BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
love is a blessing or curse

oh please! I said it helps! if your gf cheated on you it was your bad luck!not all girls re unfaithfulfirst of all, I have to tell that relationships can motive you to be a better person, if you have someone to care about and who cares about you, you won’t be lonely, you will be able to give and receive love and affection, you will have someone around who can help you. That makes all the human beings happy. But at the same time the disadvantage of love is that makes add drama to your life, you lose your privacy, and you lose freedom and lose your power to make important decisions in your life. Because he or she largely depends on the partners commitment to each other. since love marriage is a choice of particular persons. They have a strong and longer bond between those couples. Those persons have a lot of advantages. They have the freedom of choosing their partners. So they are only responsible for the consequences that are good or bad in their marriage life. In love marriages the partners who knew all the good and bad habits of each other. So they are willing to adjust it respectively. So they are well prepared to overcome the future conflicts in between them. Or they know how to manage it in better deal. In love marriages there is no compulsion of love. Because that feeling come into a person automatically without any external compulsion. So that there exist a well perfect bond between them, and hence it is the secret of their stability in their relationships. The factor behind the love is not only the physical appearance. But also the basic character of a person also. The top most disseminate of love is sex. but the new generation have no such thoughts, they find love through physical relationships such type of love will not have such an elasticity they are only infatuations and not the true love. The real love marriage helps in bridging the gaps of cast, religion etc
Liberal Psychology

Well, since Bogie hasn't given me anything more to reply to, and since some of y'all seem to think that I'm too verbose I'll try to keep this one really brief. I know that Bogie wanted to explore "liberal psychology" but I prefer to turn the tables and talk about conservatism. Essentially, I think that perhaps the best argument against conservatism is this, conservatives and capitalists already rule our nation and the world and look what a deplorable state of societal and global affairs we have on our hands today. By their fruits ye shall know them, and the fruits of conservatism and capitalism are bitter and rotten. Yes indeedy, the best argument against conservative ideology and free-market fundamentalism is the horrendous mess it's made of politics and economics in the first decade of the 21st century. If you want to know what's so wrong with the conservative mind-set just tour our land and the Third World and see what the conservative mind-set and the capitalist system it has so much doctrinaire faith in have wrought. The sad and shameful facts speak volumes for themselves. One child going hungry because of conservative policies that facilitate capitalist greed is worth a thousand words, and then some.
Why I love Education But Hate School

Why do we go to school. "To make ourselves success full in the dog eat dog world." Education is the key. But why send us to school. Education does not mean to go to school. Hard work and education are siblings but school is a distant cousin. (Suli Breaks) Mark Twain once said "I never let my schooling interfere with my education." To understand this you need to dig deeper. Education is the key but why do we need school to get an education. Education has been confused with fact gathering. "There is more than one way in this world to become an educated man" (Suli Breaks) Any more becoming educated means becoming the encyclopedia of dry facts to take a test about something that you will probably never use later on. "Everyone is a genius, but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing it"s stupid" " Albert Einstein. The success of students is measured by their ability to repeat what they have been told on to a piece of paper, but is education supposed to be about filling ones head with facts and terms than can be looked up on Google at any given time? (Why I hate School but Love Education) School can actually get in the way. Thinking outside the box in school is like stepping outside of the bunker in the middle of the war. You are wanting to get yourself killed. They encourage it but why do they shoot down your ideas after you show them it. They do not want you to change the education system if you can call it that. They want everyone to leave school the exact same. It"s a factory move kids in and out make them just good enough to make it to the next level and only that level. They put kids on a behavior plan so that the other students don"t get the same ideas and rebel against the school. Did you know every nine seconds a student drops out of school. Why? Most find it irrelevant and uninteresting. What if education was tailored to every student instead of the commonly used one size fits all. And if we were seen as teenagers instead of little numbers on big spreadsheets
Why I love Education But Hate School

Furthermore, I will attempt to illustrate the importance of schooling as it relates to education. Due to Pro's lack of clarification regarding the Round rules, I will refrain from posting my argument in order to give Pro a fair opportunity to state their full argument. However, I will state for the record that I do agree with Pro's notion that education and school are different concepts. They are distinct, although not mutually exclusive, and certainly not distant relatives, as I believe Pro was attempting to convey.
People make me sick FOR THE PITBULL LAW

Are you comparing African Americans to dogs? I believe that you are ignorant. Your views on this subject show that you have very little education. It does not phase you when pit bulls maul or kill children or elderly? This shows me what type of person you are. I have shown that pit bulls are dangerous. I have shown how their history, breeding, and genetics makes them dangerous. I have posted links that show pit owners who loved and trained their pits properly, only to have their pits attack them. We have a responsibility as a society to protect the weak. Our children and elderly are put at risk by those who choose to own pit bulls. The bottom line is pits are to dangerous to be pets. People like you who care more about dogs than people have a sickness. Ignorant people like you should be ashamed of yourself. http://www.fatalpitbullattacks.com...... https://www.youtube.com...... https://www.youtube.com......
People make me sick FOR THE PITBULL LAW

People do the same things. You can't keep saying the fact for children and elderly. It doesn't phase me what the hell happens to get kids or elderly. What does phase me is the fact that you, incompetent person, seriously keep using elderly and children as an excuse. I don't care for your views. It's honestly like hate crimes only against dogs. DO YOU JUDGE AFRICAN AMERICANS THE SAME WAY AS THE PIT BULL??? Seriously dude Wtf is wrong with you.
People make me sick FOR THE PITBULL LAW

I disagree with all of your rambling logic. I am glad that you agree that pit bulls are dangerous and they are severely injuring people. Comparing the damage that pit bulls do to the damage people do does not make sense. Our pets should not put our children in danger. This is common sense. We can not own a Tiger for a pet because they are too dangerous. This is common sense. We should not be able too own pit bulls as pets, because they are too dangerous. How can you ignore the children that have been killed or have had their faces torn apart? People who value an animal over little kids are mentally ill.
People make me sick FOR THE PITBULL LAW

Should we ban humanity as well?? We kill and disfigure people as well. He'll there are people who eat other people. Do we ban them? No we throw them in jail for 10 freaking years and then let them back out to do it again. Your argument on them killing us is invalid. We kills ourselves and each other. We also kill babies and elderly. We also kill animals. I don't see where you are trying to go with your argument darling because all of it is invalid.
People make me sick FOR THE PITBULL LAW

Pit bulls should not be banned because of people like me. Pit bulls should be banned because they disfigure and kill children. Pit bulls should be banned because they disfigure and kill elderly. Pit bulls should be banned because they disfigure and kill people. Pit bulls should be banned because they kill our other pets. You fail to make any points as to why pit bulls should not be banned. You ignore the statistics and proof of how dangerous these animals are. This breed was created too kill. We can stop breeding pit bulls and stop the killing. There are over 400 other breeds that you can choose to be a part of your family. I agree with you that pit bulls are very unpredictable. This is why they need too be banned.
People make me sick FOR THE PITBULL LAW

But what you don't take in consideration is that pit bulls are like lions, sharks, and many other wild animals. Unpredictable. No one knows what this breed goes through to survive. I'm not going to try and change your mind on pit bulls. The subject is clear about my feelings. They shouldn't ban the breed because pricks like you don't like the breed and use what has happened to people as an excuse. You are just as worthless as Michael Vick in my eyes but I don't say I hate humanity because of the things they do. I don't much like you or your comments on pit bulls just as you don't like my point of view on pit bulls. Banning pit bulls is just like abortion in my eyes. Dogs are.family members too.
People make me sick FOR THE PITBULL LAW

Why am I so against pit bulls? Because we allow pit bulls to be kept as pets in many parts of North America and the world, children, elderly, pets, and people are being mauled, disfigured and killed. Children being disfigured and killed upsets me. Elderly people being disfigured and killed upsets me. People and their family pets being mauled and killed upsets me. The mountain of evidence shows us that pit bulls are the worlds most dangerous dog. If pit bulls were banned, these horrific attacks would not happen. Having pit bulls in our society is like letting our children swim in shark infested waters. You claim that pit bulls were bred as guard dogs? How can you own and support a breed that you know so little about? Pit bulls were created for blood sports, not to be guard dogs. Pit bulls come form the bull dog lineage that were used for bull baiting. They brought down 2,000 lb bulls. They bred these bull dogs with Terriers to increase aggression, gameness, prey drive, agility, and stamina. They used these animals to rat, they put the "pit bulls" in a pit with dozens of rats and the dog that could kill the most rats was the winner. Later these dogs were used for dog fighting. Pit bulls were the breed of choice for dog men because they are the most deadly breed. http://pitbullregistry.com... http://www.pitbulltraining101.com... http://www.dogsbite.org... So now you know the history of the breed you are defending. You admit that pit bulls are dangerous and that some can not be trained. So why would we keep breeding these dogs and lobbying to have them placed in family homes? Over 50% of pits that go too family homes fail due to aggression issues. So they go back to the shelter. Thousands of pit bulls are killed every week in shelters because there is no one willing to take them. Why do you and other pit supporters ignore the fact that you are responsible for the deaths of these pits, and the attacks on people?
People make me sick FOR THE PITBULL LAW

My friend currently owns a pitbull and the only time he attacked anyone was when a guy broke into her house and raped her. Now the quotes from people that you used are from peiple who beat and abuse and fight their animals. Chaos (a red nose pit in my care) has been called off in fights multiple times. So your statement on them not being able to be called off is invalid, because Chaos is not the only one ive taken care of like this. Many more peiple com to me to retrain their pitbulls from fighting dogs to protection dogs. Its humans like Michael vike who screwed up the pitbull breed and made them fight. They were not bred to kill they were bred as gaurd dogs. Yes aggressive nature is in all dogs, but the only reason pitbulls are categorized as dangerous is because they are huge muscular animals that have an aggressive instinct to protect themselves or others. Now.i you want to tell me im doing my job wrong tell meplease. I work with these animals all day everyday and yes they are dangerous. Some cant be retrained. It takes a little longer to ubdertand this breed, but what ive found with research is most people who want pitbulls banned are people whose had bad experiences with pitbulls not the ones who have had a good eclxperience. Why are you so against pitbulls? Why is everyone looking down on.these animals for something they dont have control of?
People make me sick FOR THE PITBULL LAW

Let's begin by clearing up some things you may be confused about in your argument: A. Humans created, & bred pit bulls too be dangerous animals. They are dangerous because the English mixed bulldogs with Terriers to create the ultimate fighting dog. These dogs were used to bring down and kill 2,000 lb bulls, kill rats in a pit, and too fight and kill other dogs. Why would anyone think that an animal created and bred for these purposes would make a good family pet? Selective breeding for hundreds of years has made the pit bull breed the most capable fighting breed. They are dangerous before they are abused. They have instincts that make them very game, unpredictable, and they have a very high prey drive. The pit bulls that would not fight, or were not vicious were culled. Many pits that were never abused or fought have attacked for no reason. There are thousands of family owned pit bulls that have turned on their owners and the children in the family. That's the problem. Pretending that only the pits that were abused and trained to fight are dangerous is naive, reckless, and is a big part of the problem. RAY BROWN, former pit bull owner, breeder, dog fighter "Pit bulls didn't become dangerous because we fight them; we fight them because the English specifically bred them to be dangerous." MARK PAULHUS, HSUS southeast regional coordinator "If it chooses to attack, it's the most ferocious of all dogs. I've never known of a pit bull that could be called off (during a fight). They lose themselves in the fight. " These quotes from pit bull experts capture the true danger of the breed. Owners of pit bulls and their supporters are often so emotional that they create a fairy tale world where pit bulls are "sweet" and the most "loyal" dog in the world. People make you sick with their negative comments about pit bulls? But you seem to be OK with pit bull mauling, disfiguring, and killing children. http://www.fatalpitbullattacks.com...
People make me sick FOR THE PITBULL LAW

People make me sick with their negative comments on pit bulls. Yes they have been made to kill. BUT they aren't that way without the humans who breed them that way. People don't understand that pit bulls are nice, kind, and loving animals without you pricks deciding that they want to train them to fight. IF IT WASN'T FOR THE PEOPLE TRAINING THEM THIS WAY THEY WOULD NOT BE AGGRESSIVE. That's what people honestly don't understand about this sooooooooo misunderstood dog. You people obviously need to do some homework and learn about this animal before you judge it. Pit bulls are so misunderstood. They attack when they are scared. They attack when threatened. If trained to fight everything threatens or frightens them. People just dont understand. EX: "We need to stop looking at the breed of dog, and we need to start looking at what responsible ownership looks like," Nancy Tranzow, GO READ THIS ARTICLE http://www.9news.com...- ban-ball Groups like ColoRADogs say pit bull breeds are not inherently dangerous and refer to numerous other national organizations that oppose breed specific legislation, such as the American Bar Association, the American Kennel Club and American Veterinary Medical Association. Same article as before
Gay marriage

What does any of that have to do with your opposition to gay marriage? Are you saying that gay marriage causes rape, incest, prostitution, adultery, and "unlawful carnal knowledge"? If that were the case then why is it that those existed before gay marriage? Please post a coherent argument against gay marriage, one that someone can make some kind of sense of. Right now, I see no argument, just random statements about "physically mating human relations".
Gay marriage

So, am I to conclude that never in all of human history has the human species ever done anything to legally acknowledge a man and a woman as physically mating human relations with each other, that is the human relations that perpetuate the human species, other than being a criminal offense, other than being a civil offense, other than being a crime against the state, other than being a threat to society, i.e., rape, incest, prostitution, adultery, unlawful carnal knowledge? If the institution of marriage does not or can not acknowledge a man and a woman as physically mating human relations with each other, that is the human relations that perpetuate the human species, other than being a criminal offense, other than being a civil offense, other than being a crime against the state, other than being a threat to society, then just what the hell can? A paternity suit? Even then the acknowledgement is being legally forced not legally granted to two consenting human beings of their own free will. So, if not the institution of marriage well than what?
Gay marriage

A man and a woman physically mating with each other in physical reality are not an example of physically mating less opposite gender relations in physical reality. Therefore there are two completely separate and distinct opposite gender physical relations that exist in physical reality, physically mating and physically mating less. The traditional institution of marriage acknowledges and differentiates the true dichotomy of opposite gender physical relations that exist in physical reality, physically mating from physically mating less. It's the traditional institution of marriage that acknowledges diversity. Acknowledges the diversity of physical gender of human beings in physical reality male and female. Acknowledges the one and only diversity of human physical relations in physical reality that is a man and a woman physically mating with each other. Allowing two people of the same gender to be married homogenizes the institution of marriage which is why the institution of marriage is homo-phobic. To use the institution of marriage to acknowledge a man and a woman as physically mating human relations is gender equality. To use the institution of marriage to acknowledge all marriages as being two people of the same gender as physically mating less human relations is also gender equality and those are the only two ways to achieve gender equality with the institution of marriage. A group marriage acknowledges a group of human physical beings in physical reality like a flock of birds or a herd of cattle, whereas the institution of marriage acknowledges and differentiates human relations and which of these two physical relations, physically mating and physically mating less, the institution of marriage will acknowledge is determined by the physical gender of the human beings being acknowledge. Instead of acknowledging and differentiating the true dichotomy of opposite physical relations, physically mating from physically mating less, the institution of marriage will acknowledge and differentiate the false dichotomy of same gender physical relations, physically mating less from physically mating less in terms of physical reality, romantically loving each other from not romantically loving each in terms of human subjective reality, or whatever from whatever in terms of human subjective reality. Gay marriage advocates insist that the institution of marriage has absolutely nothing to do with acknowledging a man and a woman as physically mating human relations and this is the result.
Gay marriage

You seem to think that if humans invent a system, then that system can never change. That is incorrect. Marriage has changed to include relationships it previously did not include. There is no need to define it in terms of gender, it is defined in terms of adulthood and consent. Most of what you wrote was pretty incoherent and used very strange terms that you never bothered to define like "hyper-space alternative" and "physically mating human relations". Maybe you could try having someone read your posts before posting them?
Gay marriage

On the one hand gay marriage advocates believe that the institution of marriage is purely a human construction, human beings are just totally making up the institution of marriage. But, on the other hand gay marriage advocates argue that there are certain restrictions as to how human beings can define and construct the institution of marriage that are beyond human control and that's called doublethink. Shouldn't gay marriage advocates be arguing that of course the institution of marriage acknowledges a man and a woman as physically mating human relations and we have no qualms with that. What we object to is that the institution of marriage has always been restricted to acknowledging a man and a woman as physically mating human relations and we want to expand the institution of marriage to also acknowledge physically mating less human relations because the institution of marriage is purely a human construction, human beings are just totally making up the institution of marriage and that's inclusiveness, diversity, and legal equality. Instead gay marriage advocates use doublethink to make the case for gay marriage, that is, it is impossible for the institution of marriage to acknowledge a man and a woman as physically mating human relations or as physically mating less human relations because the institution of marriage is purely a human construction, human beings are just totally making up the institution of marriage. Gay marriage the hyper-space alternative! If the institution of marriage does not acknowledge a man and a woman as physically mating human relations then there is only one alternative, the institution of marriage will acknowledge a man and a woman as physically mating less human relations. There is no hyper-space alternative and even if there were you would still get the same homogenizing effect. Why not allow two people of the same gender to get married, but, still legally acknowledge all marriages as husband and wife, that is as a man and a woman as physically mating human relations. That way two people of the same gender could get married with out redefining the institution of marriage and two people of the same gender would be married just like everybody else! But, wait a minute! If the institution of marriage conforms to a man and a woman then the institution of marriage will acknowledge all marriages as being a man and a woman. If the institution of marriage conforms to two people of the same gender then the institution of marriage will acknowledge all marriages as being two people of the same gender, whether a man and a woman are included or not is totally irrelevant, and the only way the institution of marriage can conform to a man and a woman is if only a man and a woman are allowed to be married.