BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hot weather VS Cold weather

Please note: This is copy & pasted from my own work. Argument 1: Human settlements The Earth's poles (North Pole, South Pole) are very cold. They aren't permanently populated at all. The equator of the Earth is much hotter, and lands surrounding the equater are much more populated. Argument 2: barbeque If you were in a certain temperature extreme, you wouldn't want to eat something of the temperature extreme, right? You would do the opposite, as shown that hot chocolate is popular in the winter and ice cream or lemonade in the summer. But in summer there is an exception: Bareques. You would eat hot dogs and hamburgers in the summer at a barbecue. The contrary to this is not true: people eat cold food in the winter. I'm sure many voters will find it unusual to eat ice cream. I will admit there are a few times in our lives where we did eat something cold in the winter. But this pales in comparison to the amount of barbecues in the summer. That's it for now.
Hot weather VS Cold weather

I think cold weather is the better because, you don't have heat strokes, yeah you can get dehydrated but you are also more likely to no become dehydrated. If you think about it you are more likely to try to take care of yourself in winter, because the weather is harsher. In summer it is easier sometimes more fun depending on how you spend it. Like for example swimming, camping, time from school. In winter you have snowboarding, sledding, snowball fights, building snowmen, Christmas. yes you are more likely to get sick, but you still get time off from school. Snow days and Christmas break. Both are great ones to pick, I chose winter, mainly because my opponent chose summer before me. but it was a great opportunity to see what i could say about the season I dislike the most.
Hot weather VS Cold weather

R1: Danger and Negatives of Temperature Extremes Okay, I forgot about heat stroke. Which is preventable by going into the shade. Which is something I mentioned last round. Rabies again. There is a freaking vaccine you take. It even works after you were bit. Unless you refuse medical attention, you're going to live. You claimed that "In summer your car is more likely to get overheated and you would be late for work". My defense? It's just one word: snow. "People's bodies work differently you are heavier set you can handle the cold better". Please provide proof. R2: Bugs My defense is that disease is spread faster in the winter since people usually are at home. Also, all those activities you mentioned are nearly impossible to do in the winter because of the cold weather. As we can see, when the opportunity arises, people go do those thing. R3: Clothing As we see in this video, it gets increasing difficult to put on multiple layers. In the summer, I don't see people complaining they can't take off more clothes. R4: This debate is about hot and cold weather, not winter vs summer. While the two pairs blur lines often, Con has the BoP (Burden of Proof) to show that hot weather causes an increase of crime. A2: Disease Well, rabies isn't so life-threatening today:
Hot weather VS Cold weather

Actually also in summer you have a more likely chance of having a heat stroke to not just dehydration. Also rabies is still pretty fatal. if you think about it summer is apart of global warming. In summer your car is more likely to get overheated and you would be late for work. Also in winter you are more than likely going to try to help your body stay healthy. than you would in summer. People's bodies work differently you are heavier set you can handle the cold better. Winter is a good break from the summer heat. Website info Bugs I have never been boating, camping or grilling during the summer without constantly being bit, swarmed and nagged by insects. You"re also dealing with ticks, fleas and wasps not only stinging you, but hitching a ride into the house from your pets. Clothing The winter does not demand for you to endure its weather, however the summer does. If you"re hot, there are only so many layers of clothing that you can take off to cool down. However, there is no limit to the amount of layers you can add during the winter to stay warm. Finally: According to the U.S. Department of Justice"s NCVS study from 1993-2010, rape and sexual assaults are on average 10 percent lower in the winter than the summer. Site: http://ucentralmedia.com...
The US should sponsor a referendum in Texas (and make a secret pact with Mexico at the same time).

There are growing calls from the people of Texas to succeed from the United States of America. With this being the case, it is only right and proper that they are allowed to exercise their democratic right to determine the future political status of their state through a free and fair referendum. Naturally, it is vitally important that the wording of such a ballot is as simple and concise as possible, for example: "Should Texas remain part of the United States of America? Yes or No?" If the result of the referendum is "Yes" then separatist organisations such as the Texas Nationalist Movement would have to accept the will of the Texan people to remain part of the US and discontinue their campaigns. If, on the other hand, the result is "No" then the President of the United States should address the people of Texas along the following lines: "My former Americans, the outcome of the referendum was clear and decisive, and I fully respect the result. That's why I have acted in accordance with the will of the Texan people to separate from United States of America by selling Texas to Mexico, ha-ha-ha! Good night and God bless." Now, Texas has some valuable assets and America could get a very good price for it, so much in fact that Mexico would have to pay for it in instalments over a number of years, and this cash windfall could be used to cut taxes for loyal Americans in the remaining states. But how likely is it that the US could make a mountain of money by offloading this renegade state? Of course, it would only be possible if the majority of the Texan electorate voted "No" in the referendum, which is actually quite likely because over a third of Texans owe their ethnic and cultural heritage to the days prior to 1836 when Texas was a Mexican state and, therefore, they have no historical allegiance with America. Furthermore, most non-Hispanic Texans are staunch Republicans and polls show that half of Texan Republicans support succession from the United States. So, the game is afoot: the US should now seize the opportunity to make a lot of money to fund tax cuts for loyal Americans by sponsoring a referendum in Texas (and making a secret pact with Mexico at the same time). Thank you. Sources: ---------- Texas Nationalist Movement: http://www.texasnationalist.com... Mexican Texas: http://www.tshaonline.org... Republican Texan poll: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Texas demographics: http://www.window.state.tx.us...
Sylvester Stallone is an ideal choice to direct a remake of Death Wish

Ever since Charles Bronson's original "Death Wish" hit theatres in 1974, its tale of a man seeking revenge for the death of his family has become the basic template for an entire genre, rendering a remake almost inevitable. Sly Stallone is currently attached as director and star; given the success of "The Expendables," "Death Wish" is likely to get the fast track treatment should Stallone sign the dotted line. Release Date/Year: 2011. This information was learnt here: http://www.beyondhollywood.com... After seeing the latest films directed by Sylvester Stallone (which are Rambo 4 and the Expendables) I feel that Sylvester Stallone is an ideal choice to make a remake of Death Wish. Anyone disagree?
Coke (pro) vs pepsi (con)

I would like to remind that this debate is about the 2 drinks, Coca cola and pepsi. I would like to point out that this debate is about which drink taste better, we aren't talking about other products in the brand. If it was like that, it would be "Coke vs Pepsico" since this is only about the 2 main drinks, coca cola and pepsi, other items such as doritos may not be considered.Rebuttals "Pepsi has more than one options including Next, One, Throwback, Diet. Pepsi makes also more drinks to like Serra Mist, Cheerwine, Mountian Dew, Aquafina. Pepsi also makes snackfoods like Quacker Oats, Lays chips and Doritos etc."As I have already mentioned, only the drink pepsi may be considered. Pepsi only has classic and diet, Coca cola has diet and zero."As you can see that they both got a D+ grade on the site I used. They gave Coke lower calories and Pepsi another hundred Calories but lets just understand that they are both not the best, even if one has less calories they are both unheathy without moderation."It doesn't matter however. Yes, both should be in moderation, however even in moderation, Coke is healthier, and has less calories. You can even get coke zero, which still taste the same, and has virtually no calories. Since this is possible, and both drinks taste the same, then why have the more unhealthy one for the exact same pleasure?"I have proved that even if Coke is heathier than Pepsi they are not the best things to have without moderation and Pepsi does have variety in their products." You have admitted coke is healthier, so it doesn't matter even in moderation, coke is healthier. I have proved that pepsico has various products, however their main product (pepsi) only has 2 easily acceptable products. My oppoenent has rebutted my arguments, however he has also agreed with me. I have proved coke is healthier, and that pepsi only has 2 easily accesable varieties, whearas coke has 3. Since I proved my opponent's rebuttals false and irrelevant, and he has not demonstrated any argument to which why the drink pepsi is superior to the drink coke. Because of such, my argument stands.
Coke (pro) vs pepsi (con)

VarietyPepsi has more than one options including Next, One, Throwback, Diet. Pepsi makes also more drinks to like Serra Mist, Cheerwine, Mountian Dew, Aquafina. Pepsi also makes snackfoods like Quacker Oats, Lays chips and Doritos etc.Pepsi Nutrition Facts Serving Size 1 Serving (340 g) Per Serving% Daily Value* Calories 150 Calories from Fat 0 Total Fat 0g0% Sodium 30mg1% Potassium 14.19mg0% Carbohydrates 41g14% Sugars 41g Protein 0g Read more: Calories in Pepsi - Pepsi | Nutrition and Health Facts http://caloriecount.about.com...Coke Nutrition Facts Serving Size 8 fl oz (240 g) Per Serving% Daily Value* Calories 95 Calories from Fat 0 Total Fat 0g0% Sodium 30mg1% Carbohydrates 26.4g9% Sugars 26.4g Protein 0gAs you can see that they both got a D+ grade on the site I used. They gave Coke lower calories and Pepsi another hundred Calories but lets just understand that they are both not the best, even if one has less calories they are both unheathy without moderation.Conclution I have proved that even if Coke is heathier than Pepsi they are not the best things to have without moderation and Pepsi does have variety in their products. Read more: Calories in The Coca-Cola Company - Coca-Cola classic | Nutrition and Health Facts http://caloriecount.about.com...http://www.pepsico.com...
Coke (pro) vs pepsi (con)

My tastebuds tell me that Pepsi-Cola taste way better than Coke. Pepsi uses real sugar that what makes them ten more calories than Coke. Coke uses artiffical sweeters like Splenda and that stuff. Coke became more open to diebetics and people how can't take in the sugar so they use more of the Splenda stuff. Since Coke is using the Splenda is making them make less diet sodas for less money. Pepsi thought is ranked higher than Coke in how much money they make. It might not seem like it because of like McDonald's selling all Coke products but satistics say that more people will buy Pepsi than Coke Pepsi has spent over 2 million dollars in the past year will advertising. They host the Super Bowl haft time show and are more focaused on comercials. Pepsi got people like One Direction and Beyonce to be in the commericals. Pepsi will deffinally get all their money back after though! s://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com...; alt="" />https://www.google.com...http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Hauntings are objectively real, but ghosts are not!

u stink none of your arguments are real, they all have fake addresses u stink!!!!!JK.Ghost are real! A. For the argument that ghost shouldn't wear clothes? That's bologna. According to ghost hunters, ghosts stay around for "unfinished business." Obviously they stay in clothes for a sense of mortality and not feel so forlorn or the sense of feeling like an anachronism. Crossing over is a term used for when they go in the world where everyone else that's not a ghost goes, and the idea of lingering energy is an absolute FACT! The same amount of energy has been on this earth ever since it existed. Once someone dies their energy goes somewhere and that's when ghosts are created. I personally believe if the dead thing doesn't create a ghost, the energy will go into another being not born. And the picture thing, I understand that there is technology now and we are capable of doing those things but how do you explain the pictures taken before computers? Streaks? Maybe some, but the ones that resemble a human face EXACTLY? And 1 more point that needs to be argued, so let's say you just got married and are looking for a place to live in 1897, you find a house and love it. It seems to have something odd about it, strange things are happening. You see something: a shadow, you swear it was human figure. How are you going to tell the people in your small town? How is this news going to spread WORLD WIDE without any technology? Tell me how this idea spread through THROUGH THE WHOLE WORLD?! There, those are my points. There are so many people in the world who have claimed to have otherworldly encounters. True, some of them may just be claiming so to receive attention, but the majority of these people should not be overlooked. There are so many things in the world that we do not understand or cannot explain, we should not say that ghosts are not real.I heard from my cousins that lived in Texas say that there was the story about some kids on a bus getting hit by a train. They told me that if you drove over the tracks and turn your vehicle off the car would be pushed off the tracks. Forgot where at but they closed the place from entrance now. But for some people they have to see it to believe it which isn't bad but it's good to keep an open mind to things for we aren't the only living thing in this universe or world. Besides how can you prove you seen something if no one believes you whether recorded or takened photos. Some people wanna see it with their eyes but to me that would be bad if I ended up dead or if alive thought as crazy if told someone. So we really shouldn't scratch anything off even if seen as fake. Anything seems possible for this world seems like or as the saying goes "Ignorance is bliss"
Hauntings are objectively real, but ghosts are not!

The premise that the dead remain with us on some plane has been in existence since man has been in on earth. Depending on culture and religion, explanations for ghost are many; unresolved issues, failure to accept death, revenge, and it's even seen as a purgatory for an imperfect life, to name a few. What is really is occurring with ghosts can be explained if we look at people that are/were dependant on nature, animal behavior and physics.It is true ghostly presence is not felt by everyone. It's often attributed to some sort of sensitivity. Some claim ESP, others hypothesize individuals have hypersensitive limbic systems; or are environmentally sensitive [1]. But take a look at the animal kingdom. Animals are intuitively are aware of impending natural disasters, tsunamis, earth quakes and the like. Animals escape to safety before a disaster occurs; their sensitivity cannot be detected by laboratory instruments. Evolution has made them super sensitive which has allowed them to survive [2, 3]. We are animals as well who once lived in the wild as hunter gatherers, also in tune with nature. Since we have become civilized we dismiss or ignore our natural intuition. Shamans across cultures have had an understanding of this natural sensitivity and have used it for their peoples' benefit.Has the hair on the back of your neck ever suddenly raised, or a chill come across you in a warm room? Einstein's theory states energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Yes, when buried we revert to chemical energy for soil and plant life; but what about the electromagnetic energy we emit? Dr Jack Sarfatti has a quantifiable mathematical theory that man is in connection with the environment and can send and receive energy signals. His Super string theory states that electrons, neutron and protons are composed of vibrating strings that resonate. It bundles with, and interconnects to our surroundings. It moves freely through objects and does not adhere to the laws of gravity. It creates an interpsychic dimension. People who share similar vibratory resonance (same energy wave link so to speak) are likely to be our friends, those who don't a foe or something in-between [4]. It explains how sometimes a normally friendly dog will turn on an individual for no apparent reason. Take this theory and apply it to how animals behave with impending natural dangers. Everything around us has resonance, even the Earth itself. Once it is emitted it, it is out of our body but remains as energy. Ghosts are resonant energy. Only those who match their resonant frequency can see or feel their presence. All the ghosts of people and animals who have ever lived are here, it's a matter of matching resonances or how a ghost"s resonance has bundled with other things that emit similar electromagnetic energy in the environment. http://disinfo.com...... http://www.washingtonpost.com...... http://news.nationalgeographic.com...... http://www.journaloftheoretics.com...... http://www.particleadventure.org...... http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...... http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...... http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu......
Hauntings are objectively real, but ghosts are not!

I have challenged you with an assertion, but you have failed to address even a single point of that assertion. Furthermore, both science and the skeptics have already destroyed all of these arguments. So, while you are trying to find something to which you can respond... I will continue... While researching The Haunted Vaults of Edinburgh, Scotland, Robert Wiseman (et. al.) clearly demonstrated that his own hypothesis (regarding ambient light, room size, etc.) was not supported, but that individuals without prior knowledge were indeed able to correctly determine (beyond chance), which vaults were historically considered haunted. This clearly demonstrated that an environmental element, undetected by the researchers, was present and being sensed by some individuals. Furthermore, Wiseman, and many skeptics before him, completely ruled out four of the five primary external sensory modalities as likely mechanisms, as well as any detectable pattern of energy. All that remains is matter. The only sense that was not, and had never been, ruled out was chemo-detection. This particular modality had been the most probable because it is our most ancient sense (cranial nerve one), was once (before we evolved into primates) its own brain (rine encephalon), is the only sensory organ/apparatus that comes in direct contact with the thing it senses, works both near and far, through apparently solid objects, and has incredible longevity, and is always on. It also works primarily below conscious awareness, and it (chemo-detection) remains the primary form of communication in nature, and particularly with those creature with which we share a common ancestor dating back over 300,000,000 years (C. Elegance). However, what was most compelling to us was that it represents the largest single gene group in the human genome (345 active) dwarfing the amount needed for neurotransmitter function (15). However, there was a problem. According to a century of scientific dogma, a human beings entire olfactory pallet was thought to be in the area of around 10,000 scents (Neither we nor anyone else have been able to find the research to support this assertion). After going over countless research papers, believers stories, skeptics arguments, etc., we predicted that the 10,000-scent assertion, was not only incorrect, it was wrong by orders of magnitude. It turned out that we were correct. Shepherd GM (2004) The Human Sense of Smell: Are We Better Than We Think? PLoS Biol 2(5): e146. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0020146 Bushdid, et. al., 2014 - "Humans Can Discriminate More than 1 Trillion Olfactory Stimuli" http://www.sciencemag.org... The point everyone had missed all along was that we did not evolve into our current species (homo sapiens) in the civilized world, but in the natural world. This was a major revelation, as we realized that the confusion over hauntings (and many other things) was likely a contextual issue, and could only be understood in terms of its original context. As soon as we changed the context to the natural world, and the background to a cave, things instantly began to become clear.
Hauntings are objectively real, but ghosts are not!

Ghosts are real because Einstein's law as of energy says that matter can not be destroyed nor created. Ghosts are basically the astral body that was once inside a physical body which the ghost (the astral projection of the astral body) does not occupy his physical body anymore. Plus Robert Lanza theory of Biocentrism says death doesn't exist in any real scenario! According to ghost hunters, ghosts stay around for "unfinished business." Obviously they stay in clothes for a sense of mortality and not feel so forlorn or the sense of feeling like an anachronism. Crossing over is a term used for when they go in the world where everyone else that's not a ghost goes, and the idea of lingering energy is an absolute FACT! The same amount of energy has been on this earth ever since it existed. Once someone dies their energy goes somewhere and that's when ghosts are created. I personally believe if the dead thing doesn't create a ghost, the energy will go into another being not born. And the picture thing, I understand that there is technology now and we are capable of doing those things but how do you explain the pictures taken before computers? Streaks? Maybe some, but the ones that resemble a human face EXACTLY? And 1 more point that needs to be argued, so let's say you just got married and are looking for a place to live in 1897, you find a house and love it. It seems to have something odd about it, strange things are happening. You see something: a shadow, you swear it was human figure. How are you going to tell the people in your small town?
Hauntings are objectively real, but ghosts are not!

We assert: The trigger and mechanism that result in the subjective experience (traditionally labeled "ghosts and haunting phenomenon") are objectively real, require only three elements to produce the target phenomenon (a haunting), and will affect specific genotypes (MAOA gene variants) diversely and according to types. Con-specific markers, resulting from human biological contamination of the environment, activate "high affinity" (TAAR) receptors, long before conscious awareness occurs, if ever. This triggers an innate survival / anti"predator adaptation, which manifests as a physiological, psychological, perceptual, and behavioral cascade, that results in the pre-conditioned subjective experience for a suitably sensitive individual. In groups, this predictably results in "contagion," which through language, chemical broadcasting, imprinting, re-imprinting, mirror-neural processes, and behavioral cues, "infects" others in a group, who fail to detect the trigger or lack the ability, thus providing a group-survival benefit.