghetto, not even black people understand her Ebonics! I have made Ajabi ill at ease cuz i'm spreadin him out like a genetic disease! I'm destroyin' this dude like i'm grindin' all these chemicals inside blue cheese! Whenever i hear you say "this house believes in.." i want to scream loud "what?!?" I want to sew my eyes shut n' say "n*gga you don't live in a house, you live in a mud hut!" Ajab's not really from Pakistan, he's really a mexican eatin' a bean-filled burrito! I'm a taxonomist n' guess what i found? That he's that dog from Taco Bell: a Chico! (2) I won't delete this, i'ma put a scar on Ajab's ELO to teach him not to mess with me! Lyrically, i'm a ruthless emcee punishin this wanna be bumble bee on a killin spree! Yo disclaimer is weak and pathetic! Let me read it out loud!: "I mean none of these insults" we know cuz we're adults! "they are purely in the spirit of the rap battle." This isn't a battle! This is me killin a baby camel! "While I was given the permission to take help, I did not. This is entirely my own work." And i just demolished it into a thousand quantum quirks cuz i'm goin totally berzerk! " I apologize if anyone is offended by anything that has been said: I meant none of it." I'll slap you so hard for sayin' that, your going to need a tool kit to ignite your brain circuit! The next time you see me, you better run n*gga! or i'll my wipe my feet on your turban Strip you of your virgin like a surgeon fixin ya sternum make you carry proof for a burden! Remember this slogan, make sure that you have this tattoo'd! Put it on your back! On your brain fat! Put it on your arab mac too! (3) I can handle sittin' in a booth repentin' for the sake of my youth Being a seeker, street sweeper (4), Can you handle the Truth? Sources: 1. http://www.idiomquest.com... 2. http://www.urbandictionary.com... 3. Ajab's owned by an arab pimp or "mac" in slang http://www.urbandictionary.com... 4. 12-round revolver style shotgun http://www.urbandictionary.com...