BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
You should hold a fart in at work

You shouldn't hold a fart in because it huurts ur tomy. Paiinful and egxcrusiating. Paiin. I mean, I ccould nevve in my liffe hole in a farrt at work. Thaty is why i let is go,, nice and loud, and out, and loud. Leaving a gap in my trousers. It only temporarily stinks, I can telL you that much. Work is boring and whhen yur butt is freeezing its cheeks off, what r u going 2 do to Make it Warm// WeL;, you fart. Farting is nice and a sensation of reliefe and relaxatinog. U mean comee on. Who doesn't like all the womem looking at y because u fartted? It si soooooo funnny right? u love doing it. I t makes me feeel great o the inside. It also hurts your tommy. Painfully so much like tryiing to do a larrge poop. I love lettng it og. "Let is GOOO!" So come on world, why don't we start farting anywheree? I mean, itt can math the polutionn am I right> Muh muh hahaha. I agree, you shoould agre so what .r we waiting 4? FART FART FART! It is goof.
I think, therefore I am

====Rebuttal===="If "I" think, it doesn't prove that "I" am thinking"That's like saying, "If George walks, it doesn’t prove that George is walking". You seem to be saying that "I" am thinking and notthinking at the same time. That is logically imposable. "it just proves that something is thinking. The "I" may be a product of that something' s thought. ” That something is “I”. Your argument doesn’t even say anything about whether “I” am or not. ====Argument==== For something to be able to do something, it has to exist. It would be imposable for a nonexistent thing to start doing things in reality. Therefore, if something is thinking it has to exist. Finally, if “I” am thinking than “I” exist. To be is to exist, so “I” am. ====Conclusion====Con has not put forth any argument that negates "I think therefore I am". I have proven the statement to be true.
W-2 is better than AFDC.

" W-2 doesn't force people to get jobs" That's not relevant, since neither does welfare. "it gives them job skills training and transportation to such things," At the cost of taxpayers being enslaved in the name of the program. "so they can learn to make more themselves" No, contradiction. If you required government aid that you did not pay for to begin doing a thing, it's continuation is not "making more yourself." It's inertia. "finished and the people have jobs, welfare money will be decreased as the number of recipients does. This is proven by the statistics (98k to 6.7k). " Fudged statistics. The relevant amount is not the specific money allocated to "welfare programs," it is the total unearned money stolen by way of taxation, both now and in the long-term. The short-term savings are proportionally negligible (Government tax revenue was 2.6 trillion in this country in 2007, we'll multiply your statistical difference by 50 to see the short term effects of complete adaptation of your plan, and come up with about 4.6 million, and thus with a .0002% difference in short term taxation). The long term costs, of lengthening the number of times thefts on the scale of trillions of dollars are perpetrated, are massive compared to that. " Taxes are inevitable; they are a major income provider for the government. " Just because something is currently a common practice and has an interest group behind it (bureaucrats, dictators, lobbyists, legislators, and the like) does not mean it is "inevitable." Burning dung was once a major cooking-energy provider for every human being. Now, however, we have better fuels. There are numerous potential funding mechanisms that are sufficient to displace taxes in a government reduced to it's legitimate functions of law enforcement, national defense, and dispute resolution (that is, police, military, and the courts). Such mechanisms include charges for registering a contract at the court (to make it legally enforceable,) charges for installing emergency phone lines, charges for registering property claims with the court, etc. People will, when offered the choice, choose to fund a legitimate government function, out of self-interest, but not an illegitimate one. The factory owner, for instance, is rational to fund a government for the act of preventing sabotage to his machinery- but rationally he would not pay for a subsidy to his competitor who produces an inferior product, and rationally that's bad for the consumer too. In order to achieve liberty from taxation, then, it is necessary that such programs as "W-2" and "AFDC" be eliminated. Since AFDC is less efficient, it is easier to eliminate, i.e. it is easier to convince voters to stop supporting it. As such it is the lesser evil. Efficiency is only a virtue for producers of goods, it is a vice for producers of "bads." Hitler, for example, was far more efficient than Jack the Ripper- which is why we are more concerned with the evil of the former.
W-2 is better than AFDC.

By "better", I mean an overall smarter and more efficient plan. That's what I plan to prove in this debate. W-2 doesn't force people to get jobs, it gives them job skills training and transportation to such things, so they can learn to make more themselves. Of course, some people would still be on welfare, such as disabled people. Once W-2 is finished and the people have jobs, welfare money will be decreased as the number of recipients does. This is proven by the statistics (98k to 6.7k). Taxes are inevitable; they are a major income provider for the government.
W-2 is better than AFDC.

To say a thing is "better" presumes a standard, an ethical standard, based on the pursuit of the continuance of one's life and the facts of reality. Reality dictates that secure continuance of our life requires that certain things don't happen to us- we aren't killed, we aren't prevented from using our mind to produce our material needs, and once we've produced those we're sure to enjoy the benefits. These are what is "right" for humans, the rights of life, liberty, and property. When we realize that there are other humans, with the same need, who will only be motivated to respect these rights if we respect theirs, we have come to a politial conclusion- we cannot initiate force against them, but if they start it we have to retaliate if they don't repent, that is, we have to eliminate the threat. This means that taxes are evil, because they initiate force. Both W-2 and AFDC are taxpayer funded, therefore, both are evil, requiring that we eliminate their perpetrators if they fail to repent. Which one is "better?" Whichever one is easiest to eliminate. This means that programs like W-2, that get "more bang for your buck," are counterproductive- they encourage voters to keep the program around longer, which means human beings like us will be under the boot of taxation longer.
W-2 is better than AFDC.

First, some background information: AFDC: Aid to Families with Dependent Children is a welfare program established by the Social Security Act of 1935. It supports single mothers with children, people with disabilities, and people in poverty. This is where all of your welfare tax money goes to - the AFDC provides targeted families with a certain amount of financial support. W-2: The "Wisconsin Works" program, designed by Tommy Thompson, has replaced the AFDC in Wisconsin. Instead of the main focus being welfare, it is more of an employment program. It provides welfare recipients with job training, transportation, child care and health care, thus decreasing the amount of money needed for welfare. My argument (pro) is in support of W-2 over AFDC. I will support my case by stating points. Point 1: According to ontheissues.org, Wisconsin has decreased the number of welfare-dependent families by 93% under W-2 (from 98,000 to 6,700). Through job skills training, former welfare recipients now have jobs that can support their basic needs without government assistance. Point 2: In 1996, the AFDC spent $24 billion on welfare. Many of these families, because the welfare was all they needed, had no motivation for work, and thus leeched off the government and the taxpayers for support. Welfare also encourages families to have more children, as this boosts the bonus received.
W-2 is better than AFDC.

According to you, it's relevant; you brought it up in the first place: "This means that taxes are evil, because they initiate force. Both W-2 and AFDC are taxpayer funded, therefore, both are evil, requiring that we eliminate their perpetrators if they fail to repent." Taxpayers are not "enslaved" any more than with the AFDC program. The only difference is with the job training from W-2, you won't be paying these taxes for nearly as long. Okay, not making more themselves but making money themselves. Who cares? You should get my point. I'm not talking about welfare money, I was talking about the number of recipients. And if the the number of recipients decreases, so does the amount you have to pay. I haven't heard of any government that didn't have some form of taxation. So they might as well be inevitable, necessary. People fund the government anyway (i.e. lobbyists). Besides, this isn't the point of the debate. "Since AFDC is less efficient..." Well, you just conceded to my argument. I don't see why we need to finish this debate now.
News on TV is government propaganda.

Ratings, ratings, ratings. From what I have read in your argument, I feel it is safe to assume your belief is that the only reason television news channels report things is to gain ratings. Although it may be true that news channels broadcast stories which spark the interest of the viewers, I do not believe it is correct to assume they are all used to make the government look good. This is because sometimes, there are news stories that portray the government in a negative light. Therefore, not all news channels are propaganda for the government. Just like it's wrong to make assumptions for a whole group based upon the actions of one person, it is wrong to assume all news channels are propaganda for the government based on the stories of one channel.
News on TV is government propaganda.

Additionally, TV news channels are not the only sources of global information; there are also newspapers, radios, online newspapers, etc., which inform us just as much as the TV news channels do." Although this is very true this is not part of the debate, we are primarily focused on TV news. Lest we not forget that TV is all about ratings keep that in mind. The news is altered to gain more viewers. This is why news is altered, to match the opinions of viewers. After this is achieved they emphasize of important matters what role the government and officials play. The Internet, newspaper, online newspapers are a much more factual and truthful method of current events. They provide unfiltered information and the government's actual role. Have you ever heard of a news station broadcasting against the government continually. A famous one like NBC for example. They want the ratings so they inform viewers what they want to hear, their government is powerful and doing everything in their power in favor of the American people. While the government stands by and basks in the American peoples' reassurance that their government is doing the right thing for the people.
News on TV is government propaganda.

I do not believe news on TV is government propaganda. Although some news stations, such as FOX news, may be extremely bias in their news reports, there are also those, such as NBC, which report the facts as they are. If news channels merely "agree with the people's opinions to secure their trust," then why are there so many issues out there today that are largely controversial? It is because the human mind is naturally made to agree and disagree on certain topics. This means that the government would also have its own opinions on certain topics, and that's okay; they can promote their ideas as much as they want to, but they cannot force someone to think a certain way. Our minds are OURS for us to think our own thoughts. Additionally, TV news channels are not the only sources of global information; there are also newspapers, radios, online newspapers, etc., which inform us just as much as the TV news channels do. It is not possible for the government to completely regulate every single news source that is out there today.
God does not exist and is simply wish fulfillment

I accept this debate and will be arguing Con for the following resolution:"God does not exist and is simply wish fulfillment"At this point I would like to point out that Pro bears the burden of proof in this debate. He must prove to us conclusivley that God does not exist and cannot exist -- that God is in fact impossible. I must only neutralize his arguments and demonstrate that God is a possibility, and that it isn't possible to prove a negative of this nature, in order to win.The fact of the matter, though, is that Pro cannot fulfill his burden of proof; it is impossible to do so. The question of whether God exists does not possess truth value; this is to say that we cannot prove the statement "God exists" true or false because we lack the available information. If God exists, he exists the parameters of the natural world and thus isn't evident to our own senses. So disproving him -- which is Pro's burden -- is impossible.Now, Pro could argue that there is no evidence for God, and he would be right. However, my burden in this debate is not to demonstrate that God does exist, but that he could exist. The chief burden is in proving a negative.With that, I pass back over to Pro.
No school uniforms

Well, Ladies and gentlemen! It seems that the instigator has forfeited (how sad), Though how he/she may have had some points, My case still stands. That is because ever since centuries ago, School uniforms has already been implemented. Why change something so historical now when you can invent other things than changing history? "Life is a dream for the wise, a game for the fool, a comedy for the rich, a tragedy for the poor" - Sholom Aleichem -
No school uniforms

" If schools don't let middle-schoolers wear everyday attire they are taking students the freedom to express themselves away. " It doesn't necessarily mean that students CAN'T wear their own attire, In some cases they are allowed to wear other attires if they have no uniform or there is an event, The student themselves decides whether or not they should wear uniform. If they don't then the teacher will just remind the student to wear uniform, They can in fact, Wear their own attire, It's just that wearing school uniforms are better. Now let me restate everything that you didn't answer. If there was no school uniform. . . . . . It would push students to wear trendy clothes or which are inappropriate. . . . School spirit would decrease (because of emblem and equality) . . . It will increase the likelihood of rape or sexual harassment (because of inappropriate clothing) . . . Rich families will make their children (or the children themselves decides) to wear expensive clothing, Which the financially challenged families can't, Causing competition. "Many middle school students will agree with a writer who said" Tell me who that writer was. "Some students would like to express their feelings in what they wear" Tell me your specifics why students shouldn't wear school uniform. Not only self-expression. "Therefore, Some students would like to express their feelings in what they wear so students would rather wear everyday attire. " There are other ways students can express themselves, Not only through their own attire. "Too tight or too loose" Then just re-adjust the uniform or measure it before the school even starts. "If schools don't let middle-schoolers wear everyday attire they are taking students the freedom to express themselves away" Though you are only talking about your own country, How about others? And anyways, Even if they do "take the freedom to express themselves", That's understatement, To restate that would be "schools take the freedom to express the APPEARANCE of a student", Which would mean that it doesn't take the WHOLE FREEDOM to EXPRESS THEMSELVES as there are MANY OTHER WAYS TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES, Not just through their attire. So what is your point here? It seems that your point here only sticks to the argument that students can't express themselves, Though actually they still can express themselves, But not on their appearance, There are other more ways I can say myself a student can express themselves. You are saying that the students has an incapacity to express themselves as a whole just because they can't wear what they want? That's ridiculous! The school isn't taking the right of students to express themselves as a whole just because they can't wear what they want, They are only taking the opportunity that everyone in the school will be equal to each other through appearance. Again, They can express themselves in many other ways, Not just through a simplistic uniform. My case still stands.
No school uniforms

Some students want to express themselves in the attire they are wearing. Many middle school students will agree with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, Or abridging the freedom of speech, Or of the press, Or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, And to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". (Amendment 1) If schools don't let middle-schoolers wear everyday attire they are taking students the freedom to express themselves away. It is stated in the 1st amendment of The Bill of Rights that freedom of religion, Speech, And the press is against the law. Therefore, Some students would like to express their feelings in what they wear so students would rather wear everyday attire.
No school uniforms

"Nike is the uniform for kids all over the world. . . ""~ M. I. A. Nike is the everyday attire for kids all around the globe. People think that middle schools shouldn't have students wear school uniforms. There are many reasons why people think that middle schools shouldn't have uniforms such as everyday attire is more comfortable, It restricts students from expressing themselves, And it takes a shorter amount of time to get ready. Students want to be the most focused in school, So middle-schoolers would rather wear everyday attire because it is more comfortable. Many middle school students will agree with a writer who said: ". . . The uniforms can be very uncomfortable too tight or too loose. " (debate. Org) School uniforms can be so tight around the waist that students get a stomach ache. If middle-schoolers end up getting a stomach ache students will need to go to the office. This might cause students to miss school for the rest of the day which will put students behind in some classes. Missing class is a bad thing for students, So allowing middle school students to wear comfortable or everyday attire such as Nike is helpful.
tra'or

Dead people can't care about anything or negatively car about anything. They can't even care enough to go to the bog themselves.The age of the earth is more than 130 and I can prove it to you.In countries like Britain, the rest of Europe and the USA, people have candles on their cakes. Seeing as the material made from the candles and cake belongs to the earth, those candles, representing age, belong to the earth. Let's say that only one billion people have candles on their cake. This would mean the earth is at very least one billion years old, and seeing as the average age is at least 30, the earth is at least 30 BILLION YEARS OLD!You're wrong.Thank you.
The US should ban all firearms

I accept. I hear your friends with my soon to be husband so this will be interesting. 1st reason: Guns are dangerous, and well if there are guns then there is death and I personally don't know anyone who is for death. some people don't understand death is taking someone's life forever. 2nd reason: I just watched mission impossible 3 yesterday and well there was an assassin with a firearm in her jacket and she walked up right to the agent and killed him. These are my reasons for this round. Now please hurry up because I am not going to get any younger! :P
Filthy console peasants, glorious pc master race

I tried gaming with the built in mouse keyboard on the laptop and I can tell you that I have never had such a bad gaming experience in my life. The hand positioning sucks and by default, you ca'nt even use the mouse and keyboard at the same time. And when using a keyboard and mouse seperatley, it still is really uncomfortable. And to make that problem go away, you have to spend more cash on those gel filled mousepad. You will never have that issue with a controller, which I might add get even more improved for comfort as time goes by. As for getting games for consoles, you have to get games for pc as well and if you try to tell me you can download games on the PC, you can do that on the console as well. Graphical chips are built in but they keep getting updated and it becomes a nuisance. Models Exactly, you still have a windows 7, why not a Windows 10, I know because it sucks. While our new consoles are built near to perfection. You can choose from 4 playstation,3 xbox and tons of Nintendo consoles, while when it comes to windows, you either use windows 7,8 or 10. Can you tell me anyone who uses any other windows. Consoles are portable, i know alot of kids who take their console up the hill to their friends house and all they need to do is attach 3 cables. Free Games When I said Pc crashes a lot, I meant after 1 year. While a console never crashes for up to 4 years. Games need to be downloaded yes, but they get downloaded as fast as sonic. And dont talk about gb, my ps4 is 1tb fam. Diversity Uncharted on Pc, do me a favour, go on wikipedia and check the platforms for ucnharted and as for sonic, i guess it might be on pc now but it originated from us console war. And when you say 100,000 free games, just remember, its quality over quantity. There are some good games on free to play websites but they wil never match the legendary free games you can play on console. Also you say you only can play games on console when in fact you can use Youtube,Ign,Netflix and many other apps.And you keep rebutting the argument that console games are easy, not true bloodborne and demons souls are console exclusives that are really really hard.You can easily press pause and change the difficulties. Hell, some games have a nightmare difficulty. Free games keep coming out and we console gamers just got Saints Row gat out of hell, gone home and nba 2k16 for free. Again quality over quantity. And consoles definitely have the upper hand in that field. You can easily attach a keyboard and mouse with a console even though why would you, the controller is more user friendly,smoother and robust. 1 Tb of storage in consoles Legendary and addictive video games Easier to use Much more diverse Stop being a PC peasant( it even sounds more catchy then console peasant) Join the Amazing and Legendary race of CONSOLE WARRIORS!!!!