BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If your mum asks Mr. Glitter to be your babysitter, hit her!

At time of writing, former glam-rock star, Gary "Do you want to be in my cell, my cell, oh yeah" Glitter, is on his way to Hong Kong from Bangkok, having been deported from Vietnam after serving two years and nine months in prison for molesting little girls. http://edition.cnn.com... He didn't want to get his connecting flight back to London because he suspected (probably rightly) that there will be a mob of outraged people - all baying for his blood - waiting for him at Heathrow. However, he'll have to come back eventually. No doubt the furore will die down after time and Mr. Glitter will assimilate back into society. That said, with his reputation in tatters, he would find it hard to get a job in the music business and will probably be forced to take on low paid work, possibly as a casual child-minder. Now Glitter is a convicted paedophile and, on the face of it, he would not seem to be the ideal candidate for a babysitting vacancy. However, there is a shortage of child-minders and it is important for parents to have a night out without the kids once in a while. If you had a couple of daughters and put an advert in the local paper for a regular babysitter and the only applicant for the job was the kiddy-fiddling former Glitter Band front man, would you employ him? As the job would be cash in hand the authorities need not be involved in the arrangement in any way so we should assume that his new job would not attract any unwanted (from his point of view) attention. Nevertheless, I can't help feeling that if I left two pre-pubescent girls alone in the same house as a renowned sex-pest, I would be failing in my duty to them as a responsible parent and that the thought of this might put me off my meal. For this reason, I would not employ Mister Glitter as a babysitter. Indeed, I think I'd sooner leave the girls round Gerry and Kate McCann's house! http://www.telegraph.co.uk... Therefore, I affirm that any children whose mother expresses her intention to get Gary Glitter round to look after them while she goes out for the night are justified in violently resisting the plan.
It is okay to spank your children if they make the same mistake over and over

You bring up a very good argument. Of course, spanking would have no point at all if it weren't for explaining why the child was receiving such punishment. Adding to that though, if a child were to be warned the first time he/she messed up, then messed up again, then a spanking, along with an explanation can teach them to not do it again. Whereas if you were to put a child in timeout all of the time, he/she may be likely to do the same bad deed again. I am not trying to promote violence at all. I would not preach that at all. I just believe that if a child does not follow warning, then he/she must go through a punishment, not too light, or not too harsh. Spanking falls in between those two. A slap on the hand, or a spanking on the butt may bring the child to tears, but weren't they warned beforehand?
It is okay to spank your children if they make the same mistake over and over

I'd just like to start by saying that of course, we can't generalise the potential impacts of the child with this, because every child is different and every child will react differently to this. You yourself have shown this. However, it must be acknowledged that hitting a child just as easily have very serious and damaging implications for them. Whilst I have not had children myself, in my view it would be better to teach them why the thing you are spanking them for should not be done. If they don't listen, perhaps there is another reason why they keep doing this. This would teach them to become more considerate people who think things through, rather than not doing things because they are scared of a result. Additionally, this has the potential to teach them to fear rather than respect and try to understand not only their parents, but in a broader sense other people who they come across. As well as this, surely using spanking as a punishment would make it very difficult to teach children that violence is not acceptable?
It is okay to spank your children if they make the same mistake over and over

As a kid, usually whenever I messed up or did wrong after being warned, I would be spanked for it. While I thought this form of punishment was complete hell at the time, I grew up to be a civilized person, less likely to get into trouble with the law. I believe that punishing your kids in such a way can help them become better individuals in the long run, but there are others that consider spankings as child abuse.
Time is the ultimate evil

------ Refutations 1. Time stopping was a what-if scenario to prove that time is not evil. If time did stop then all the bad stuff I mentioned previously would happen. 2. You don't know that time is always and will always be existent but that isn't the point. 3. Sure time will be what destroys everything, but is this destruction evil? You did not define evil in the opening round. Evil: Morally bad or wrong. [1] Morals are relative to your personal philosophy, so evil has different meanings for everyone. You can't call death and destruction morally wrong because morals are subjective. 4. Your examples are irrelevant to to this debate. Here is a counter example: You are someone who enjoys life. Every second of life you experience you enjoy. You enjoy the passage of time because it means more of life. Therefore life is not evil, but for this person it is the greatest thing in existence. Time may seem evil at some times but it depends on the example you use. ------- Conclusion: -My opponent's examples are irrelevant and have counter examples which I have stated above. -My opponent has not proven that time is morally wrong. -My opponent has not successfully refuted my points. ----- Sources 1. Dictionary.com
Time is the ultimate evil

Good morning, afternoon, evening or mid-night. Now I accept my opponent's points and let me start off by saying, no of course time would not stop all of a sudden and no, this is not the topic. The topic is that time which is always and always will be existent is the ultimate evil and in rebuttal to my opponents argument "No Galaxy Formation, No Planets, and ultimately no life." time will create galaxies, planets and life will develop but on that same point time will also be the one thing that kills us all. Within time not only will the Human race become extinct but eventually stars that explode overtime will destroy that corresponding solar system. Same goes for our Sun. Eventually in time when the pressure of our Sun can no longer fight back against gravity it will collapse and explode taking all of the life in our solar system with it. It is only a matter of time before this happens. Now think of it this way. You are a member of the team that sent the most recent satellite or spacecraft to one of the far planets in our solar system. Now say if we are thinking of Pluto that is around three year journey for the craft to reach Pluto with our current technology. Three years, again that is a measurement of time and you, the astronomer, have to wait three years to see some photos of Pluto and then another three years, six in total, for the craft to come back to earth. Now because of time you have to wait a total of six years. Then again, what if something goes wrong. For example when the craft is passing through the asteroid belt it hits an asteroid and is damaged and can no longer continue its journey to Pluto. This means that you have to wait another year or even more for another craft to be sent again. Thank you for a great argument and good luck in future rounds. -thanks for accepting my challenge too.
Time is the ultimate evil

Good morning, afternoon or any greeting depending on time to you too.Refutations:On your example with the student:While to the student time may have seemed evil, in reality the evil is his inability to manage his time and prioritize.Time is a naturally occurring force of nature. You can't blame time for giving you a bad score on a project just as you cant blame a gravity for an apple that falls on your head.Points: -----1. Without time, nothing would happen.-----1. Imagine if by some catastrophic event, time just stopped right now. I would be sitting here with my argument unfinished and you would be doing something else in suspended animation. Time is essential for all chemical reactions, and movement of particles in the universe to occur. Without these, there is no Big Bang, No Galaxy Formation, No Planets, and ultimately no life. Pro-time, is pro-life. (This gives Pro Life a whole new meaning now)I'll leave that for my opponent. -Thanks for this interesting topic
Time is the ultimate evil

Good Morning, Afternoon or any other greeting depending on time. My name is WARHEADMITCH and I shall be vouching for the pro side. That time is the ultimate evil and that it always will be the ultimate evil until the end of the universe and existence overall, unless you have some other religious belief that describes the end of the world and all life for that matter. For my first point I will look at the matter from a kids point of view. Envision, you as a student in middle school and your teacher just set you an assignment to do which is due in say five days. Now five days as you all know is a measurement of time and though you know your subject fairly well you have other commitments that conflict with you doing the work and so as the due date draws closer and closer you feel as if it is not fair because you don't have enough time. now worst case scenario, you hand in your assignment unfinished and you end failing the assignment. Now after the assignment you blame your low score on the fact that you did not have enough time and it's because of time that you did not get a good score. I will leave my debate like this for now and I will continue with it in the second round after my opponents has submitted his side of the argument
School for teenagers should be moved later in the day.

after they finish it, then no time to enjoy their freedom" That is what weekends are for. That's when they can play and rest, and maybe an occasional day when they don't have any homework. And yes exactly, teenagers NEED rest to accomplish many thing in their educational life. If they sleep late, and wake up early, that will definitely not be helping. We cannot force teens to go to sleep at a certain time, but we can act on what time they have to go to school.
School for teenagers should be moved later in the day.

It is in a teenager's nature to sleep later then other age groups, and to keep the school's start time would result in more students earning inappropriate grades. Out of all age groups, teenagers need the most sleep (about 11 hours) and so if they wake up later for school, they will arrive well rested and healthy. Moving the school start time, 1-2 hours later could give everyone an advantage. The time when students leave would also be moved later in the day, so students would arrive at home in time for dinner, then they would have after dinner to complete their homework.
School for teenagers should be moved later in the day.

i think they will fall asleep later because they have more time to rest. at weekend, they always fall alseep later than usual, so it can be worst. i know some doesn't, but almost every other people is use to it. and the most important thing to teenager is time of rest. waking up early at the moring is hard and tried and i kind of agree that teenager's need more time. however, i think it will be better because they have more free time at afternoon
School for teenagers should be moved later in the day.

The weekend is given for a time of rest. It is when students can relax, socialize and have a break, which they deserve after all the work they have done over the week. When they arrive at their house, they can have dinner, then they have a couple hours for homework, and a bit of rest. And yes we cannot stop teens from sleeping late, that is exactly why I am saying, that school should be moved later, so that students will be able to gain more sleep in the morning. They will understand that we are giving they a chance to gain more sleep and if they are smart they will take that chance. I find it very unlikely that they would fall asleep later than usual just because of the time change in school.
School for teenagers should be moved later in the day.

well, you're right. but they cannot only rest at weekend, and teens usually have many homework so they actually can't rest really well. the problem of teen's sleeping late is not the big deal at all. if they just sleep earlyer it really doesn't matter. and i said it before but i am telling you again that if the time change, they will sleep later than before because they will think they have more time to rest. so, it is better to not chage the time.
Marijuana legalization.

Sorry, I was unable to access a computer yesterday. 1. "Being a healthier alternative to cigarettes is like saying it is the better of two evils." My point being, it is healthier than something currently legal. 2. "I don't dispute marijuana may have legitimate medical purposes but it also has negative effects. Take pain relief for example we already have prescription drugs like codeine for people who experience chronic pain." A key difference being that codeine is massively addictive [1]. Also weed isn't used for acute pain that codeine would be used for. Eg. You wouldn't use a sledgehammer to hang a picture. You use it to dull chronic pain as in recovering from cancer. 3. "The government already brings in enough revenue. We shouldn't legalize a detrimental drug so they can collect more of our hard earned money." My friend, turning an expense into revenue is a businesses' (or government's) wet dream. All that money you were losing you are now collecting as income. Also [2] and [3] [1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [2] http://www.usgovernmentspending.com... [3] http://www.usdebtclock.org... All who wish to vote my points stand from round two. May the best debater win.
Marijuana legalization.

My opponent has forfeited this round so I will just restate my opening argument.I think legalizing Marijuana is bad public policy for several reasons. 1. It is a gateway drug. People who start out using Marijuana may continue on to using harder drugs. 2. It will be bad for our society in general. It will cost us more than it will benefit us for example accident costs would increase, healthcare costs, and productivity would fall. 3. Medical Marijuana. If people can get prescriptions for Marijuana legally it will increase people becoming addicted to it. People abuse many other kinds of prescription drugs.
Marijuana legalization.

My opponent has offered a very flimsy opening argument for Marijuana's benefit to society. My opening argument provides several reasons why it is instead a detriment to society. 1st Being a healthier alternative to cigarettes is like saying it is the better of two evils. This is a poor reason to legalize a drug which has many more cons than pros. I don't dispute the fact that Marijuana maybe healthier on your lungs but as WebMD also says "However, extreme sleepiness and other central nervous system effects make cannabinoids undesirable as painkillers." This goes to my 2nd argument that the symptoms of Marijuana while not dangerous like extreme exhaustion will inhibit peoples ability to be productive members of society. 2nd I don't dispute marijuana may have legitimate medical purposes but it also has negative effects. Take pain relief for example we already have prescription drugs like codeine for people who experience chronic pain. So what benefit is legalizing marijuana and as people already abuse the many prescription drugs out there the same will happen if we legalize marijuana for all the people who use it legitimately many won't. 3rd The government already brings in enough revenue[1]. We shouldn't legalize a detrimental drug so they can collect more of our hard earned money. 4th True its not as addictive as some drugs but this is all relative. Nine percent of marijuana users become not just addicted but dependent on it. This increases if users are teenagers and elevates rates of other drug use[2]. [1] http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com... [2] http://www.drugabuse.gov...
Marijuana legalization.

I believe Marijuana to be beneficial to society for the following reasons: 1. It is a significantly healthier alternative to cigarettes [1] by not having nearly as many adverse effects on your health. According to WebMD [2] Marijuana’s known side effects put it into the category of “likely safe” only because sufficient and extensive testing has not been done. Compare these side effects to cigarettes which side effects have been proven extensively to cause many forms of cancer, decreased lung capacity, heart and weight issues and many other issues. [3] 2. It has medicinal purposes as opposed to alcohol and cigarettes. Some examples are relief of muscle spasms, relief of chronic pain, reduction in interlobular pressure inside the eye, and suppression of nausea. [4] 3. The government could use it as a revenue instead of an expense by persecuting it as a criminal offense. Estimates put the revenue somewhere in the tens to hundreds of billion dollars. [5] 4. According to studies it is a physically non-habit forming drug unlike alcohol and cigarettes with an extremely low percentage of people developing mental dependence. [6] [1] http://news.discovery.com... [2] http://www.webmd.com... [3] http://www.webmd.com... [4] http://www.disabled-world.com... [5] http://www.cnbc.com... [6] http://www.psychologytoday.com...
Marijuana legalization.

I think legalizing Marijuana is bad public policy for several reasons. 1. It is a gateway drug. People who start out using Marijuana may continue on to using harder drugs. 2. It will be bad for our society in general. It will cost us more than it will benefit us for example accident costs would increase, healthcare costs, and productivity would fall. 3. Medical Marijuana. If people can get prescriptions for Marijuana legally it will increase people becoming addicted to it. People abuse many other kinds of prescription drugs.
Gay Marriage

Ok, I believe that gay marriage is a completely rational thing to have, you shouldn't deny people their love in marriage just because of their sexual orientation. You can't control if you are gay or not, and it is unfair to be ridiculed for who you are. If we legalize gay marriage not only will people be allowed the freedom they deserve, but it will send a message to the world that being gay is okay, and the U.S.A. is a progressive country. We look back in time, and we are completely appaled that only a few decades ago, women couldn't vote and black people had to sit in the back of the bus. I think that gay marriage is like that, in a couple decades, we will look back in scorn at anybody who ever said that gay people marrying was a bad idea.
Gay Marriage

My argument is laughable? Please, tell me, why is it so laughable? Your rebuttal that my argument is unsound is completely unsound. Many things have no objective purpose, and yet we still do them. Let's take the marriage rings. They have no purpose, not really, they are just adornment that do not contribute to your institute whose only purpose is for procreation. To procreate you don't need rings, you just need a man and a women who don't even need to love each other. The reason we have rings is because the rings mean something. The reason we have marriage is because it means something, not for procreation. If our only goal was procreation for marriage, I could think of a myriad of other ways we can make procreation more efficient. Have a soul dude, seriously. And you still don't know how to site sources correctly. For the, what was that study called, the study where you quoted it in bold, YOU STILL DIDN'T GIVE ME A LINK, A TITLE OF A BOOK, NOTHING. Please, give me a source! Then, you proceeded to list a many other studies, BUT YOU DIDN'T GIVE ME A LINK OR ANYWAY I COULD GET TO THESE STUDIES. (Sorry, I don't want to put in caps, but I don't know how to make my words bold. :P I'm technologically handicapped. :) Anyway, and I would like you to QUOTE from those studies, many people can percieve studies in different ways. Therefore, I am forced to write off all your studies since you don't know how to quote and send me links, books, whatever, properly. Please, give me sources, you can't just give me the names of the studies, expect me to find them on my own, and expect me to be able to rebuttle them properly if I don't know to which parts you are referring to, or where I can find them. (Remember, I am technologically handicapped) I am exasperated since I really have nothing to rebuttle to, since you just put down a list of names of studies without anything else. Oh and by the way, you can be ignorant and educated at the same time if you are also narrow-minded, and it seems to me that half of America has their blinders on and insist on sticking to tradition, no matter how ridiculous tradition is. I reccomend you read the short story The Lottery. Maybe you can realize the error of your ways. I'm sure you will be a valuable player to have on my side as soon as you take your blinders off. (since you are a truly magnificent debater even though I am slightly frustrated at your inability to quote and post links properly)
Dragon Ball is better than Naruto

Hi there, I would like to give a brief roadmap. I am going to talk about the pros arguments and refute all of them, and I will advance my own arguments as to why Naruto is better. First of all, I would like to define what term knock-off means. Knock off is defined as " a copy or imitation, especially of an expensive or designer product. ". Now, the story of Pokemon is based off of collecting beasts and fighting with them. Now, Naruto is about a young boy who lost both of his parents, and trains to become the ultimate ninja. Finding their ninja way, you would say. So the pros argument that it is a knock-off is simply not true. Also, the pro side has stated that Goku has a better back story than Naruto. If you look at the beginnings of Dragon Ball, it is also about a young boy whose parents are killed and try to be stronger. So, Dragon Ball has about the same back story as Naruto. That is where the similarities end. Naruto was released in a way later date than Dragon Ball, so the animations for Naruto are way better. That being said, since Naruto has way better animations, the fight scenes are way better as well. Another reason as to why Naruto is better than Dragon Ball is because it has a better plot than Dragon Ball. The plot summary of Dragon Ball is that Goku gets stronger, finds dragon balls, gets defeated, gets revived, and get strong again. In Naruto, we go through the main character's lifetime. We talk about his success and defeats, and how he grows into something better than he actually is.
Public Schooling Systems Should Operate Year-Round

I apologize i did not meet your requirements to debate. I might not have been clear with the tenure. I am a believer in a system that does not tenure their employees after a certain number of years. I would ask you if you would see a doctor that had tenure and no matter what happened after a surgery that person would still have a job. In respect to your argument with shorter work days how does that even make sense? An average work day for a parent is 9am-5pm assuming you wanted a child to be released earlier then where would that child go? I am just confused as to how this would be implemented. Do you think that a tax payer with no children would be willing to pay more in education so someone elses child could stay in school the entire year? Salaries have been a big debate throughout years and I believe that adding more hours would only spark more debate and ultimately fail. Dont get me wrong the idea itself is very noble but the funding doesnt seem to add up