BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hollister is Overrated

First of all, i'm not a big fan of Hollister. I am a teen though and i'm not going to disagree that Hollister has a huge following. I don't agree that it's "overrated." Let's not treat this chain of stores any different or as an isolated incident. Generaly, high school is ruled by "fads." One day this is in and the next day it's that. It's how high school is, it's how our youth is. I'm not criticizing it, as I see no real problem with it. Hollister is just a fad, it's the latest craze. Before Hollister teens were really into Vans, and before that it was another store and so on and so forth. Hollister appeals the high school crowd, also its owner Abercrombie and Fitch appeals to the older more college and over crowd. The chain has another store simply called Abercrombie which is for infants and toddlers. Hollister has no real competition. American Eagle or The Limited, if you'd even like to call The Limted competition, is based towards a college and older crowd. It's all a part of the curremnt scence, before this was the "skater" scene and before that was the "rocker" scene. Right now it's the "preppy" look. I've purchaed jeans and a few shirts from Hollister, and I must say it's a quality product. It's not too over priced as far as T-shirts go, they're acually cheaper or competitive with most other clothing stores. However, I must say it's a good product. If you don't like the Hollister look, don't fret. It's actually been in a recession. More and more teens are starting to shop at Pac-Sun...possibly bringing the surfer/skater look back. Hollister:ovrrated? No, it's just what's in.
Hollister is Overrated

There are many designer stores out there for our teenage (and, some pre-teens) to enjoy; Abercrombie and Fitch, Aeropostale, American Eagle, Old Navy, Steve And Barry's, South Pole, and The Limited to name a few. However, one name stands out from all of these designer stores-Hollister. Owned by Abercrombie and Fitch, this store is made to appeal to both males and females, this "surfer-friendly" store sells products such as Polo shirts, t-shirts, jeans, hoodies, and other basic teen wear. However, Hollister is more of a popular store than its other main competitors, American Eagle and Aeropostale, which sell relatively the same products. Just why is this? The products do not greatly differ, and yet you cannot walk 3 minutes throughout a high school without seeing at least 9 or 10 teens donning this apparel. But why?
Affirmative action

The purpose of affirmative action is to eliminate "unlawful discrimination" between applicants on the basis of race or gender. The idea is to provide equal opportunity for all applicants." It doesn't provide equal opportunity though, it gives minorities an advantage. Why don't we just take race and gender off applications so people are selected purely off there abilities? "Blacks and Hispanics generally receive worse public education than Whites." This is because they live in low income areas more often. So why don't we just give there schools more funding then they would receive equal opportunity. "Thus, affirmative action attempts to correct the result of accidents by offering equal opportunities to Whites and Blacks." But it doesn't, it gives minorities an advantage. If we want to level the playing field we should increase funding in low income schools so that its equal to the richer, and often white dominated schools. "Con explicitly provides "equality" as a desirable political end. Affirmative actions furthers that end." Affirmative action does not provide equality, it gives one group an advantage over another that's the opposite of equality. Affirmative action violates the 14th amendments equal protection clause. "A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. " http://www.law.cornell.edu... This is what affirmative action does. We should just take race and gender off applications so people are hired purely on there ability! Affirmative action pits races against each other, and furthers the distinction between us. If we want true equality we must increase school funding in low income areas, so minorities do just as good as Caucasians. We must also take race and gender off applications, that way people are hired purely on there ability.
Affirmative action

Thanks for the debate! I look forward to a fun exchange. The purpose of affirmative action is to eliminate "unlawful discrimination" between applicants on the basis of race or gender. The idea is to provide equal opportunity for all applicants. The reason we need affirmative action is because unlawful discrimination still exists. Women are paid less than men for the same jobs. Blacks and Hispanics generally receive worse public education than Whites. The racial gap in SAT scores has been proven a result of accidents related to quality of public education and the opportunity to take SAT prep courses. There still exist racial disparities in access to medical treatment. The ACLU has shown that racial profiling is pervasive in nearly state, and has created material disadvantages for Blacks as a group. The argument against affirmative action, as Con has framed it, is that it discriminates on the basis of race. What is wrong with that? Discrimination is a GOOD thing. It levels the playing field between Whites and Blacks, which allows Blacks to effectively have the same opportunities as Whites. Discrimination, in the abstract, is neither good nor bad. We have different bathrooms for men and women. We do this because men and women are distinct in some way. Whites and Blacks are presented with different opportunities as a result of social accident. Thus, affirmative action attempts to correct the result of accidents by offering equal opportunities to Whites and Blacks. It might be argued that affirmative action is reverse racism. The express purpose of affirmative action, however, is to prevent unlawful discrimination, i.e., racism. The express purpose of racism is to target a specific group of people with hate. The purpose behind affirmative action and racism is clearly distinct. You have to take into account the social and historical context in which both acts occur. Racism is unlawful discrimination. Affirmative action is lawful discrimination. The distinction here is one of motive and outcome: racism stems from hate, and causes harm; affirmative action stems from desire for equality, and causes equal opportunity. Con explicitly provides "equality" as a desirable political end. Affirmative actions furthers that end.
This Debate

Whoever accepts this debate must post the number of views this debate has in their response. This debate is to be used only for trolling "this debate will get x number of views before the voting starts" debates, nothing more and nothing less. How does it work?1 - The debate you are using this one to troll is most likely named "This debate will get x amount of views before the voting starts2 - The name of this debate is literally, "This Debate"3 - This debate will not have as many views as the other debate specifiesEnd result: If you refer to the number of views in this debate rather than the one the instigator created than you will win the other debate, and the idiot who tried to get an easy win gets trolled.You dont have to vote on this debate, this is purely to be used for countering other stupid debates REMEMBER, WHOEVER ACCEPTS THIS DEBATE MUST POST THE NUMBER OF VIEWS THIS DEBATE HAD BEFORE THE VOTING PERIOD BEGINS, OTHERWISE THIS DEBATE WONT BE OF ANY USEThanks :D
Military Intervention in Syria against Bashar-Al Assad is Morally Just (even if it comes too late)

Everyone remembers the Iraq war. President George W. Bush made a plea to the United states Congress to allow sending troops to Iraq. The evidence presented was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The United states congress agreed. Realize that the United states constitution requires a declaration of war be made in order to send troops. Anyway, the troops got to Iraq. What did they find? They found no weapons of mass destruction! At home, everyone scratched their heads. They asked, so all of it was just for nothing? Fast forward to today. Once again, the president wants some kind of military action on Syria. Syria was and is accused to using chemical weapons on it's people. Syria is also involved in a civil war. However that civil war over time came to involve islamic forces. Anyway, President Obama wanted to make a ' statement.' The United Nations decided to open a investigation called 'Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic.' They looked over the facts. Carla del ponte is the one of the leaders of the investigation. She accused the syrian rebels of using chemical weapons. She later then said that claim needed more investigation. Back at home, President obama is being criticized. Many people in the United States Congress felt that there is no clear reason to attack . A lot of other people felt that way. Here is why. 1. Syria has not attacked the United states or any other country 2. There is not concrete proof that Syria has chemical weapons, only a video. 3. It will cost a lot of money. You point out a bunch of other attacks by the Syrian government. However, like the reasons stated above, There is no reason to attack Syria. Back In the United nations, the investiagtion began to look at The Houla massacre. They concluded that"with the available evidence" it could not rule out any of three possible perpetrators (Syrian Government forces, anti-Government forces, and foreign groups), although it considered anti-Government forces "unlikely" to have been the perpetrators due to their difficulty in accessing one of the sites in question against the superior firepower of government forces in the area. You might be wondering what is my point. My point is this. Why does the United states and the United nations have to be the ' Policeman of the world' ? The Vietnam war and the war in Iraq are examples of this. And besides, If you watch your news today, you might find out that Syria has gotten rid of the chemical weapons. Bashar assad is still attacking the Syrian people. But the removal of Chemical weapons happened without military intervention. So do we need to Attack Syria. I say not Sources: 1. http://www.gpo.gov... 2.http://www.gpo.gov... 3.http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com...
Military Intervention in Syria against Bashar-Al Assad is Morally Just (even if it comes too late)

I realize that You are from the United Kingdom. I am a Libertarian. I do not support the Assad regime. Okay! In 1941, the United States declared war against Germany and Japan. It was the last time that a formal declaration of war was made. Now what criteria Must there be for a declaration of war? Two things. 1. The opposing country attacked or plans to attack us. 2. It is a threat to National Security. World war 2 met all of these requirements. In today's world, we have new problems in front of us. What to do with dictators like Assad or Kim Jong un. You want to invade Syria to free the people. We have a dilemma. Syria did not attack any country at all! It is wrong on a legal basis to attack because according the U.N charter to which the US and the UK were signers, you can only attack in the case of self defense. As I have said before, Syria has not attacked any country. It is true that Assad is torturing the Syrian people. But then we have no legal reason. On the matter of the Iraq war, Colin Powell in 2001 asked The United Nations to send troops to Iraq. He said that why attacking Iraq is necessary was because Iraq has WMDs. The United nations agreed. But then, when the truth came out about those WMDs, The president of the United states defended his position saying that Iraq was torturing it's people. Anyway, My opponent has point out America's unwillingness to do something. However we can not. And if we did, we would not even have a game plan. Pope Francis has spoken against military action in Syria instead asking for Peace. That raises another question. How would Iran or Russia react. Do you want them to get involved too ? For another reason why I do not support military intervention is because I am afraid that it will ' spill the beans,'
science is a religion

That's a rather fallacious to state. Science has got nothing to do with a god of any kind. It simply deals with aquire new knowledge through observation, experimentation,and testing theories against the evidence. In light of all that has been achieved with science and it's rather diverse fields of study, there is no better method. To state that not knowing a position to be true does not imply it's a lie, we just have to deal with what's true and work harder to find out more.
science is a religion

Pro started with defining certain positions which i find rather incorrect and far to straight forward to be considered. Given the nature of this debate, i find it appropriate to define these positions fully and professionally according to the context. 1.Religion: A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2. Belief: Confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. 3.Theism: Belief in the existence of a god or gods. 4.Atheism: A lack of belief in the existence of any deity. 5. Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. http://dictionary.reference.com...
science is a religion

I'm afraid this makes little sense, you defined god as a creator which is fine, however the rest does not even make the slightest sense because I do not know what pro is trying to state. I fail to understand what knowledge and matter and a creator god existing are in any way connected to the debate topic. As the thesis states:" science is a religion" and thus far all I have encounter are irrelevant misconceptions that are connected by an equal sign. These aren't arguments, since that aren't constructed logically, and are hard to understand and follow. Again since this debate is about science somehow being a religion, facts do not require belief, atoms exist,so does test tubes, lightning, and Pluto. Do they require belief? Of course not why would they, it's like asking do you believe that mountains exist? That would be ( to any rational thinking person) a stupid question
science is a religion

"god=information" The word "god" is useless if you don't first define what it is you mean by "god" and judging from my experiences in the English language, i have never come across a definition where god means information. "knowledge=memory of personal physical experience(fact) belief=not fact" This makes no sense, knowledge is defined as:" Knowledge is a familiarity, awareness or understanding of someone or something, such as facts, information, descriptions, or skills, which is acquired through experience or education by perceiving, discovering, or learning." The problem i see here is that you cannot just make up a definition for a particular word and argue as if it is that definition when clearly that's not what the world means. Another problem here is you failed to give a sound argument about science actually being a religion, and given the professional definition i gave, its not in anyway a religion since scientific principles in various scientific fields deals with facts and acquiring new knowledge and testing the evidence against the theory. Facts don't require belief. wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge
Sexual offenders should be forcefully sterilized.

I would agree that sexual offenders should not be allowed to have children. However forced sterilization (getting tubes tied, etc.) is too permanent.If the law had prevented your father from being around you and other children , not only would it have stopped him, but also ensured wrongfully convicted sex offenders still have a chance at a happy life after their conviction is overturned. (Plus sterilization would not stop true rapists from being able to rape, so it might even be less effecctive.
Sexual offenders should be forcefully sterilized.

Parenting is a privilege for mentally stable people, not a right for everyone. Most sexual offendersare are people who have raped or molested someone. You have no idea what it is like to be raised by a pedophile. My father raped me when I was 13, and whgen I reported him, I was ignored and forced to live with him. Rapists do not have the right to have children because you cannot trust a rapist around children.
Sexual offenders should be forcefully sterilized.

In an ideal world, where are legal system is 100 percent right, then I would agree that sexual offenders should be sterilized, but its not it. There are wrongfully convicted innocent people with the label of sex offender (also sex offenses can be ambigous, see here: http://www.nytimes.com...). Other methods can be used to control sex offenders that would prevent them from striking again that aren't irreversible.
Sexual offenders should be forcefully sterilized.

Definitions: 1) sterilize-deprive (a person or animal) of the ability to produce offspring, typically by removing or blocking the sex organs 2) sexual offenders- n. generic term for persons convicted of crimes involving sexes Sterilization is a permanent process. However, mistakes can be, and are made when trying sex offenders, and it is unfair and frankly ironic that someone falsely accused/convicted of sexual crimes will lose their ability to procreate
Sexual offenders should be forcefully sterilized.

Ok I guess I just conclude? To sum up- if we want the smartest policy to protect children from sexual offender fathers, we should put in rules and regulations to prevent sexual offenders from being the guardians of children. We shouldn't just sterilize them, because it would also permanently deprive the wrongfully convicted of the being able to raise a family. We can protect both the kids and the innocent people labeled sex offenders- sterilization does not do this.
Sexual offenders should be forcefully sterilized.

Sexual offenders are anyone who has been convicted for a sex related crime in the court of law. This includes people who have been wrongfully convicted. If we sterilize them all, we permanently hurt the innocent people, who are wrongfully labeled sex offenders, even if their convictions are eventually overturned. We can stop sex offenders from having children without such an irreversible action. Our court system is not perfect, so we shouldn't do anything that is not reversible.
You choose the topic

This debate is now about Coffee Coffee without sugar is better than coffee with sugar First is dependency, Let me start out by saying that I am not arguing that if someone wants to put sugar in their coffee that they are a bad person. This argument does not start from a place of elitism or purism. What I am arguing is that coffee that does not have sugar in it is better than coffee that does have it. I understand that it can take time to get used to drinking coffee black or with only cream, and that sweetener can help one become used to the taste. If you are a fledgling coffee addict, then by all means put a little sugar in your coffee - the issue arises when one continues to sweeten their coffee after years of drinking it. This also leads to the the conflation of coffee with soda and other caffeinated beverages. As any coffee drinker should know the more one drinks coffee, the more dependent they become on it to start their day. By failing to acknowledge that unsweetened coffee is better than sweetened coffee one will never think to check how dependent they are on the sugar in their drinks. Next is health, Sugary beverages are a leading cause of diabetes and obesity the world over[1]. Particularly when one becomes used to the sweetness of their drinks, she or he may not realize how much sugar they are really consuming. By failing to recongize that coffee without sweetener is better than coffee with sweetener, we contribute to these unhealthy habits and promote cardiovascular disease for the next generation. It's not even enough to promote the idea of moderation with with sugary beverages, as it creates the idea things such as candy and soda can be a regular part of a healthy diet. The criticism behind mixify[2] is a good example of this - while there is nothing wrong with indulging in these things periodically, we're fooling ourselves if we think we try to pretend that we can outwork a bad diet. [1] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... [2] http://www.msnbc.com... As an underview, I want to note that this health-centric position of advocacy is by no-means critical of larger-folks, but of the poor habits which contribute to the unnecessary spread of disease. Food is a cultural reality and we shouldn't expect to be able to change deeply ingrained habits overnight. What we can however do, is recognize our bad habits and start change them slowly. These kinds of changes in behaviour should stem from a place of self-love towards our bodies rather than a place of hate or discontent. One crucial step in promoting healthy lifestyles is to simply admit that coffee without sugar is better than coffee with it. When we do that, we can acquire a taste for black coffee, or coffee with just a bit of creamer and cut out at least of unnecessary source of sugar in our diets.
90% of Black homocides are done by other Blacks... and Democrats race bate over the 10%

Why on Earth would African Americans EVER vote for Democrats? Since 1965 85% of African Americans have voted for Democrats. After all those years we have fewer Black people working and more living off welfare then ever before. What kind of ignorant person would suggest they should keep electing these these failed liars? If you actualy think putting Black people on welfare is helping them, then don't waste my time any further. I have better things to do. The GOP tries to help all people move into the middle class by getting them off the demeaning roles of welfare and into the workforce. Conservtives actully tell it like it is and address the CORE problems in Black communities, failed pubic schools, the moral breakdown in our culture that produces so many broken families, etc. With no Black fathers at home who do you think is keeping Black youths from dropping out of school and joining gangs? Democrats REFUSE to address the core reasons for the problems in Black communities. It's all politicis!. Democrats are at war with the middle class by taxing them to death to pander to their low income voting block. Obamacare is the largest tax on the middle class since time began all for the purpose of pandering once again to the low income voters with free subsidies while the middle class get no subsidies and have seen their health insurance sky rocket under Obamacare.
90% of Black homocides are done by other Blacks... and Democrats race bate over the 10%

I disagree with a lot of what you stated. I am confident that the main draw of African-American of voters to the Democratic Party has to do with the immense benefits the Democratic party presents to the middle class and below. It also doesn't hurt that an African-American president is the figurehead of the president. While the 90% homicide statistic is tragic, the statistic that 27% of African-Americans are below the poverty line is no laughing matter. Which poses the question, why would an African American vote for any other party than the Democratic Party?