BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

A parent's decision not to vaccinate a child may place others at risk if the child becomes infected and exposes others to the disease. These the basic elements that comprise negligence claims—harm, duty, breach of duty, and causation—are met in some cases where parents forgo vaccination. The health and wellbeing of the public is, in part, a function of the behavior of individuals. When one individual's behavior places another at a foreseeable and easily preventable risk of illness or injury, tort liability can play a valuable role in discouraging that conduct. This is true in the context of childhood immunization. Since the recipients of vaccinations are most often children, the persons being harmed--or at least risking harm--aren't legally able to accept or refuse inoculation on their own. Vaccinations have undoubtedly saved millions of lives since their inception. The risks are minimal; the benefits massive. Besides, without compulsion--without the greatest possible protection of the population--those benefits aren't seen.
Get rid of parole

An automatic death sentence is unnecessary and unwise. There has to be a ponderance of the circumstances and a fitting punishment. That doesn't necessarily mean the death sentence. It can also be more deterrent of murder to proscribe long sentences of jail time. It is possible that the character of a person who committed a murder can change or that he may become contrite and a further authority to deter murder. Finally, There is the factor that many states don't have the death penalty.
Businesses should boycott that bawling brat Bieber because of his bad behaviour

What do the following popstars have in comon? a) Elton John (the openly gay singer of Goodbye Yellow Brick Road fame who used teenage strippers dressed up as boy scouts as backing dancers in a live performance and who repeatedly tried, but wasn't allowed, to adopt young boys). b) George Michael (the former closet gay singer out of Wham! who was prosecuted for engaging in a lewd act the public restroom in California and who was jailed for drug offences). c) Boy George (the formerly sexually-ambivalent singer out of Culture Club who was arrested on a drug charge and who was jailed for assault and false imprisonment of a rentboy). d) Marc Almond (the openly gay singer out of Soft Cell who is rumoured to have been rushed to hospital to have his stomach pumped after drinking a pint of semen). e) Justin Bieber. That's right, as citizens of the British Commonwealth they all share the same head of state: Queen Elizabeth II. Also, some of them have been in trouble with the law. For example, Justin Bieber is no stranger top the police. In November last year he was charged by Brazil police with illegally spraying graffiti in Rio de Janeiro. On the 15th January this year the LA police investigated claims he threw eggs at neighbour's house. On the 23rd of the same month 23 he was charged with driving under influence of alcohol, marijuana and prescription drugs, resisting arrest, speeding and driving with an expired licence. And today, just a week later, he was charged with assaulting a limousine driver in Toronto. [1] I understand, given the talentless tattooed teenager's sizeable fan base amongst giggling little girls and homosexual men, businesses would be keen to associate themselves with Bieber through advertising and sponsorship deals but I believe they have asocial responsibility not to endorse him, and by extension, his bad behaviour by giving him cash in exchange for product promotions. Thank you. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
Facebook is stupid

. . . /// You saying it is stupid doesn't mean anything, You have to actually show why it is stupid and provide evidence. Something you have yet to do. ~ ///It doesn't force you too but it implies and encourages it! /// Evidence? Again, you saying it does not make it true. ~ ///In order for my opponent's to refute my claims he must do the 10 of the following! /// Incorrect, it is my responsibility to show that your arguments do not affirm the resolution by refuting them, or otherwise showing how they are invalid. ~ I look forward to my opponent's response.
Facebook is stupid

Stupid - lacking or marked by lack of intellectual acuity Precisely I agree this definition and facebook is stupid! Random herds of teenagers blogging on web 2.0 about there interests such as movies, TV shows and other corporate junk! Facebook is repressive Yes Facebook is repressing creativity and this is stupid and creating a culture of dumb stupid animals who don't listen to classical music but the minimal techno's! /Facebook is authoritarian! Why should we assume that this huge corporation which is dominating and corrupting our culture is passive? Facebook teaches ignorance because people use it to believe they have 500 friends It doesn't force you too but it implies and encourages it! In order for my opponent's to refute my claims he must do the 10 of the following! : Prove that facebook is NOT repressive, authoritarian, ignorant and stupid Prove that he did not make a logical fallacy in seperating repressive, authoritarian, ignorant with stupidity! Prove that facebook doesn't steel your information to spam you with advertisements (propaganda) Prove that FACEBOOK MAKES TEENAGERS SMART! Prove that the western structure of debate will help you win! http://www.youtube.com...
Facebook is stupid

. . . I merely have to show how my opponent's arguments fail to affirm the resolution that Facebook is stupid. ~~~~~~~~ Definitions ~~~~~~~~ Facebook - This: . http://www.facebook.com... Stupid - lacking or marked by lack of intellectual acuity . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... ~~~~~~~ Rebuttals ~~~~~~~ ///Facebook is repressive. .. /// For this point to be valid my opponent will need to show why being repressive is in and of itself stupid. ~ ///Facebook is opposed to direct experience in friendship because if they didn't then there business model would collapse and people wouldn't waste there life on corporate surveys! /// One can interact face-to-face with those they interact with on Facebook. There is nothing that prohibits this. ~ ///Facebook is authoritarian. .. /// For this point to be valid my opponent will need to show why being authoritarian is in and of itself stupid. ~ ///Facebook teaches ignorance because people use it to believe they have 500 friends. .. /// Facebook does not claim that every Facebook Friend that you have is actually your friend. Any assumption made otherwise is te fault of the user's not Facebook. ~ I look forward to my opponent's response.
Facebook is stupid

Facebook is a useless social networking site in which people waste the majority of there modern lives. The teenagers of today's cultures obsess about there insane fantasies and dull boring lives, giving way to the corporations to advertise and brainwash our minds. Facebook is repressive because it detracts from normal Face to Face social interaction. It teaches dependence to authority (culture, technology). Separating people by there egos and the blank slate which is there wall. Facebook is opposed to direct experience in friendship because if they didn't then there business model would collapse and people wouldn't waste there life on corporate surveys! Facebook is authoritarian because of its privacy policies. It stores all information photos, notes, chats, likes etc. Which can be used against you in the future. They sell this information out to corporations which then spam you to death with useless ads. Facebook teaches ignorance because people use it to believe they have 500 friends (by the way is impossible because of DUNBARS NUMBER!) when they actually don't because they wouldn't be wasting there time online so much if they actually did! Ok well lets assume that you did have 500 friends, even still would they give a **** about every little thing which goes on in your life. Friendships aren't meant to spam people with a plethora of desires and lies. Bragging indecently about every new event which pops up in your life. Also in general the problem with "online friendships" is removal of depth in knowing the person and there personality.
Smoking Ban

This should be fun. Overview: My case here is quite simply. First, an intro to ethics that will frame why the reader should care about this topic. I will then demonstrate the harm of smoking, and demonstrate how smoking bans address these harms. An Intro To Ethics: Ethics delves into what ought to be rather than what is. Henry Sidgwick rightly points out a typical flaw made when determining what ought to be done. “we frequently prescribe that this or that `ought' to be done or aimed at without any express reference to an ulterior end,” (1) As John Stuart Mill says “All action is for the sake of some end. ” In order to determine what we ought do we must observe what the results will be from that action. What ends are produced? “all the rules of conduct which men prescribe to one another as moral rules are really---though in part unconsciously---prescribed as a means to the general happiness of mankind,” Henry Sidgwick (2) Any moral code is a means to an end. Thus to affirm the resolution that society ought to implement or maintain a smoking ban I need to show that by doing so the general happiness of mankind is produced or preserved. The Harm: “Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including an estimated 41,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure. This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day. ” (3) “If smoking continues at the current rate among U. S. youth, 5.6 million of today’s Americans younger than 18 years of age are expected to die prematurely from a smoking-related illness. This represents about one in every 13 Americans aged 17 years or younger who are alive today. ” (3) “Those who live in homes with smokers have a 20-30 percent higher risk of developing lung cancer than those who do not live with a smoker. Many see it as unfair that others have to suffer the effects of secondhand smoke when they are not able to make the decision for exposur to it. Non-smokers who worked with smokers experienced a 16-19 percent increase in lung cancer rates. In this case, the worker had no choice but to face exposure to the smoke. ” (4) It is evident that smoking as well as secondhand smoke is detrimental to health. Solvency: “Smoking bans remove these risks for many people. The National Cancer Institute, Surgeon General of the United States and National Institutes of Health all support smoking bans because of the statistics of second-hand smoke. ”(4) Conclusion: It is clear that society ought to ban smoking. Sources: (1) . http://www.laits.utexas.edu... (2) . http://www.laits.utexas.edu... (3) . http://www.cdc.gov... (4) . http://www.debate.org...
Word Debate

Alright well I was just a bit bored and decided to make a word debate. Of course, you should know the rules, though if you dont then I shall explain...1. Only one word is to be used.2. Do not use a really long word that would make you look smart. Especially if you get it wrong because now you will just look like an idiot...3. Just have fun!Alright then First round is for acceptance and so....Let the debate begin!
The Bible/Yahwey are the source of Morality

Not really sure what to say here, but I'll try.If somehow, God was entirely disproved. Just assume for a second, that it was entirely proved and you were convinced that there was no God. Would you become a murderer? Since there is no God in this scenario, would you kill, steal, rape, etc? If no, then this experiment proves that your morality is innate. If yes, then you have some serious issues and need to consult a psychologist immediately (but I am fairly certain that the answer is no). How can morality come from the Bible, if animals have morals? (1)Can people how do not believe in God have morals, since you think that people get morals from God? I think I'm a moral person, more so since I became an atheist. I am now aware of other organisms, not just humans. As a Christian, I thought that humans were supreme, now I believe that we are just another animal on that huge scale that is the universe. (1)http://www.ted.com...
The Bible/Yahwey are the source of Morality

Interesting, you find the golden rule to be "I believe that this is essentially the THE CORE of morality." Yet, the golden rule was around before Jesus and the Bible, taught by Confucianism. (1). Killing in the BibleTo be clear, you're saying that it's okay to kill people if you are God? Think of God as a human being for a minute, like Hitler. He thought he was doing humanity a favor as well. (2). Nobody would ever think that Hitler was a good person, nor should people think Yahweh is a good.. being. In the flood though, not only humans were killed, all of the animals on earth died. Babies. Infants. The Bible says that these killings are just because everyone on earth was evil. Let me ask you, how can animals, babies, and infants, be evil? The flood was one mere instance in which Yahweh mercilessly killed humans. Let's talk about Sodom and Gomorrah, a great instance of Yahweh's benevolence :). Yahweh decides that all of Sodom and Gomorrah are evil (again including innocent babies), so he decides he wants to kill everyone. Though there is one man. Lot. The most righteous man in the cities, in God's eyes. God finds him so righteous, that he sends two angles to inform him of the impending cataclysm. The men of the city discover that there are newcomers in the town in Lot's house, so they ask to have sex with them. Lot, a righteous man, offers his virgin daughters to the crazed crowd to be raped. Of course, this is stopped by the angels, Lot leaves the town, and then his wife is turned to a pillar of salt for the heinous crime, of looking over her shoulder.PredestinationWhat you're current;y saying, is that God has a step-by-step plan for our lives, but is not predetermined? I'm not sure I can follow that logic. As for the garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were restricted to the garden, not the entire world. He placed the tree in the center of the garden. As for Satan, he made Satan too, also with a plan. I think I'll add a few more topics as well:Slavery in the BibleAccording to the Bible, slavery is okay. (EXODUS 21:20-21) According to God’s law, it was wrong to beat a slave to the point of death. But if the slave survived and got back up within a few days, the beating wasn’t punishable, because the slave was the property of the master. (God endorsed slavery and the beating of slaves.)WomenWomen in the Bible are thought of as less than men. (NUMBERS 31:17-18) God commanded Moses to kill all of the male Midianite children and "kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." The virgins were presumably raped. The bible says that they were virgins, not that they were great cooks, what do you think they wanted virgins for? (NUMBERS 31:31-40) God divided the plunder to the soldiers, the priest, the Israelites and for tribute to the Lord. 675,000 sheep, 72,000 cattle, 61,000 donkeys and 32,000 virgin women. Women are a plunders of war, not human beings. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org...(2)http://en.wikipedia.org... (Subsection Role of religion in the Nazi state)
The Bible/Yahwey are the source of Morality

Defining MoralityI agree with my opponent's definition of morality being:" Morality is defined as principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."I could even take it a step further saying that morality is not only the principle and behavior of right and wrong, but our core way of thinking and what we decipher as right and wrong; a way of thinking molded and shaped by the Bible. Therefore making it the source of our morality."My belief lies in the golden rule, 'One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.'"I believe that this is essentially the THE CORE of morality. This saying derived from Mark 12:31 "The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”(1)Killing in the BibleMy opponent addresses the flood of Noah in Genesis. This flood was used to cleanse the Earth from the rampant sin and self destruction of the people. God had even sent preachers to plead with he people to part with their corrupt ways, but they wouldn't repent.(2) The key significance of water is that it has a cleansing power to it and represents purity. Because of the people and their unrelenting lapses of morality God saw fit to essentially start over and use it as a lesson learned for the people to come. So yes, those killings were done by God, but they were done by God for the overall benefit of the human race in mind.Not at all PredestinationAlthough, as humans, it is impossible to completely understand God's reasoning and motives, what we can derive is that God has a plan for our lives and clearly lays down instructs on how to live our lives and how to deal with the trials and tribulations we are SURELY to face in life to get us to heaven. (hint, hint; it's all laid out in the Bible). My opponent addresses the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve had full access to everything on Earth but were solely instructed to leave the apple tree alone and they were perfectly content in doing so until the serpent tempted them. God never place the serpent in the garden, but that was Satan himself sewing the seeds of mistrust without God having placed him there. Remember, Satan is a fallen angel acting independently from God. It is moral in that God had faith in his people and had given them all they could have ever wanted.I can't wait to hear your response, and any new points you may bring up.(1) http://biblehub.com...(2) http://pppministries.wordpress.com...
The Bible/Yahwey are the source of Morality

Defining Morality To answer the question of whether or not the Bible or Yahweh are moral, we must first define morality. Morality is defined as principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. What then, makes something moral or immoral? My belief lies in the golden rule, " One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself. " Killing in the BibleAfter we defined morality, now we can objectively re examine the Bible. We can easily come to the conclusion that murder is wrong,so let's look at how many are killed by god in the Bible. According to . http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com..., the total number of people mentioned in the Bible to be killed by god is 2,821,364. This does not include the many killed that the Bible does not give numbers for, such as the flood of Noah. After estimates that number rises to an appalling 24,994,828 people killed. .. by God. To give you perspective, about 11,000,000 people were killed in the Holocaust. God's Plan for everyone Moral? God created all people, with his own plan for their lives. Sounds nice, right? On further thought, how can this be moral? He creates people destined to burn in hell. .. forever. Meaning, they have no choice in the matter. In the Garden of Eden, god created Adame and Eve, perfectly. Everything was perfect, animals coexisting without violence (which also makes no sense as they have carnivourous teeth), and then god decided that placing a tree in the middle of the garden. Not just any tree, but one that would give people knowlesge of good and evil. This would kill anyone who ate the fruit becuase, it makes them mortal. Not only did god place such a tree ion the garden with instructions not to eat it, but he placed a very persuasive snake, and made the fruit very tempting. How can that be moral? Not only that, but he knew that they would fall for it. Thats all for now, interested to hear your response.
Female orphans deserve to be there.

Female orphans are a vital part of our society- they sweep our chimneys, make our sandwiches, and even star in movies about being a female orphan AND an ginger. But, in regards to female orphans deserving their place, is 'there' really the best place? The answer is no. While men require sandwiches to eat, they also need energy to power their man machines. Solution? Put female orphans in coal mines forever.
Female orphans deserve to be there.

http://www.miningmuseum.org... History shall repeat itself, despite the fact that no girls worked in here. And I wouldn't trust an orphan to make me a big ol' hoagie. Women just don't understand hoagies. Nah, I concede with my arguments. I honestly don't care where female orphans are working... as long as they are overworking and making less money than I do.
Female orphans deserve to be there.

I understand where you are coming from, but you seem to misunderstand what a female orphan's true purpose is. The reason females become orphaned is because we already have women in the kitchen, and 100% of men prefer their women to be experienced in sandwich making. Orphans would not have regular access to kitchens, and would therefore be inferior to the more recent model of women.Female orphans are the unwanted child of today's world. The mines can grow larger, and orphans will have a purpose.
Female orphans deserve to be there.

I can see your argument and the logic behind it. A few things though: 1. If you gut the female orphans into the coal mines,where is the kitchen? They cannot do their job with the kitchen and therefore cannot be put into the coal mines. 2. The coal mines are small on space and female orphans are very tender and cannot feed the men in that type of environment 3. With that being said we will run out of female orphans and according to you they are needed therefore your argument would eliminate them
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Sound

The kalam cosmological argument (KCA) may be summarized as follows: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. 4. If the universe has a cause, that cause is a timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, uncaused, beginningless, enormously powerful mind. 5. Therefore, the cause of the universe is a timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, uncaused, beginningless, enormously powerful mind. In this debate I will defend two contentions: I. There are good reasons to affirm the soundness of the KCA. II. There are no good reasons to doubt the soundness of the KCA. Establishing the first contention will involve giving good reasons to believe the three premises of the argument. Establishing the second contention will involve answering the objections my opponent has to any premise. Here are what I see as the fairest rules: (1) The burden of proof will be squarely on my shoulders. I will present reasons to think that the KCA is sound, and my opponent will criticize those reasons.(2) Con will use his opening statement for acceptance only. (3) Each response is limited to 8,000 characters.
Should McDonald's go out of business

" Aggressive targeting of kids through McDonald's toys and marketing" - Doesn't matter if they're aggressively targeting children if it's not bad, therefore this point to be considered the premise that mcdonalds is bad has to be established. "Between 1995 and 2000, McDonald's monopoly sweepstakes was rigged, making it nigh impossible to win prizes."- This is a sign of intelligence which people should be promoting., therefore mcdonalds is teaching people to be smarter in order to make profits. "McDonald's dismal wages contribute to a poverty rate of 16.7% among United States fast food workers."- It's better than them going out of business and giving no money.
Should McDonald's go out of business

I believe that McDonald should go out of business! I have 3 reasons why: 1. Aggressive targeting of kids through McDonald's toys and marketing 2. Between 1995 and 2000, McDonald's monopoly sweepstakes was rigged, making it nigh impossible to win prizes. 3. McDonald's dismal wages contribute to a poverty rate of 16.7% among United States fast food workers. EVIDENCE: Are you still lovin' it?