BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
My vision of Communism

The way that Communism works is that there are no social classes which is a society where there are no one above you to rule over you and that there are no one beneath you that you rule. most people gets a lot of the time some wrong information on how the government is a group of people but that's not and it's not just a single person who is leading that's the mistake that all of the communist leaders have made, how the government really is is you, the people of course that's why the communist have a slogan saying power to the people of the nation, this basically means that you have the power to actually come with suggestions on all the things that you think could need a change in the society and just to get rid of the thing about the government owning it all and that you have nothing for yourself well then you think of this, since the people is in power which includes you then you will technically own it because you are the government so you want lose anything in a communist society. I often hear people use that old excuse that then no one would want a long education because they want earn more because of that, well I have something to say to that and that is that in a communist society you will not be needing the that high of a salary because almost everything is free and provided by the government and you should be getting a longer education because if that's how you will get the job that you have always wanted, so what I am saying is that in a communist society you will be going for the job that suits you the best and not because it is the job with the highest salary. I have heard many people saying that they wont give there money for the good of the society because they are afraid of the getting into the pockets of some homeless alcoholic and to that I have to say that it's the most ridicules thing I have ever heard of because of course no one would want there money to be given to a alcoholic well I think they should look at it this way that if they do then those money will be funding the help that he and all others of the community needs so that he can get well again so he can get a job and help contribute to the society. this is what I have wanted to say for now and it's getting late now so Goodnight :)
Gay people should have the same rights as straight people

First-You contradicted yourself for a third time. You want gays and lesbians to have the same rights to marriage as straight people, but, you say, and I quote-"Marriage is an oppressive social institution which damages those within it and harms the children whose parents are married. "That's a self contradiction. And are you serious? You think it would be better for a kid to grow up with unmarried parents? You think marriage is bad for the kid? That's terrible! And you think marriage as is instituted now is "oppressive traditional marriage. " You challenge traditional marriage and insult it by stereotyping that it is only for security in property transactions and that husbands just treat their wives like property. As my closing statement- You contradicted yourself three times without sufficient explanation, you insulted both the Catholic Church and traditional marriage, and you've stereotyped traditional marriage as a mean to gain material value. Now, here's my last question. If we allow two men to get married or two women to get married, what is next? Polygamy? Three people getting married to each other? A complete desensitization of the meaning of marriage? Things worse than even these? Thank you.
Gay people should have the same rights as straight people

Equality for the gay and lesbian communities is best done through giving them the same legal rights as heterosexual individuals, however states are often reluctant to do so. Bringing in an EU law which would enforce rights for the gay and lesbian communities would be a huge stepping stone to overcoming prejudice and discrimination as would no longer have lesser legal rights. "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." [[Cf. Loving v. Virginia: In Sullivan 90]]. People have the right to pursue happiness in a wide variety of forms, subject to this right's compatibility with like liberty for others and marriage is a central institution by which people pursue happiness.Marriage is an oppressive social institution which damages those within it and harms the children whose parents are married. Marriage, however, is also an institution which is continually changing with society's changes. If homosexuals were able to marry, their marriages would be more akin to gay and lesbian relationships in their current form than an oppressive traditional marriage. By allowing more homosexuals (who are naturally more liberal) to marry, they might be able to change social attitudes and practices towards, and within the institution, strengthening it and making it healthier both for society and those who are married. For this reason, we should grant homosexuals as well as heterosexuals the right to marry in order to change society for the better.However, I think there are important things to consider about marriage: 1. Marriage should be a private matter anyway. It is nobody's business but my own whether I am married or to whom (and I would definitely never tell my employer my marital status, unlike many idiotic women who expect to be employed under their husbands' names). Private lives should be kept private; 2. The main traditional reasons for getting married are not appropriate arguments for gay couples. Marriage is traditionally seen as a means of retaining or transferring property between families and as a means of securing the birth of heirs to family fortunes. This is not an argument against gay marriage but it is a reason to consider the meaning of marriage in the first place. If gay marriage brings about change to the way in which men treat their wives as their property and fail to ensure that they pay their way (resulting in women being effectively useless to the economy if divorced), then it will be a good thing. We must, however, ensure that what remains of the legal concept of "spousal privilege" and regarding a spouse as "next of kin" are abolished (your next of kin should be your nearest relative on your mother's side) and that married women are banned from using their husbands' names as is the law in Italy and Quebec. We also need to ensure that both partners have a legal requirement to support themselves financially until they reach State retirement age and that all benefits, taxes and pensions are disagregated.
Gay people should have the same rights as straight people

I didn't insult people, I am catholic myself. I am getting confirmed next week for your information. Over the past few years, same-sex marriage has emerged as a controversial topic for many people. I believe that every person, man or woman, should be able to marry the person of his or her choice. A homosexual is just as much a human being as is a heterosexual. The only difference is sexual orientation. It is not a crime to be different, so there is no just reason to deny homosexuals basic human rights. Gay couples have every right to marry the person of their choice, just as straight couples do. "Same-sex couples deserve this dignity and respect". The President addressed a group of homosexuals at a dinner in Washington over the weekend, spawning a conservative backlash. The White House responded by pointing out that the President also spoke at the Italian-American Foundation dinner, so this was not to be viewed as anything special.
Gay people should have the same rights as straight people

"The catholic church is a sick and twisted headless thing if they want to exclude a human being."-Pro. You just insulted 1.1 BILLION human beings. Far more are Catholic than gay or lesbian. At least they sugarcoated their thoughts on gays and lesbians. "if they want to exclude a human being". Do they not have a right to exclude a Muslim? Or a Buddhist? Or a mass murderer? Or a rapist? Of course they do. Put it this way- Do gay and lesbian activist groups have the right to exclude a Catholic priest? Of course they do, as he is in openly contradicting their basic ideas. That works both ways. On to the suicides. "34% of suicides are because people are getting bullied! Some of which for being gay or lesbian"-Pro. Yes, some go home and commit suicide because of being bullied for being gay or lesbian (I'll bet this is an extremely limited number), but some are bullied for doing good. Some are bullied for being Catholics or Muslims or Buddhists. None of these people should be bullied, of course. In conclusion, don't be hypocritical by judging an entire group for their opinion on gay/lesbian rights, and suicides for bullying due to to sexual orientation are very limited. Also, "We all the same"-Pro. However, 1.1 billion of us are "a sick and twisted headless thing". Doesn't that make all of us, including lesbians and gays, sick, twisted, and headless? I request for the next round for you to use proper grammar and spelling. Thanks!
Gay people should have the same rights as straight people

The catholic chruch is a sick and twisted headless thing if they want to exclude a human being. Were all human. We all the same. They do not stand for this. The church is not my only argument. Have you ever thought about how they felt. 34% of suicides are because people are getting bullied! some of which for being gay or lesbian. People who are gay go home every night and cry because the world does not want to take them for they are
Gay people should have the same rights as straight people

Homosexuality is a sin. God has the right to say you cannot love another of the same gender (I will NOT debate this point. I just wanted it to be clear where I stand). However, the Catholic Church DOES believe this. They do have the right to exclude membership to anyone openly contradicting their beliefs. Should Muslims have the same rights (to membership) as Catholics in the Catholic Church? No, of course not. Now, politically, people shouldn't be discriminated upon. A big problem, however, is that if anyone openly says they disagree with gay tolerance, the gay lobby is intolerant, and do not treat those people the same. In conclusion, no, they shouldn't have the same rights religiously, especially when "tolerance" activists are hypercritically intolerant. I look forward to the rest of your points. Thank you.
No Christian should be a compatibilist

Sye you can't claim to be a comparabilist in Christianity. First God gave us the knowledge of Libertarian free will innately. So if we don't have Libertarian free will than God is a liar. There as never been a case when a child walked in with mud on his shows and his mother said "Johnny no tv for a week this is the 3rd time you did this" where the child replies " but mom I was determined to do what I did by prior causes and what I did was not self caused." and the mother replied " This is true but you still wanted to do what you did even if what you wanted to do is caused so you are still responsible for your action" so the son replied " yes you're right mom I guess I will bring the tv over to the garage" Secondly the problem of evil says if God is good there can't be evil. The only way to defend the problem is libertarian free will since man's will is independent from God's will. Thirdly Reasoning can't be done unless from an independent agent. When I write on a note pad it is true that it received reasoning but I can't say that the note pad is reasoning. A computer possess information but we can't say that it is reasoning because the information is programmed in the computer. The same we if someone is caused to a line of reasoning than it is not them that reasons but is receptacle to reasoning like a note pad or a computer. Therefore to have salvation the agent has to believe but if compadibilism is true the agent can't even reason little alone believe. This video sums it up http://youtu.be...
Mike Gravel should be allowed to attend the major democratic debates

It is true that the other "gadfly" candidates have less experience than Gravel. But his fundraising -- a paltry $200,000+ as of October -- shows that he lacks real support. A candidate need not only appeal to the interests of the rich in order to gain support -- just look at Kucinich, who has raised nearly ten times as much. And of course, no candidate threatens to upset the unfair monetary system more than Dr. Ron Paul, who in a single day raised more than TWENTY TIMES that amount Gravel had raised through October. Gravel's experience justified his inclusion in the early debates. But his support level is SO LOW, it is clear that his ideas have not caught on. Kucinich is far behind the fundraising leaders, but still has TEN TIMES as much support as Gravel. Thus, Gravel is just taking time away from other candidates that people actually do support. He's just a vanity candidate, and does not belong on stage.
Mike Gravel should be allowed to attend the major democratic debates

Sorry about that. Would you believe that I timed out as I was writing my rebuttal. What makes Gravel qualified to attend these debates is the fact that he is just as experienced as any of the other candidates. Gravel was a U.S. Senator for 12 years and in that time he served on the Finance, Interior, Environmental, and public works committees.. In 1971 he waged a successful one-man filibuster for five months that forced the Nixon administration to cut a deal with the Senate, effectively ending the draft in the United States. He founded and served as president of The Democracy Foundation, Philadelphia II, and Direct Democracy, nonprofit corporations dedicated to the establishment of direct democracy in the United States. In comparison, Barrack Obama has only been a national legislator for a couple of years. Also, I looked over that list of Democratic write in candidates and not one of them is qualified to run for public office. Senator Gravel is an experienced statesman. Most of the men and women you listed have never held an appointed government position, let alone an elected position, and some were just crazy (in my opinion, of course). Senator Gravel should be allowed to attend debates because of his experience as a statesman.
Mike Gravel should be allowed to attend the major democratic debates

I admire Gravel more than any other Democrat in the race for president. However, there has to be some level of cut-off, and no matter what the level is, he is clearly below it. You cited that Gravel had only $17,000+ in his "war chest" (more appropriately a "peace chest"?). Well as of the end of the third quarter, he had only raised $238,745. Dennis Kucinich, by contrast, had raised almost ten times as much, $2.13 million. The disparity between Gravel's level of support and Kucinich's level of support is awesome. Therefore, the argument "if Kucinich is allowed to participate, so should Gravel" does not hold. In addition, Kucinich is an office-holding congressman, while Gravel has been out of public life for over 25 years. I love it when Gravel makes the other Democrats look stupid and hypocritical, but his level of support is so low, he simply does not belong on the stage. By what criteria do you suggest Gravel is a "legitimate" candidate? Here is a list of other declared candidates for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination: Roland Aranjo (D-California) Warren Ashe (D-Virginia) Christina Billings-Elias (D-California) Robert "Bob" Boyer (D-Illinois) Willie Carter (D-Texas) Randy Crow (D-North Carolina) Laura Davis-Aaron (D-Tennessee) Phil Epstein (D-California) Michael Forrester (D-Colorado) Wrendo "JP" Godwin (D-Virginia) Al Hamburg (D-Wyoming) Alfonzo Jones (D-California) John Joseph Kennedy (D-Georgia) Karl Krueger (D-South Dakota) Dal LaMagna (D-Washington) Frank Lynch (D-Florida) Lee Mercer Jr. (D-Texas) Sal Mohamed (D-Iowa) Ole Savior (D-Minnesota) Mike Skok (D-New York) Jeff Thomas (D-Wisconsin) Source: http://politics1.com... If money isn't a criterion, then what gives Gravel the right to take the stage, and not these people? Gravel had his chance to spark up support. He caused a stir in the early debates. But he failed to translate this "stir" into any real support -- unlike a certain candidate, equally unknown a few months ago, in the other major party. The people have spoken loud and clear in favor of an anti-war candidate, and it isn't Gravel. At this point, Gravel's candidacy is a vanity one, and as such, the Democrats are right in shutting him out.
Mike Gravel should be allowed to attend the major democratic debates

The networks should stop banning Mike Gravel from their Democratic debates. Over the past couple of months Gravel has not been allowed to attend debates hosted by CNN, CBS, and MSNBC. The last "major" prime time Democratic debate he was allowed to attend was the NPR Democratic debate. Sure, Gravel has no chance of winning and has only 17,527 dollars in his war chest (according to CNN). However, if you let Kucinich into a debate it only seems fare to allow Gravel to attend. This is not about who you support in the election but about doing what is right.
Should students be more accepting and judge less ( stereotyping/prejudging)

Before I continue, as Con provided no definitions, I will do so now: accepting: giving admittance or approval to judge: to form a negative opinion about stereotype: to believe unfairly that all people or things with a particular characteristic are the same prejudice: an unfair feeling of dislike for a person or group because of race, sex, religion, etc. Since there are only 3 rounds to this debate I will start with my opening statements and attempt to deconstruct Con's argument. I have several years of teaching experience, both from my time in university and from employment as a full-time teacher. I am currently teaching English in Japan. I mention this only to establish credibility. I have personally taught students with severe anxiety issues, and their performance in school suffered as a result of this. This was no doubt due to the bullying they received, and had they not been on the receiving end of this, I strongly believe they would have less social anxiety and would have better grades. I see no reason as to why someone would think students should be less accepting of others and stereotype and judge others more for things that are out of their control. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted a study on the effects of youth bullying and published a comprehensive article on the subject. To quote their article: "Bullying can result in physical injuries, social and emotional difficulties, and acadmic problems. The harmful effects of bullying are frequently felt by others, including friends and family, and can hurt the overall health and safety of schools, neighborhoods, and society. " Bullying does not just involve the victim and instigator, it hurts everyone. I would now like to take a look at Con's opening statement. "Should students be more accepting and judge less? .. .No I think they should toughen up. " What exactly does "toughen[ing] up" accomplish? What is harmful about being more accepting and less judging of others? My opponent leaves many of these important questions unanswered, and I hope they can shed more light on their side of this argument. Source(s): . http://www.cdc.gov...
Why marijuana shouldn't be legalized

You've raised only a single argument in defense of your position and even that is a trivial concern we can address through regulation. Alcohol consumption is legal in this country. But we don't let people go to work intoxicated. We can legalize marijuana and yet not permit people to smoke marijuana at their place of work. In addition to this you have to weigh that minor concern about workplace productivity in the massive shadow of the many benefits that the drug could provide to so many millions of people. The economic boon that marijuana could present by raising an entirely new industry from the ground up; a boon which it has already provided to the states which have legalized it. The many millions of people who struggle to find work because this petty grass has tarnished their backgrounds. The hundreds of millions of dollars the government will no longer have to spend apprehending and charging people for breaking these drug laws. Now weigh those tremendous economic contributions against the minuscule fear of lazy and uninspired workers.
It is reasonable to believe that Alien life exists

For rebuttal: "I cannot possibly fathom something only happening once in all the billions of years that all the billions of galaxies have existed. " Really? You only happened once, the Chinese ethnic group only happened once. American English only happened once. Unique things happen all the time, say Life is unique. Considering my proponents refutation consisted only of an assumption, this point goes to the opposition. A key analogy? You know the key existed before it was lost, and you know where you lost it, so this analogy is totally irrelevant. "No right-minded astronomer on Earth would conclude that we have searched to the best of our abilities. We haven’t even searched very well. " That's irrelevant - the debate is whether its reasonable to BELIEVE that alien exist. My point wasn't simply that because we didn't find any they don't exist. It was that according to the logic that alien life exists because of the billions of years of the universe, then that time should have made it abundant, and seeing as one were found, the logic of the statement fails. Considering that the proponents logic fails, this point was well refuted by the opposition The orb is an interesting idea, but the orb theory means that the further one is from the center, the orb's effect is lessened. So the fact that the proponent agrees that the chances of alien life in our solar system are remote, he must agree that the chances of life further out are minuscule. Considering the proponent agrees with the resolution, the proponents arguments all fall. The oppositions argument has consistently been that the chance for alien life is virtually zero. Considering the rebuttals above, this point has been well proved.