BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
obama is a bad president

I can give u 3 very good reasons why i think Obama needs to go: 1. * President Obama introduced a healthcare bill that forces Americans to buy a service. This he claimed was not a tax, and simply a penalty. He continuously reaffirmed that that was the case, despite the fact that more than half the population thought the bill was in violation of the constitution. When it came time for the court to decide whether it lived or not, the President's lawyers argued that it was legal because it was a tax and congress has the power to tax people. Now the President is denying it again. This is deception. 2. The President has used Executive privilege to allow his Attorney General not to turn over documents related to the Fast and Furious scandal. He is obviously hiding something from everyone. If he can't give up at least half of the documents, you know that something big is happening behind the scenes. 3. The President has made some very clearly politically motivated over the course of his term in office, arguably more than any president in modern American history. The most recent of these was his recent temporary immigration reform. He had promised that he would have done it much earlier when his party controlled both houses of congress. But no, he had to wait until the election year so he could gain more support among Hispanic voters before they forgot. anyone up for a bigger political whopping than Obama's health care act cause this only ends with "Obama need to be impeached"
Privacy is a fundamental right

As it is clear that my opponent and I are debating entirely different issues, I see nothing to resolve. I agree that if we take the interpretation of the word 'clandestine' my opponent has and therefore argue that the government would have to ignore other truly fundamental rights in order to maintain secrecy, then I have an issue. But not because privacy is being violated.My opponent stated as part of his aim an attempt to understand my lack of opposition to a programme like PRISM. However, by refusing to acknowledge the points I raised regarding primary and secondary rights he has unfortunately missed out on this objective. I clearly stated that the right in opposition to privacy is the right to require disclosure. I never stated that freedom of speech was in opposition to privacy. I used the former as an example. He states that freedom of speech without libel and hate speech is the same as freedom of speech when it is not, freedom from libel and protection form hate speech are each secondary rights of their own. If my opponent cannot make sense of my arguments, then perhaps I should have been more clear, perhaps he should have tried harder to find the sense rather than simply ignoring the sentences that answer his challenges. I'll let you decide.Again, my position on the stated resolution of 'Privacy is a fundamental right' is no, privacy is not fundamental.My position on a covert surveillance system (where I interpret covert as 'attempting to avoid detection' not 'actually avoiding detection') is that such a system is justifiable provided that other fundamental rights are not violated.My position on a clandestine surveillance system (where clandestine is interpreted in the sense my opponent has used) is that such a system would inevitably violate rights other than privacy and thus should not be permitted (unless someone can find a way to do it while still protecting other fundamental rights, I do not yet discount this possibility).My opponent does not seem to be able to comprehend that I can be opposed to a programme such as this for precisely the reasons he mentions without agreeing that it has anything to do with privacy. In which case, this entire debate is pointless as his argument rests on other rights that are completely independent of privacy. If he wished to discuss something other than the privacy concerns here, then perhaps he should have picked a different resolution.I look forward to viewers comments, but am dissapointed that we did not succeed in reaching any kind of synthesis.
Privacy is a fundamental right

ArgumentsAmerica, indeed the entire world, has come a long way. When people in the 1700s wanted to record something for posterity, they typically hired a scribe to jot down dictated thoughts onto paper, or sat still for hours while a painter who had devoted his entire life to his craft painstakingly rendered a portrait. Today, all we need to do is carry a camera...or not even that, as a phone would now suffice for most photo-worthy events, and some phones can record hours of conversations at the press of a button. All of the joys and events significant to one's life would find a nice, cozy cubby hole somewhere in someone's PRIVATE possessions, or perhaps a hard disk on one's PERSONAL computer. This ease of record-keeping makes one think that we could record just about anything, but why would we want to? Would you really want to record the entire life of your dog while it's peeing on trees and crapping in the yard? Really, why else would we need to record anything for posterity? There aren't many other reasons. Most have to do with the central concept of ACCOUNTABILITY, and this is where my arguments against the resolution come into play. We KNOW when we enter a bank that there are cameras aimed at the cash to prevent anyone, including the employees, from stealing the money. We KNOW that during a trial, each and every word spoken by anyone within court protocol will be recorded for posterity, so that the defendent is held accountable for his or her deeds. There is nothing wrong with such recordings for the sake of accountability.The government, by installing a CLANDESTINE surveillance system on public roads, is NOT HELD ACCOUNTABLE for it. No one knows about it. Even though the evidence garnered from such a system could be used against a defendent, the defendent would never know about it - he or she would be deemed guilty or not guilty by a process that would never be disclosed to anyone, lest you risk exposure to the CLANDESTINE system used to gather the evidence.So, if one day you're walking your dog and the cops come arrest you, you may be held for reasons you may not understand. You may be forced to confess to events that you know that no one had witnessed. You may be found guilty for crimes the nature of which would remain unknown to you, lest the means by which evidence was obtain be exposed. This is why in this specific case, privacy is a fundamental right. If this surveillance system was PUBLIC in nature, then one could justify it under the rubric of accountability - one could also find ways to escape the public view and conduct appropriate matters in private. But, if it remains secret, if it remains clandestine, it remains as a means for which the government would for all intents and purposes suspend habeas corpus - the right to be free from unlawful detention. Such suspension of basic rights only applies in America during invasion or rebellion...it effectively suspends the Constitution. It effectively admits that the laws of the land do not apply. Without privacy (i.e. protection against unadvertised intrusion), we are without rights.
Surf-n-Turf Law (House Bill 813) is illogical and unreasonable.

Welcome back to the debate! You, too, make a good argument. Until Brattin drafts and clarifies the language in the bill, it will remain extremely controversial. Fish, poultry, and red meat are part of a healthy diet, but no more than six ounces per day. [1] The whole spectrum, as you say, will not be banned. Only the more "luxurious" cuts. As for canned tuna and fish sticks being labeled as "junk food": canned tuna's nutritional summary (1 oz): 33 calories, 0.23g fat, 7.23g protein. Calorie breakdown: 7% fat, 0% carbs, 93% protein. breaded fish stick's nutritional summary (6 sticks): 190 calories, 9g fat, 11g protein. Calorie breakdown: 38% fat, 41% carbs, 21% protein. Lay's classic potato chips (40g): 220 calories, 14g fat, 2g protein. Calorie breakdown: 58% fat, 39% carbs, 3% protein. I included the potato chips, a classic example of junk food, for comparison. As you can see, both the tuna and fish sticks have far less fat content and much more protein. I suppose you could classify the fish sticks as junk food, but it is a bit of a stretch as compared to others. [2] Recall that the definition of junk food had two qualifiers: pre-prepared OR packaged food WITH low nutritional value. Many foods are packaged for the sake of freshness and to prevent contamination. You stated that "regulating items...would be the opposite of beneficial." You fail to show the negative consequences of such a thing, and in fact go on to agree that it would be beneficial but the "basis behind it is false." Not all SNAP recipients abuse the system, but if the items list was regulated would those who use it wisely be greatly affected? You stated with a credible source that the amount of recipients of the program have been declining, but there are still millions of family on the welfare. This means that taxpayers are still supporting millions of families, and thus renders that argument irrelevant. Thank you for your time. #1: http://www.heart.org... #2: http://www.fatsecret.com...
Surf-n-Turf Law (House Bill 813) is illogical and unreasonable.

Missouri State Representative Rick Brattin has introduced House Bill 813, also known as the "Surf-and-Turf" Law. This law prevents food-stamp recipients from using their benefits to purchase cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood, or steak. Brattin claims that the purpose of the new law is to "...get the food stamp program back to its original intent, which is nutrition assistance," I am against this for many reasons, Challenger needs to support the law and prove why it would be beneficial.
abortion should be legal

The Sharia law example was just to show that there could be an immoral state (some may argue Syria or Iraq in 2000) and that therefore laws should come from a more objective (maybe utilitarian) standpoint rather than merely a social contract. Your whole argument seems to rely on the view that only those in the social contract are protected so there is only an ethical system protecting a few people. I do not believe this is a sensible route to take as it would justify a country with its own social contract, for this example we"ll use Japan, dropping an atomic bomb on America if it is prioritizing the safety of its citizens. As far as Japan is concerned Americans, by your logic, merely count as "men in the dessert". I would hope you would not go so far to accept this as a justifiable action. You say that taking people"s rights away can be justified for a greater good. I would argue, that people having certain rights is essential for the greater good. I advocate utilitarianism and I hold that if we all have these rights we feel a lot happier and safer and that is essential to happiness. Happiness of people is the greater good. You seem to mistake serving the state as the greater good, but surely the purpose of the state is to protect those under it. There is a sanctity of life and that"s why I would not want the mother risking her life to have a baby and abortion should be legal in these cases (the vast majority of abortions are not for this reason). The mother also has a sanctity of life and if she dies then both her and the baby die. 2 deaths vs. 1- simple right? Furthermore, you argue that being told you killed your mother is a good reason for the fetus to be killed off. However, it would not be an act they were responsible for and I think that ultimately people born in such circumstances would appreciate life even at the cost of knowing the truth. I would argue that the fetus IS alive- being less developed does = less alive- are children less alive than adults?
abortion should be legal

What that man in the desert and the dude with sharia law do not own is the special rights owned by citizen of a certain area (health care, etc). It is true that there are rights owned by everyone but these are rights that are deemed as universal. Special rights are enacted by the authority these people have submitted themselves (for example, U.S army will prioritize the protection of U.S citizen in war even though it could mean the death of innocent civilian from different country). Ending lives for our benefit happened a lot of time. Take the example of death penalty, of soldiers killing in war. You go with the logic that everyone has rights, but here we are taking their rights away for the sake of a greater good. Same goes here, It is true that there are those that want to take risk but we cannot generalize it for the whole society. There should always be an opp out mechanism, hence abortion. Moral is subjective. Everyone has different views about morality, thus abortion should be an option. Your argument are made with the "sanctity of life", which is deemed much smaller than the good coming toward the parents with abortion (they don't have to carry burden, the mother's life is safe). Are you willing to risk the life of the mother and the future of the family? How will you feel if your daddy tells you that your mommy died because of you? The rights of life and welfare of the family are being threatened and as government, we must protect it. Right now our option are basically to either force the mothers to born the son with possible huge consequences or leave the choice at their hand. We must take the second because in the end, it is these people that will know what is the best option, thus option must be in their hand. Last of all, bear in mind that foetus is not fully alive. Meaning, that if they are unlucky enough to be aborted, well, although this sounds cruel, that is a lottery of birth and it won't know seeing that it is not alive in the first place.
abortion should be legal

Can you explain your first paragraph argument in a more coherent way? I want to do the argument justice in my response. Legalization should be an outcome from what is moral. So good laws should have a moral founding and therefore the moral debate is crucial to the argument. I think I am correct in thinking you believe the man in the dessert has no rights and therefore can be justifiably slaughtered (I wonder if you"d want tis if you were that man). Ok, you say that if you are not wanting to take part as a citizen of the country then you shouldn"t benefit from its protection. Ok, put yourself in this situation. You live under a Sharia law government. You disagree with the morals of these laws and therefore opt out of being a citizen and by your logic it would be morally justifiable for them to torture and kill you. Taking away the right to vote is very different I think, to killing someone without rational. We treat them differently for their good as well as ours (they"d suffer if they voted wrong) but we don"t go as far as ending their lives for our benefit. You mention a government should prioritise "parents who have spent half their life paying taxes, fulfilling law, and basically contributing to government" over the fetus but surely exactly the same thing could be said in justification of killing a three year old (who also depends on the parents efforts to survive). I think its unfair to say that the "would be aborted" are doomed for a bad future, many men are brought up in poor homes with single mothers and turn out great. I"d want my parents to take the risk with me- nothing worse than death.
abortion should be legal

Wrong choice is unlikely. Aborting your baby is not the same with buying pizza next door. Doctor tells you the consequence. Furthermore, if by some reasons, there are complications and harms, that have been countered with the fact that you consent with the notion of abortion to begin with. The same way that smoking is ruining your lungs but you can't blame the company simply because you already consented when you choose to smoke. Same goes to abortion Second of all, we are talking about legalizing abortion. It means that we are talking in a policy context. Whether or not such policy should be legal. It means that the actors are government and citizens, not some dude in a desert. Disagreeing with the limitations and justifications of a governmental ethics shows you as not wanting to take part as a citizen of a country. It means that you should also not get all the benefits of a citizen, including protection, your rights, etc. If you want all the benefits of a citizen, you should follow government regulations. It is indeed true that some people are not deemed as rational, people with learning diabilities or people who are mentally ill for example. But that is also the reason why we treated them differently. We give them different punishment for example (asylum and not prison). We also take some of their rights such as banning them to vote. We do this because we know that it will produce harm rather than benefit if we allow them to. Last of all, the killing. Alright let's assume that they are living or almost alive. We still need to legalize abortion. Why so? Because as government you always prioritize. And rather than prioritizing half living child in a womb, it is better to prioritize parents who have spent half their life paying taxes, fulfilling law, and basically contributing to government. Especially, when these children are also going to have a pretty bad future seeing that their parents choose to abort them. PS. sorry for not using paragraphs previously
abortion should be legal

Now please just listen the to the argument with an open mind. You can get rid of the idea that I am some Christian nutter justifying my view as its what God says. I agree with freedom of choice but where do we draw the line? I think it likely you would agree that freedom to kill another human say if you had a three year old child that depends on you to sustain its existence. Freedom of choice but what about when one makes the wrong choice? Are we supposed to standby while someone makes the wrong choice? So the right to live depends on the government you say? Well if you accept social contractarian ethics maybe. However, what about if you were born on a dessert island and some American explorers came to the island. As you have never agreed to the contract either tacitly or otherwise you have no rights and the explorers can kill you without being unjustified doing so. I could chose not consent to the social contract, perhaps I am against the governmental ethics- can I be lawfully killed? Also when did you enter the social contract? I doubt you were rational enough at 3? Now you mention having rational as a reason for giving right to life. However, what about people with severe learning disabilities, some are the kindest, most loving people I've ever met- should rational really determine whether one should live? You admit foetuses could be alive which is interesting. I suggest you don't go round killing things just because you are not sure they are alive. They are at an earlier stage of development dependent on a mother just like a child is. More detail later. I think the social contract works best if we adopt a utilitarian law making system which encompasses all human life no matter its stage of development. If we universalise that killing is right then we are more likely to develop into more virtuous people and create a better society- you wound not think someone who kills your dog is as capable as you as being a moral member of society.
abortion should be legal

Abortion should be legal. Why so? First of all we are talking about freedom of choice. Everyone has the freedom to do what their want with their body and for mothers it includes their foetus. Why so? First of all the foetus doesn't go into government's protection at having the right to live. Some people continuously argue that foetus has the right to live. This is however very wrong. First of all the abortions mostly happen before the foetus are considered fully alive with its organs bodily function, etc. Furthermore, there are one necessary element for owning a right, which is rationality. You need to be a person of rational mind. Because only when you are rational, you can consider yourself a member of society and consent to the idea of having a government over you and join the social contract existing there. For that very reason we are allowed to take the life of animals for say food, etc. They are living creatures, but we take their rights to live because they have never had the rationality that makes them a part of society. Same goes to foetus. They are barely alive and even if they are alive, they don't have the rationality making them part of society and granting them protection. Second of all, let's talk about greater good. Government are basically utilitarian in nature. They want the greatest benefit possible. It is something achievable by abortion only. Someone won't do abortion for fun. It is expensive and risky so there must be a good reason. Usually it's either because they are not ready to have a baby or because the mother's life are in danger. In both scenario, biggest benefit are achievable when abortion is done and seeing that i have proven to you that it is justifiable, why not?
we need to stop

we need to stop because we keep cutting down trees then the animals will die because of loss of habitat or at least slow way down.it does not matter if they plant trees or not because trees take a while to grow and animals are going lower in population and i think they should have tree farms are the only place to cut down trees so animals will safe from loss of habitat and will be no worry about not having enough air and to have cleaner air since trees clean the air.so we keep cutting them down at the rate we are then we will not have as clean of air and not as much.so by them cutting down trees at tree farms would be a good idea so we would not be destroying the environment and it could possibly make more jobs for more people to have so would mean there were still be profit and life.and clean air and not to little air for people and animals would have homes to live in and would not go extinct. which there would still be profit and could still be a pretty big industry for money making for the business who are doing it.
Does Coupon industry has future in India

I do not believe that the coupon industry has a future in India. While they may initially receive a lot of income from this practice, it will not be long before interest fades. The reason for this is that, in practice, the best coupons come directly from the specific store. And online, many companies have codes to put in at checkout, and they usually have at least one code active for 50% off, no shipping and handling, buy 1 get 1 free, etc.
Basketball is better than Tackle Football

. http://www.wsj.com...http://www.cnbc.com...Football is much ore popular than baseball and generates more revenue, almost 2 billion more. What makes professional athletics a success is the amount of money they earn, therefore football is better. Also, because more people like it, football is more popular and is also more succcessful by getting more people physically fit. In fact, the NFL makes the most money in the world. "That said, in 2013, the last time the question was asked, 39% of those surveyed said football is their favorite sport to watch, while only 14% said they favor baseball. "Football is more than twice as popular. . http://www.cbssports.com... Football is more fair than baseball because the salary cap. In baseball, the Yankees have won 27 out of 111 World Series, making baseball significantly more unfair as one team won almost a quarter of all championships, whereas the Steelers with the most in the NFL have only 6, a far lesser percentage. 6/49 is about 12 percent, so football is twice as fair.