BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Technological progress is a road to nowhere

Changes do not always lead to better. Nowadays, technology has advanced in tremendous leaps and bounds. The advanced science and technology, technology in agriculture, in manufacturing to improve efficiency and quality of production processes to better meet people's needs. But I think it is not true. Technological progress - is a critical factor of our time, which affects all areas of human activity. This progress places in the hands of humanity powerful and extremely useful things like efficient chemical and biochemical products and tools for using atomic energy and space exploration. However technological progress has its negative side. Humanity cannot imagine the world without technological advances such as computer, televisions and machines and so on however, technology also brings harm to our society; it makes us be absolutely dependent on them. The booming of industrialization and development causes pollutions to our world. Computer technologies have dramatically changed the way people gather information, conduct research and communicate with others worldwide. Considering the tremendous startup expenses, copyright issues, objectionable materials and other potential disadvantages of technology, much research has been conducted regarding the effectiveness of, and better strategies for, technology integration. Technological progress is dangerous because it influences our health, it becomes a threat to global ecology. Technological progress makes our lives more comfortable; however, technological progress develops faster than technological safety that leads to man-made disasters, which not only kill thousands of human lives but also cost the state and corporations huge amounts of money. According to news portal "Whoyougle" there are three hugest man-made disasters. First of all, in 1988 due to an error of technical staff on an oil platform "Piper Alpha" was explosion and fire, 167 workers died there and USA lost 3.4 billion dollars. At second of all, Chernobyl disaster in 1986, nuclear reactor exploded and radioactive release into atmosphere and water. It leads to death of 1 million people and more than 200 billion dollars loses. Around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant created an exclusion zone, where never something going to live. And obviously, Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, which almost destroyed the whole country. This catastrophe makes more than 40km around nuclear reactor uninhabitable. This was the terrifying event over the past 20 years. In my opinion technological progress is too rapid, humanity is not ready yet. It will destroy our planet and this time it will be forever.
Australia doesn't exist.

Uck! You are just one of them. Trying to convince me it's real. I could try to fly a drone thousands of miles out into the ocean and i'd find some remote island with a bunch of nuketowns filled with manequinns or something. Of course they want people in the airplanes to believe they are actually seeing a real country! A bunch of other top secret stuff goes on down there. 'Australia' is like the code word for some middle of the ocean AREA-51. The bermuda triangle was where they were testing these things until they were ready to go public and INVITE people in! It's a bunch of calculated events making us believe that this place is friendly and real.
Australia doesn't exist.

If I were to attempt to go to 'Australia' I'd end up on some world government controlled island where to trick you into thinking that you are in some functioning country. I think it's a myth. I've never been there and they just show movies and shows and stuff on tv about Australia all the time. Everyone saying that they are from 'Australia' is attempting to trick me into falling into some trap.They try to make it seem interestng with fictional creatures like 'Kangaroos' and 'Lions' and 'Zebras'.
Call of Duty is better than StarFox

...which does not automatically make it a better game series.Why Con WinsPro ignored that Star Fox has more developed plot and characters.Pro ignored that Star Fox has better gameplay.Pro ignored that Star Fox has contributed more to the gaming industry.Pro dropped that Call of Duty was more popular, although that does not make it a better game.Pro dropped that Star Fox was annoying, although this is based solely on opinion of a fan-made video.Pro dropped that Call of Duty has any reflection off real life.Pro dropped or ignored basically everything.Advice for Next TimeArgue every contention in every round. Especially in round 5.You have 8,000 characters and three days. Use 'em up :)Thanks for offering this debate, Gamer. I hope you go on to do well in later debates.Conclusion: Call of Duty is NOT Better than Star Fox.
Call of Duty is better than StarFox

Let's give this video another try: http://www.youtube.com...1. I never implied that picture was real, I simply added it for comic relief rather than to construct my argument. 2. Star Fox is worldwide as well; while not quite as popular, pro has not presented any reason my popularity is an important aspect to deciding what the better game is. Therefore, you, the voter, should consider my contentions first and foremost.3. Since no one's ever changed society on this site, I'd say all debates are for the heck of it :P But it's a competition. What's the fun in it if you don't try to win once in a while?Extend All Other Arguments :D
jesus contradicted himself regarding violence

jesus contradicted himself regarding use of violence how do all of the following things reconcile? i actually have some theories but they could be better, and am curious if there's anything better. Jesus told people not to intervene in his arrest process: "And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached and drew out his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. 52Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. 53"Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels?" when jesus was before pilate during the arrest, he said if this were his kingdom people would be fighting for him: Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." at another point, jesus said to 'turn the other cheek'. at another point, jesus said "let he who is without a sword go and get one"
This website is pathetic.

THIS IS SPARTA!!! #_# :) :> (:) *&* $$$ !@! @@@$@@@ &(*Y& $&#*( () )*( !0! ^.^ )L( !+! @=@ 2+2=5 *&(P $$$ D%D +_)+)(*&^%$#@! I like cheese yes I do, I like cheese, how about you? - Cheeks
This website is pathetic.

yes but as a virgin, you are not in a position to be making those calls. i hope somebody pokes your "sensitive eyes" out. i was trying to discuss the very things you said this website is devoted to, so whats the problem? just because my mother gave me an unconventional name at birth, that shouldn't follow me around for my entire life, or my name isn't F*cks*it Wakowski. oh yeah, this website smells funny.
Absolute right to gun ownership

"It is true that if someone came up to a school with a semi-automatic, the school would probably be notified and a lock down would be held. However, holding a lock down does not necessarily mean that the school has a high enough advantage to prevent the shooting. This was grimly shown in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012, when Adam Lanza, armed with three semi-automatic firearms, killed twenty first-grade students, four teachers, the school principal, and the school psychologist at Sandy Hook Elementary. He killed his mother earlier and himself when the police arrived, bringing the total death count to 28." Right- that's why the teachers and principle should own guns, because simply locking down the school and hiding unarmed in a dark room with a bunch of kids isn't going to be as effective as say- shooting the intruder. "Also, why would a totalitarian government arise from our own? A president could become corrupt, but without the approval of the Congress, he would not have any tyrannical power. Besides, a dictatorship rising from a democratic first-world country would obviously attract attention from other countries." Yeah because when Obama used an executive order to grant legal status to 5 million undocumented immigrants, congress stopped him. Oh no wait- they didn't? You do know that our own goveronment ALREADY IS tyrannical right? It's already here, immident domain, NSA spying, Obamacare, we are living under the tyranmny right now man. "Third, the military and government already have much more advanced guns than citizens. The military had access to machine guns the 20th Century, and citizens still don't have access to fully automatic rifles. The government will most likely always have more advanced weaponry than the citizenry."That's why we need the citizens to have absolute right to gun ownership. "Finally, most adults (Even most gun owners) agree that there should be extensive background checks for private gun sales. 40% of gun sales are private party gun sales that do not require background checks: Someone who is mentally ill or has a criminal record (Even a felon) could get ahold of a gun. 90% of gun owners approve of laws that prevent the mentally ill from purchasing guns. 79% of gun owners also approve of background checks for private party gun sales."Almost no one is going to disagree that mentally ill people shouldn't own firearms, but no one sits down and wonders about the implications or specifics. For example- who decides who is mentally ill? The goveronment? It is very clear that this could be misused, and thus we sould base backround checks on a principle called "right to chose." Meaning, if the goveronment makes public records available to gun salesmen, and they as individuels bacround check someone, and find that they are a felon or a chitsophrinic maniac, then they have the right to chose not to sell him a gun.
Absolute right to gun ownership

This is Round 2. Good luck! :) It is true that if someone came up to a school with a semi-automatic, the school would probably be notified and a lock down would be held. However, holding a lock down does not necessarily mean that the school has a high enough advantage to prevent the shooting. This was grimly shown in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012, when Adam Lanza, armed with three semi-automatic firearms, killed twenty first-grade students, four teachers, the school principal, and the school psychologist at Sandy Hook Elementary. He killed his mother earlier and himself when the police arrived, bringing the total death count to 28. Also, why would a totalitarian government arise from our own? A president could become corrupt, but without the approval of the Congress, he would not have any tyrannical power. Besides, a dictatorship rising from a democratic first-world country would obviously attract attention from other countries. Third, the military and government already have much more advanced guns than citizens. The military had access to machine guns the 20th Century, and citizens still don't have access to fully automatic rifles. The government will most likely always have more advanced weaponry than the citizenry. Finally, most adults (Even most gun owners) agree that there should be extensive background checks for private gun sales. 40% of gun sales are private party gun sales that do not require background checks: Someone who is mentally ill or has a criminal record (Even a felon) could get ahold of a gun. 90% of gun owners approve of laws that prevent the mentally ill from purchasing guns. 79% of gun owners also approve of background checks for private party gun sales.
Absolute right to gun ownership

First of all, 8.3% of our population are felons, {1} so even if just anyone could get a gun with the absolute right to gun ownership, then there would be about 11 times as many armed law abiding citizens as there would be armed felons. Now, if someone tries to bring an AK-47 into a school, chances are someone is going to see him pulling a giant semi-automatic gun out of his car, this would allow the people inside the school to prepare and arm, they would also be better at defending the school since they are familiar with their surroundings and would also be garrisoned inside. Second of all, 'tyrannical government' usually refers to our own government, not some foreign invading government. And the UN is actually one of the things that we would have to defend our nation against. Third of all, if you're going up against a gang of 7, 8 people, then you'll never regret having too much ammunition. If the military has semi-automatics then we the people need semi-automatics, it's that simple, the people should always be armed at least to an equal extent that the government is. {1}. https://www.libertariannews.org...
Absolute right to gun ownership

Just so you know I am NOT for complete restriction of guns, just that we shouldn't have absolute rights to gun ownership. First of all, any idiot could go to a gun store, buy an AK and go shoot up a school if there were absolute rights to gun ownership. However, with multiple background checks and only access to not-so-dangerous guns (Such as handguns), I believe gun deaths and costs associated with gun violence would decrease. Besides, what is the point of any citizen to have the right to own a semi-automatic rifle? You might argue that the Second Amendment allows citizens to own and carry guns as self-defense against a tyrannical government. What are the chances that a tyrannical government would take over the United States, or any powerful, democratic, well-governed first-world country? Very little. And even if the United States was taken over by a dictatorship, they are an asset to many, many international groups - the largest being the United Nations (UN) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) - which are certain to do something if such a catastrophe happened. We also have formal diplomatic relations with all nations except for Bhutan, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Taiwan. Finally, if a totalitarian government (Think of something like Ingsoc in 1984 or North Korea) did take over the United States, that means that they had to fight the U. S military to do so. If the entire U. S armed forces, with their advanced machinery and technology, can't defeat this government, can your petty AK-7 do it? You also might argue that a gun can be used in self-defense against burglars, rapists, and criminals in general. Well, what use would you need to have a semi-automatic rifle to defend yourself against a criminal? A handgun would do. Also, with absolute rights to gun ownership the criminal probably already has a semi-automatic tactical rifle with him, and he's prepared. If you have time to see the criminal, go get your gun, load it and fire, you're probably already dead. You might also argue that guns can be used for hunting, and I agree. It's much easier to hunt with a gun than with a bow or crossbow. But why would you need such a high-tech gun to hunt some deer? A normal rifle, or even a handgun, would do. Finally, guns are RARELY used in self-defense. You might think that the main reason for an absolute right to gun ownership would be for self-defense, but there you would be wrong. In 2010 alone out of 8,505 homicides only a measly 230 of them (That's less than 3%) were justifiable (Basically, a citizen using a firearm to kill a felon or criminal). Compared to the rest (Over 97%) being criminal homicides, out of every 36 deaths by guns only one would actually be killing a felon in self-defense.
Religion in Government

^^ My use of Gay Marriage was simply an example of how muddled the two, religion and government, have gotten. I'm honestly not quite sure why Gay Marriage is such a political issue, as it is presented to the public. .. At any rate, the fact that members of government are religious is not the issue. The problem is all of the discrimination that arises as a result of it. Whether we like to admit it or not, it's difficult to escape the preconceived notions that become associated with any one classification. For example, America is nowhere near electing someone openly Muslim, but someone with Muslim ideals would be nearly indistinguishable from someone with Christian ones, (if they only said the ideals part, not the Muslim part). The priority should not be on the source of their morals but rather the morals themselves, the commitment to the nation, the integrity. All of these can be observed by their past decisions and actions. Every American has a responsibility to set aside titles and thereby prejudice, so that an excellent candidate doesn't get swept to the side due to a misconception. When approaching the government as Americans, not Christians, the welfare of the nation becomes the priority. It's just logic. ^_^
Religion in Government

Secondly, I hardly see how the gay-rights movement is a matter of religion in government. Yes, marriage is a matter of religion, and most religious peoples have an opinion on the subject, but the applies to non-religious people as well. Nearly every person of voting age and people under voting age has an opinion a gay marriage. Also, religion is already in the government. Most government officials will do their best to keep the religions from interfering in their jobs and creating a conflict of interest, but even our pledge of allegiance references God, "One nation, under God. .. " I may not be correct, but I believe that about 86% of the world population is religious. The main problem of religion in government, in my opinion, is the differing religions. Because of the religious views of various people, you can not put one religion into government, as seen at the Democratic national Convention. There is a difference between religion in the government and the government forcing religious organizations to do something. As you mentioned in your argument, the government cannot force churches to acknowledge gay marriage. This has little to nothing to do with religion in government. In my opinion, religion and government must and will stay at least remotely connected, mostly due to the amount of religious government officials in office. As far as using a Christian status to gain votes, that should be avoided. But to completely separate religion from government can not and will not happen because of the role that religion has played in 86% of the world's population. Again I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. .. If you couldn't tell, its my first one :) Good luck!
Religion in Government

Rules: Not an evidence-based debate. The arguments are to be common knowledge based. This is essentially political theory/philosophy tossed out there to learn what others' opinions are. Since the 1980's the gay rights movement has been snowballing, with more people voicing their orientation and demanding equality- primarily when it came to marriage. I suppose what first struck me about this was why these people were targeting the government for this consideration, when marriage is a matter of religion. I mean, the only reason the government cares about couples is taxation. People in domestic partnerships, while two separate individuals, are considered to be one economic unit. This is because they typically consult one another before making purchases, investments, and the like. Not to mention they support each other; the endeavor is to gauge what they may be entitled to or owe as accurately as possible. It's more convenient in those circumstances to file taxes once for both partners, as opposed to twice for each person. (Also, imagine all the tax returns married couples file and then double it- would the government really want to do all that extra work? Time consuming, expensive, etc...) Over to religion. They care about couples because... while honestly I won't pretend to know. People want to commit to those they love with the blessing of whomever they worship, I suppose. It's understandable. But with that whole "separation of church and state" ideal that our founding Daddy-Os put in the first amendment, I got really confused. I mean, separation of church and state. That's a really common phrase. Didn't the LGBT community realize that they were going about it wrong? If they want recognition before the government, then appeal to label all domestic partnerships as they pertain to the government under one title, civil unions, fiscal partnerships, I don't know. Something. And if they want to be married before God, then take it up with the Church. Or found their own. But don't ask the government to force churches to acknowledge gay marriage, and don't ask the church to buckle under the government. It's a very good way of spreading ill will. Figure out what the problem is, who is responsible for it, and approach them. (Bear in mind Gay Marriage was just my example, it's not the debate.) But politicians have been using their status as Christians to market themselves to the public. I'll admit, the Bush's and Romney are the only ones where specific instances come to mind, but I stand by my claim. The point is that Religion is influencing politics when it shouldn't be. Everyone- the people, the politicians - have a responsibility to set personal things like religion aside when it comes to the government because that separation is an American ideal. The morals, the values- those are to be presented to the public as one's own, and without a title or preconception attached to it. The main point is that religion in the government is raising an awful lot of trouble, and it could be avoided. We need to reaffirm the ideal of religious and political segregation, so that problems can actually get solved by the people actually involved.