BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The best way to improve health is to exersice daily

Yes, I agree, sport can improve someone's general health, but not everyone's. Some people, usually older, if not already exercising, or hasn't recently, may experience heart palpitations, or using Arthrofibrosis as an example, sometimes exercising can do more harm than good. Exercising while eating unhealthy foods will be most utterly pointless, and possibly cause hormonal complications or differences later on. As exercising can be healthy for you, it can also be somewhat dangerous if you believe you are overworking your system. If you want to exercise, however, make sure you are in a well-ventilated room and have plenty of water.
the best NFL Franchise is the cowboys

750 characters is ridiculous. Your point is a matter of opinion so you can't prove it and I've already won. :D >What about Chicago Bears who have the most championship wins of all-time. Cowboys haven't won a Super Bowl in over 10 years. >Patriots have won 3 Super Bowls' in the last 6 years. >Many good players have played on teams besides the Cowboys. To name a few: Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Walter Payton, Bart Starr, Jim Brown, Joe Montana, Jerry Rice, and many others. (. http://www.associatedcontent.com...) You have given no reason for Cowboys' being america's football team. I'd go into more detail but I can't with this very small character limit.
the best NFL Franchise is the cowboys

the best NFL Franchise is the cowboys. the dallas cowboys are tie for the most superbowl wins. has most consecutive playoff births . cowboys has a wing record over all there rivals. they play in the hardest confence all time and is the best of all time in the confrence. what is NFL Franchise better than the dallas cowboys ????? stealers,49ers,or the gaints. those teams come close but they not there. only the best teams are called america's team they are the dallas cowboys and the new york yankees which is the best baseball Franchise. the name says every thing the cowboys is america team and the best!!!!!!!!!
Universal Health care is a better system the free market health care

I thought I had 3 days to do this debate- oh well, let's begin. There's this weird fantasy that if the government controls something, it will become more efficient and will provide a better service than if t were owned proportionately to those involved. The exact opposite is true- whenever the government controls something it gets worse, more corrupt, and less efficient. This is why Police Brutality such an issue, whereas it is completely unheard of for Private Security Guards to run around shooting people. We need not ask what a Government controlled healthcare system looks like- just take a look at our military hospitals- it looks like that, except for the whole nation. It is abundantly clear to me that having the Government usurp control over hospitals and over your healthcare is a terrible idea. The healthcare system in the United States worked just fine in the 1950's, the reason it is so terrible now is because of Government control- and yet the sociists of America insist that if we only expand government intrusion, and if we only dump more money onto failed programs, things will get better. That all the problems we are facing are not due to a failre of Government but of private buisness. Regarding our expenses towards healthcare, we can save far more money by, instead of replacing our current healthcare programs with a single payer program, replacing our current healthcare programs with nothing. People cannoty afford insurance because of Government involvement- this is alsi the same reason why hospital bills are so high- government involvement. State Governments have instituted Protectionist Policies against their citizens to protect their native insurance companies from competition, thus suspending the price artificially high. The Feral Government has by liscencing laws allowed a board of doctors restrict the supply of doctors, thus driving up their cost, and thereby the cost of healthcare.
Universal Health care is a better system the free market health care

I'll be arguing that universal health care is a better system then free market healthcare. my opponent should argue that free market health care is a better system. A few definitions so there is no confusion. -Universal health care is a system in which everybody in a given country is entitled to healthcare as a human right. - Free market health care is a system in which the government is not involved in healthcare and people buy healthcare through private insurance companies.
Universal Health care is a better system the free market health care

I feel like I shouldn't really need to respond to this but ok here we go. First you didn't respond to almost anything I said. You didn't refute any of my sources either. You said it's a "fantasy" that universal healthcare is cheaper but didn't refute by numbers and source that showed very clearly it is. Why didn't you refute my numbers on costs, Satisfaction, or deaths? Is it because you can't. I think so but you have another round to try. You also say our system was so much better in the 1950's but you don't provide any proof of it. No studies no number no nothing. You just claim it. That doesn't work. Again you say healthcare costs are higher because of government involvement. But again you didn't refute my numbers that show the opposite so your argument has no credit ability. Finally as for your Police point, that has exactly nothing to do with anything. Police are another debate but you can't just say i think the government is bad at this so it must also be bad at some completely different thing. That's like me saying I think we should do social security because of the FDA. Or me saying I don't think we should do capitalist healthcare because I think private prisons are bad. See how that doesn't work. Also most importantly you didn't answer my question if you think 45,000 dying a year due to lack of health insurance is something we should allow. Do you want 45,000 people a year to die through no fault of their own when they could be help. Just because they couldn't afford large medical bills. Please answer this and to the voters if he dodges this question again then consider why he won't answer it.
Global Warming is a lie

You're welcome! I am not going to post any images, or long, long texts, just this: Global warming actually IS real; only by far not in the enormous measures organisations such as Greenpeace want to make us believe, along with that, it is probably for the far greatest part not caused by humans, rather than the sun. The sun has a certain cycle, in which its heat increases and decreases. Currently, the sun is rather hot, though in approximately a hundred we will be in a small ice age, as we had in the dark ages. And indeed, cold temperatures have been measured, and that's because global warming is just over its peak. By the way, and this is important, because we"re talking about climate change here: you can't ever say anything on climate using a period of 15 years. The definition of climate is the average weather over a period of 30 years, and the current climate is still warmer than before. Recent weather can"t ever say anything on climate. Greenpeace says the ice caps are melting, but they also said that all oil reserves would have been used up more than a year ago, they are not scientists, they are activists, and pretty annoying ones. So it is real, but smaller than we"re told.
Global Warming is a lie

Let my aruguments begin.1. Leaked United Nations ReportLeaked United Nations documnets shows that the Earth's temperature has not risen in for 15 years and even top climate scientists were told to cover it up. [1] 2. Recent weatherIt seems around the world right now record cold temperatures are being recorded, in late November in the United States more than 1000+ cold weather and snowfall records were set in the United States (205 snowfall records, 969 Low Max. 203 Low temps. ) [2] And in the first week of December more than 2000+ records were set in the United States. [3] On December the 15th 53% of the US was coverd in snow. [4] In Jerusalem three feet of snow closed the roads. [5] Saudi Arabia has it's first snow in 100 years, snow there is very unusual. [6] Snow in Turkey closed 900 roads. [7] People in Syria are dying from how cold it is. [8] Egypt had it's first snow in 100 years as well. [9] I thought it was meant to be really hot these days? 3. Polar caps. Satellite data has shown that the amount of ice covering the Arctic is up by 50 percent[10] we were told that it would be melting. Recently Antarctica had it's coldest temperature ever recorded 94.7C (-135.8F) [11]Sources:1. . http://www.dailymail.co.uk...;2.http://wx.hamweather.com...;3.http://wattsupwiththat.com...;4.http://wattsupwiththat.com...;5.http://www.latimes.com...;6.http://www.mirror.co.uk...;7.http://iceagenow.info...;8.http://www.dailymail.co.uk...9. . http://www.latimes.com...;10. . http://dailycaller.com...11. . http://www.theguardian.com...;
morality=right+intent=power+control

How is having a rock with no intent, causing a victim to be injured, lead to the conclusion of Morality = right intent = power control? You state that Morality is equivalent as to possessing the traits of being morally right and with intent, but a rock does not have intent to do so, therefore you are saying that a rock is immoral? Okay, so say that the rock is IMMORAL, because it has no intent, due to it's lack of consciousness. That may justify your reason that morality may have intent (as many things do), but, how can you justify that morals are right, and correct? Morals don't always have to be right. Also, how does right and intent connect to, relate to, and transform into power and control?
morality=right+intent=power+control

rocks have no intent... a rock has no power to do or no option to do based on lack of power to do.. if you get a rock in the head its not the rocks fault, if you get a rock in the head because you are banging your head into a wall and there was a stone on top its still not the rocks fault stealing a ring=not homicide stealing a ring=homicide=immorality obviusly you cant argue with me.. i am only here to prove con wrong.. defending my case.. as my battleship is being bombarded by nutella jars from a little fishing boat...
morality=right+intent=power+control

morality=not murder pro is defence not offense man.. but then immorality would equal power-control so any example of immorality is an example of the lack of control of power, option, ability to do, need, gun(poorly educated).. morality=(IS)power AND control stealing a ring=immorality homicide=immorality=stealing a ring 1+5=3+3=1+1+1+1+1+1=2+4=6
morality=right+intent=power+control

Morality is not an equation, neither is it advanced. It cannot be an equation because it neither falls under the branches and studies of science or math. Definition of Morality, form Merriam - Webster: Full Definition of morality plural moralities 1 a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson 2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct 3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct 4 : moral conduct : (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) In nowhere in the dictionary does it mention control of power, neither does it mention it is bravery. Unless, if you believe and think that morality is control of power, what do you have to support that? You said that morality is ON PAR and EQUAL with: - Right - Intent - Power - Control You never said that it would exist WITH power or control, you said it was EQUIVALENT, not exist under it. How does immorality become homicide, and homicide becoming into stealing a ring? You have not clarified yourself and have not explained thoroughly. You have only present brief arguments with no underlying reasons whatsoever. "you are right, the murderer will wait for the cops to come and arrest him.. why didnt i think of that.. lolol" I will assume that this is sarcasm. In this case, if you were to knew the murderer arriving to your house to murder you, but it takes the murderer 3 hours to reach your house, then you can effectively prevent killing the murderer with any weapon by calling the police. Please present more information that support your argument.
morality=right+intent=power+control

eh.. yea i confused my self in round 2 morality is the most advanced equation that can exist.. wrong.. morality is about control of power.. i think the true form of it is bravery you are con.. you tell me how morality exist without the existence of power or control.. if that is your disagreement ok... but when lying is wrong, lie=fear truth immorality=immorality=homicide=stealing a ring you are right, the murderer will wait for the cops to come and arrest him.. why didnt i think of that.. lolol study intelligence more
morality=right+intent=power+control

Ok, stealing a ring isn't murder, and your round two arguments are, again very confusing, you should improve your grammar because what you're saying is always very vague. Anyways, according to your topic, morality is basically equivalent (skipping the steps of right + intent) power and control. Morality are a set of options you decide for yourself to choose and either act it out or not. Therefore, it does not make sense, that morality is equivalent to power and control, and you have given no such examples to support your theory. Since control has the same definition of authority in this debate, and power means to have reign over in here, morality is certainly not this. While I agree laws are, morality isn't. Lying is not equivalent to be afraid of truth, people lie for their benefit and because they are afraid that other's may know the truth, and that they may use it against you. I never said that stealing a ring is murder, but YOU, you were the one to say that being immoral was equivalent, and the same as, committing murder (as represented with the equal sign)! That doesn't make any sense at all, just because a person is being immoral, such as swearing or saying rude words towards another human, doesn't make him commit homicide, it makes him immoral. Therefore, if he is swearing, he is being immoral, while murder is part of being immoral, it is only a small part of it, there are many acts that can fall into the immoral category, hell, even if disrespecting parents can fall into that category! Additionally, you need to clarify yourself on the murder of truth. It is moral to kill the murderer in self defense, but the act of killing will stain your life, and furthermore, that can all be prevented with calling the cops and placing him in prison, why don't you take the better decision and make life easier for both? I look forward to a much more detailed reply, also study english more please.
morality=right+intent=power+control

Well, this is my first debate. So here it is, enjoy. You say that being immoral is equivalent to being accused or performing murder or homicide, so, if I were to steal, in what way would that cause murder/homicide? If I were to be moral, and to support morals, why do I have to choose the option of killing the murderer in self defence? Could I not take any other route, such as dialing 999 (or the police department's phone number) for help and to arrest him? I do not have to kill the murderer because I am moral.
Women Should Lose Their Right to Abortion When the Fetus Reaches Viability

This argument is about the reproductive rights of women in the United States when the fetus reaches viability. Viability: interim point at which the fetus becomes ... potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. (This definition is taken from Roe v. Wade).Pro will argue that a woman has a right to abortion until the fetus reaches viability.Con will argue that a woman should be able to receive an abortion at any point during the pregnancy regardless of the development of the fetus.I consider this topic open for debate because only 41 states have laws restricting post-viability abortion. I understand reproductive rights can be a very controversial issue and I completely respect any and all opinions on the topic, as long as those opinions do not systemically and unfairly deprive women of their right to bodily integrity. This debate operates on the consensus between pro and con that abortion is a legitimate, legal option until the point of viability. Any arguments that all abortions are murder will be dismissed from this particular debate.Remember, that what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.Debate is 4 rounds:1. Acceptance and brief opening argument.2. Short rebuttal to opponent's opening argument and an elaboration on your position.3. Rebuttals to the elaborated argument, new information can be stated if you wish.4. Closing statements, no new information.------------My opening argument:The government has a legitimate, compelling interest in any human life form that can potentially survive without a mother's womb. Additionally, the later in the pregnancy an abortion is performed, the more dangerous it gets for the woman. This position does not assert a woman cannot get an abortion while the fetus is viable. However, this position asserts that it should be the decision of the government, based on the opinions of qualified medical experts, whether or not the woman should be allowed to get an abortion once the fetus has reached viability. For example, a woman who was set to deliver a child that would imminently suffer and die upon birth would not be prohibited from receiving an abortion at all, but the approval of the abortion would have to come from the government.
Ask why religion causes so many problems

Feeling good, so I'll take you seriously for a moment. 1. Your videos are NOT VALID, They represent the musings of a rambling, incoherent "atheist" desperately unaware of how to acquire proper evidences. YouTube videos as citation is ridiculously poor judgement and the videos that I watched are full of the same logical errors that you spit out in your often hilariously stupid articulations. And like I've said a thousand times before, STAY ON TOPIC. 2. Refuting the videos? Let's start off with the first three shall we? *"Why does every intelligent Christian disobey Jesus?" - errors in reasoning at points 1:33, 2:59, 1:47, etc. all passages taken from Bible implied to point out contradictions whereas no contradictions can be found when context is taken into account. Video relies heavily on pathos and has low reasoning capability. *"Top 10 Reasons why the Bible is Repulsive" - simply tries to find contradictions between Testaments/Commands which again rely on context. Reasons 3/7/9 are purely emotional appeals. *"Proving Gods plan is impossible" - most idiotic reason/video you have quoted so far. has zero relevance to topic, misrepresents the Old Testament, fails to present adequate passage construction, etc. Can you see the theme here? Need I go beyond three? You have chosen pathetic sources to back up any of your equally idiotic claims. Compare me, who provided clear citations from scientific journals - to you, who's representing an entire community of trolls. Your quotage of the Bible verses is a waste of time because, as I have said - THEY HOLD ZERO RELEVANCE TO OUR DEBATE. Your logic is simply inferior. Also you blisteringly perverse moron, I am not a Christian. Simply a theist. Your moronically aggressive, unprofessional debating is proof of how pathetic the atheist community has become. I will restate what I've said again, just to make sure I get the vote. 1. STAY ON TOPIC, YOU MORON. 2. PROPERLY ARGUE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, FOOL. 3. ACTUALLY REFUTE WHAT I'M SAYING, WANKA, 4. I cannot exit a debate, and give you the chance to score your first no contest victory among your stellar track record of losing nearly every debate you've ever started. You're an embarrassment to this site and to good debaters out there. Fix your logical reasoning and repent to the Lord. ;)
Ask why religion causes so many problems

Nope my sources outdo yours. By far. I presented you with valid videos that proves that religion (god) is not inspiring, causes multiple problems, and does not offer hope. So you can sit by in your twinkled jammies with all of your miss-steaks and to take to debate serious with all of your fwuffy panned-cakes dry and juicy with your rhubarb garlic onion beer belly deodorant ready and prime for action all you want. Refute the videos dimwitted dullard snot meat sow as I told you to do in the previous round in which stand tall because you can't, you know it, they are ultimately correct. I've stuck to the subject. And you stupidly and arrogantly wanted to get into it that text is according to YOUR god a valid form of communication in which I cut open your wrists with the tampons that you eloquently use in which your god would NEVER use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible. So refute it lumber jacka$$. I've stuck to the subject except when your ignorance and arrogance has sidetracked from it. RD2 I gave you a link for the finish to delusion so here"s once again "Understanding religious delusion" http://godisimaginary.com... - in which you screamingly asked for. Yeah you neatly avoid the other verses and go straight to the bottom verses so you must think that there"s something truly disgusting and perverse, not quite right and terribly wrong that once again religion (god) is not inspiring, causes multiple problems, and does not offer hope. "I'm no bible expert (again, not being Christian) - but doesn't cursing mean the metaphorical way?" How would you know? You are so right, you are not a bible expert. Neither is any christian. See that"s the problem in you flat out guessing just as all christians do, no exceptions, none. Did you read Deuteronomy 13: 9-10 and Deuteronomy 17: 2-5 where you must be put to death if you don"t believe in god and believe in other gods? What about if you are gay in Leviticus 20:13 and you should be put to death because you lie down with another man? What about if you work on the sabbath you must be put to death Exodus 31:15. If you commit adultery you must be put to death Leviticus 20:10. Oh yeah your happy go little bible is filled with gems like that. Oh but wait those are perfectly OK to you. religion (god) is not inspiring, causes multiple problems, and does not offer hope. Sheesh. You can't be well liked in preschool. I"m done for this round because you are so amazingly stupid and ignorant and you know NOTHING about your god and bible. YOU FIGURE IT OUT IF you want this debate to continue.