BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
America is killing eachother

First off, there are many cons and pros to America Pros -Our army is strong so we prevent other countries from killing us Which should be reason enough why though America's freedom isn't always accepted, but we always get to voice our opinion and create movements. -We do get to have freedom of speech, but only mostly. There will always be people who oppose our freedom and will even attack others, but at least we have freedom and we aren't in third world countries. -Love Many countries we unite and we say we're free for everyone around the globe. Cons -Health America can be low in health -Economy We're trillions of dollars in debt, but that isn't so much of America as it is other countries taking it away from us. Some things we are worse in and better but America is still standing and we are still able to fight. Countries like France don't always fight back to some things that happen which is why they're such an easy target for terrorists.
America is killing eachother

I think that all that America has done to the world, standing for the pledge for alligance is so irrelevant. There's a difference between here and other countries. I mean, free speech, free religion, free acts to write whatever. I think America had good intentions. but the fact that the government is keeping so much away from us, celebrities are on different levels of humans because of their wealth, and people are rotting in filth with no money, no place to live, no future. Adults are raising their children to be discriminate with race, sexual orientation, character... Its everyone for themselves now. Were not a nation anymore. And yes we have a lot more than other countries, but we still are in war for all of it. Not just everyone else, but ourselves and all of our freedoms.
God can't create a rock too big for him to lift and still be omnipotent

God can be an omnipotent being but not be able to create a rock too big for him to lift.Omnipotent means "all-powerful."God is omnipotent and can never not be omnipotent.By creating a rock too big for him to lift, this would mean God could do something that limits his power. Since God can never not be omnipotent, then he cannot create a rock too big for him to lift. Remember, God can't do some things. He can't sin (he can't be imperfect). By doing something that limits his power, he would break his word of being omnipotent and he would sin in the process because it'd be a lie.
Online Anonymity: Anonymously Publishing Articles

Thanks for accepting, Pro. I look forward to an interesting debate. A Brief Note: In a recent article in the journal "Bioethics", Francesca Minerva argues in favor of anonymity for the safety/well-being of the authors of potentially controversial articles and extends this case in favor of the use of pseudonyms. For the sake of clarity in my case, I will not make delineation between absolute anonymity and the use of pseudonyms. I fail to make these distinctions because my premises will address both uniformly, and when considered, both bear the same ultimate impact (at least, to the extent that I examine in this first round). Additionally, much of my case will be borrowed from Robert Baker's article "Against Anonymity" (I say this now to avoid unsightly source references appearing sporadically throughout the case). I. Anonymity Holds No Constructive Purpose In The Academic World Let us first look at the more appealing half of anonymous publishing. This contention will address the claim that anonymous publishing ensures safety for authors. Assuming that anonymous publishing did not have the negative effects that I will address in point II, it still holds no place in the academic world. Authors of articles should ensure that the content of their writing is not unnecessarily offensive, but they should equally not feel threatened to publish and openly defend academic papers that they have constructed. If the papers are not academic and exist only for the sake of provocation, then that provocation is (to an extent) justified; if the papers are academic, then that provocation is not justified. II. Anonymity Is A Tool Often Misused Anonymously published articles can be used negatively is several ways. These are the main reasons that we would not accept anonymously published articles validity in print as well. The three mains flaws that Robert Baker identifies are "corruption of scholarly discourse by invective and hate speech, masked conflicts of interest, and a diminution of editorial accountability". Anonymous publishing removes the accountability from authors to that extent that many would use this advantage to publish articles containing unnecessarily provocative material or to write papers misrepresenting opposing causes. Such behavior has no place, and as such is not correctly defensible.
Should PE be Mandatory in Schools

I agree that schools could and should make PE not as competative, but just because kids aren't doing PE or physical activities at school they could be doing a sport outside of school or doing some kind of activity. When a kid goes to high school the sports and activities they will be doing will help them get in shape and get excersice. Also, the question is if PE should be required in middle schools not in elementary schools. Kids could be doing PE in elementary schools, not do it it middle schools, and then start it back up again in high school. In high school you are not being required to do a certain thing like PE. You can choose which activities or sports you enjoy, unlike middle school where you have to do whatever everyone else is doing even if it's something you don't like or something you're not comfterble doing because you don't like it or because you're not able to. These reasons show that not having PE in middle schools isn't a bad thing because you can still get the excersice you need by doing other things.
Should PE be Mandatory in Schools

Although I agree with you that sometimes if you aren't very comfortable in PE it can lead to feeling insecure, I feel that is more an issue of the unrealistic standards set for students in schools nationwide. If we had more realistic standards that would still require physical activity, kids wouldn't feel embarrassed, but still get the physical activity they need. Also, if kids don't exercise in middle school or elementary school and then they have to start in high school it wont help them build strong habits for the future. Studies have proven that physical activity clears your mind, and helps you release energy and calm down. As a result, if kids and teens go outside and do light exercise, releasing energy while having fun and making friends, it will help build those good and healthy habits for the future.
Should PE be Mandatory in Schools

Although you believe that PE should be mandatory in middle schools, I don't. First of all kids not having PE in middle schools doesn't mean that they wouldn't be getting a physical education or getting excercise at all, it means that they wouldn't be running around for 20-30 minutes, which is getting excersice, but it doesn't help in the long run. Kids could have sports outside of school or have different activities. Even if you don't do PE in middle schools, you have to do something in high school for PE so even if you aren't doing anything in middle schools, you can make up for it in high school or by doing other sports that isn't in school. Also, some people may have restrictions to certain activities or not be very athletic. I understand that PE is supposed to make you more athletic and in shape, but people with restrictions or injuries or that are obese may feel bad about themselves. When we run the mile, you have to get a mile time under 9 minutes, for example, and if you don't get that time then you get a 2. thus us hard for some people that aren't as athletic and i understand that PE is supossed to help with that, but it doesn't always and for the kids that have trouble with things like this, it's hard for them. This is why I think that PE should not be required in middle schools.
Should PE be Mandatory in Schools

Imagine kids and teens not getting any exercise whatsoever. Wouldn"t this be horrible for their mental and physical health? Physical Education should be mandatory in schools. One reason why PE should be mandatory in schools is that kids and teens in schools are still growing, and going outside and being active is essential in doing this. Another reason why it should be required is that it lowers risks of obesity, diabetes, high cholesterol, and high blood sugar. PE also allows students to bond with their classmates in an environment outside of the classroom. Some may argue that PE can be tedious and hard, but health habits should be established when kids are younger, to help them later in life.
End tax breaks for religious organizations

I would not be debating with you if every priest was driving a Ferrari 458. But obviously that just not true. Do you really think we would not be paying the same amount of taxes, if we made churches pay taxes? Organizations like the Red Cross would cease to exist. Making the Government responsible to fill in. Where do you think the Government is going to get that money from? That's right, you and me. Organizations like the Red Cross and YMCA are able to do what they do,because they don't have to worry about taxes. By Taxing Churches you are actually hurting people not helping, not only that, risking the chance of our taxes going up to continue the programs these organizations already do.
End tax breaks for religious organizations

Churches need to be taxed. Consider that for every tax dollar a religious organization does not pay, you and I pay it on its behalf. Many are among the wealthiest organizations in the world: by 1971, the amount of real and personal property owned by U.S. churches"was approx. $110 billion. In New York City alone, the amount was $3 billion in 1989. A 1986 estimate showed religious income in that year of approx. $100 billion, or about"five times the income of the five largest corporations in the U.S.""All tax free. There are many other organizations the needy can turn to.
End tax breaks for religious organizations

You are right to say that Churches save money by having tax exceptions. But any money they do make is going right back into the community. These organizations are responsible for soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and after-school programs for poor families. Religious leaders do not get to pocket the money for themselves. Religious organizations are among some of the top non profit organizations in the US ( YMCA, Campus Crusade for Christ, Catholic Charities USA, etc. ). Think about the consequences of taxing these organizations. All that money that would be going to the needy, would instead, be going to the IRS.
End tax breaks for religious organizations

Premise:Churches ( referring to place of worship) have to go under stringent IRS protocol. Premise:Religions like Scientology and the Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster do not fulfill these criteria. Premise:One of the Biggest reasons why Churches are not taxed is to show separation of church and state, as seen in Supreme Court ruling of Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York. Conclusion:Taxing religious organizations that follow the rules of the IRS is in strict violation of the first amendment. http://www.irsvideos.gov... http://www.law.cornell.edu...
NCIS is the best TV show.

Alright, then, NCIS vs. Seinfeld. Contention 1: Plotline In NCIS, the plotline is about a field team for NCIS solving cases involving the U.S. Marines, along with the random disputes and feuds among the individual members of the team, with random twists being introduced in almost every episode. Plotlines are very often connected between episodes, with some underlying plotlines appearing throughout the entire show in various episodes. The plots also include murder, kidnapping, terrorism, and twisted relationships. In Seinfeld, the plotlines are about a group of people doing random things. This has little continuation, and very little point. I mean, the entire show is based around the idea that life is pointless. Contention 2: Running Time NCIS has a running time of 42-44 minutes. Seinfeld has a running time of 21-22 minutes. Plotlines can be much deeper when there is more time involved, and you can jam more action into one show. This also means that there is more NCIS out there than Seinfeld, with Seinfeld having approximately 64.5 hours of running time, while NCIS has 98 hours and counting. This means that a guy who wanted to watch all Seinfeld episodes wouldn't get as much entertainment as a guy watching all NCIS episodes. NCIS also has four episodes that are two-part, allowing for a movie-length episode with plenty of action and climax. Contention 3: Cinematography The way that the NCIS producers filmed NCIS is unique. The producers decided that they would film things in any way, except the normal way. This lead to the zoom-in and zoom-out cut-frames, the quickened time through cut-frames, and the unique "gray photograph" that appears to add more suspense and reveal scenes before they occur. Finally, NCIS gets to begin each episode not with the team, but with some unsuspecting individuals who either come across the dead body, or die. NCIS also has the advantage of having more advanced technology and clarity to use in their filming. Contention 4: Characters "And there's also a family dynamic that's like growing up in an American dysfunctional family. You know, you've got the father, the strange sibling rivalries going on and the weird grandpa in the basement with the dead bodies. You know, like everyone's family." - Michael Weatherly (http://www.tv.com...) The characters are a divorced ex-Marine with a gruff attitude, an immature, movie-going slacker/success, a computer geek, a gothic forensic scientist, a supposedly sane woman (replaced by a Mossad agent with "crazy ninja skills"), and an old medical examiner who rambles on to the living and has conversations with the dead. The team overall ends up with great chemistry and crazy relationships, and people have called NCIS mostly character-based, which is a change from most action-based shows such as CSI and 24. So, I await my opponent's responses to these contentions, as well as his own.
NCIS is the best TV show.

Thanks to mongeese for introducing this fun topic. I'll take any opportunity I can get to discuss tv =D My stance will be that NCIS is not the best television show. Specifically, I will argue that it is surpassed by a far superior show: Seinfeld [1]. I agree with my opponent's definitions and with his take on the subjectivity of this debate. However, I intend to demonstrate Seinfeld's superiority through both subjective and objective measures. Lastly, I ask the audience to momentarily put aside any existing opinions they have on these shows and judge which they find to be best according to the evidence we present. Thanks and enjoy! ::References:: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
NCIS is the best TV show.

I think that the TV show NCIS is the best TV show. NCIS - http://en.wikipedia.org...(TV_series) Best - excelling all others (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) TV show - http://en.wikipedia.org... Naturally, the term "best" is subjective. My opponent will choose one (1) other TV show, and we will debate over which TV show is better based on their pros and cons. Anything possibly relevant to being a pro or con to a TV show is acceptable. This first round will just be for greetings and TV show selection. I await my opponent's choice.
Joke Battle

Before we get to the joke, I want to state something Con might want to consider next time. Con never stated Con's source. Con never said if Con made it up or got it form somewhere (if the joke is so common that everyone knows it, say so). Chuck Norris isn't that powerful; there's no way that he could teleport next to me right now a smash my face against my keybojehrhhfhcyeuqjnj73772/isi8wiwjj..e ,uj,ksjwp';nsj Source: http://www.jokes-best.com... I admit to smiling when I first got this joke.
Joke Battle

s://s-media-cache-ak0. pinimg. com. .. ; alt="funny-jokes-in. the-world. jpg (356×331): Funny Jokes In The World Jpg, Funny Things, Funny Pics, Funny Pictures, Jokes Welding, Funny Stuff, View, Finding Funny, Business Jokes" data-load-state="pending" /> Source: . https://www.pinterest.com...Extend
Joke Battle

This is a battle in which the contestants will find the funniest Jokes they can and tell them. Whoever tells the funniest jokes wins. There are, however, some rules: 1) NO MATTER WHAT, THE JOKES MUST BE APPROPRIATE. If you do not think one of your opponent's jokes is appropriate, say so in the comment section. The commenters must determine if it is appropriate. If it is not, then the contestant who posted the joke must post another one in place of the not appropriate one in their next argument. If the not appropriate joke was their last one, no joke will be counted. 2) If you didn't make up the joke, you have to cite where you got it from. If you plagiarize, you will forfeit all points to your opponent unless you forgot to cite, in which case you may leave a citation in the comment section. 3) No cheating and follow the rules. No thinking outside the box too majorly. Round 1 is acceptance and anything you might want to say. Good luck, and may the best jokester win. Note: Sometime I might forget a rule or something and say in the comment section a "new" rule. That is not usually the case.
KFC should not be allowed to advertise their Kentucky Grilled Chicken as grilled chicken.

-___- Voters, take points off me for being disrespectful. I don't care at this point. The gloves are off. CLEARLY you CANNOT wrap your mind around the concept that, quite possibly, the ineffectiveness of advertising "Kentucky Oven Roasted Chicken with Subtle Hints of Cow" on national television would cause KFC to simply remove the beef ingredients from it's KGC item. And okay, fine, let's explore your scenario, because I think you're pretty darned special. Let's say that KFC advertises its KGC item as ""Kentucky Oven Roasted Chicken with Subtle Hints of Cow. " You're right, people would go buy other chicken products. Yay Con! Do you want a standing ovation? Perhaps a medal? Well, I can tell you, you don't deserve one. Your lack of foresight depresses me, Con. People would not buy more chicken, they would simply buy the same amount of chicken elsewhere. Just because they stopped buying KFC doesn't mean they are going to consume more chicken. It just means they will buy the same amount of chicken elsewhere. Vote pro. No thank yous. No last minute arguments. No recap. No buzzwords.
KFC should not be allowed to advertise their Kentucky Grilled Chicken as grilled chicken.

KFC is a well known fast food chain here in America. In case you don't know what KFC stands for, it's Kentucky Fried Chicken. Recently, they let a new product out onto the market. Kentucky Grilled Chicken. However, it is far from grilled, and far from chicken. Laugh at me you might, but KGC, as I will refer to it, contains only some chicken. KGC contains more than two percent beef fat and more than two percent beef powder, whatever that is. (1)(2) Who cares, you may say. So what? I got a little beef chicken mix. I don't care. Well I can tell you who cares. Buddhists and Hindus. Part of their religion is not to eat beef. (3) And I'm sure there are other religious groups out there that can't eat beef. And the chicken isn't even grilled! (1) It's roasted in an oven! (4) KFC is blatantly lying to us! Because there is beef in the product and it's not grilled, I believe the name must be changed to "Kentucky Oven Roasted Chicken with Subtle Hints of Cow." Thank you to whomever accepts this argument. 1:http://artisantaste.blogspot.com... 2:http://www.walletpop.com... 3:http://www.faqs.org... 4:http://www.kfc.com... Definitions Grilled: To mark with a series of parallel bars like those of a grill. Chicken: A domestic fowl, Gallus domesticus, descended from various jungle fowl of southeastern Asia and developed in a number of breeds for its flesh, eggs, and feathers. Kentucky: A state in the E central United States. 3,661,433; 40,395 sq. mi. (104,625 sq. km). Capital: Frankfort. Abbreviation: KY (for use with zip code), Ken., Ky. Beef: The flesh of a cow, steer, or bull raised and killed for its meat
Every country should ban citizen ownership of firearms.

Giving citizens the chance to own guns for self-protection should help with gun deaths, Or so it would seem. In America alone, 113 people died from school shootings in the year 2018. That's only considering school shootings. Almost 40, 000 gun deaths in the US in 2018, The highest in 50 years. The pattern seems to be rising instead of dropping, And that's exactly what guns were supposed to solve. Just recently, There was another shooting in New Zeland, Forcing a stricter gun law. If we take a look at China, There was never a school shooting and China isn't even on the list of countries with gun-related deaths. If we can copy and paste the laws for guns that China has, Into all the countries around the world, We will be able to see a clear drop in gun deaths.
the UK could vote for wether scotland can have independence

As a Scottish person I oppose this motion. I will first rebut this strange little story that pro has brought to you. Assuming that Pro is suggesting that with only Scottish people voting in this referendum we are only capable of supporting one view. What actually happens is that we are able to view the points made by David Cameron and Ed Milliband in England to oppose Scottish independence and the points made by Alex Salmond to support independence then measure the pros and cons to make a decision for ourselves. My main point is very simple: Why should the English, Welsh, Irish be involved in voting on how the Scottish people should be governed. The Scottish people live in Scotland. We have a right to decide how we want to be governed. We listen to what recommendations are coming from England but ultimately we have to decide for ourselves. The English are not going to be that greatly affected by Scottish independence in terms of politics. The Scottish however are fully affected by it naturally and will be the ones who have to live with the effects of independence whether they are good or bad. My own analogy is a polamory relationship in which one persons decides they want to leave relationship. They listen to all the points raised by the other people in the relationship and want to decide for themselves, as is their right. The other people in that relationship decide that this is unfair and call a vote involving all those involved in the relationship. If a person wants to leave a relationship they should be allowed to do so. The latest polls (metro Monday) suggest that actually more English people want Scottish independence than the Scots do. So if we were to go ahead with Pro's plan then the Scottish would be forced out of a relationship and into a struggling independence that they themselves voted against. The views of the rest of the UK should not be forgotten but they should not be involved in the election that will ultimately decide on Scotland's fate as a country. That is up to the Scottish people and the Scottish people alone. Thank you and I await further arguments from Pro.
the UK could vote for wether scotland can have independence

Scotland has been part of the UK for over 300 years now and they now ant independnce, i am 100% with them that they should have independence, but what i am against is that only scotland can have the vote. over 7000 people live in scotland and if only those 7000 (saying at least most of them actualy wanting independence) had the vote, well its kinda obvious what would happen next. Now yes there are more poeple in the uk than scotland. But picture this, In america in 2009 the three candidates for the title of the president of the united states of america were barrack obama, hillary cliton and i think the other one was jhon macain (im not to sure im not american), now say that the only the people who supported hillary clinton were alowed to vote, this ladies and gentleman, is very simualar.