BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Laws making Minimum Wage Mandatory are necessary in this society

Laws requiring employers to pay employees minimum wage is necessary in this society. If you don't have a college education or you are even just working at a grocery store as a part-time job, you must rely on your employer to pay you minimum wage. If there were no minimum wage laws, employers would be able to hire employees and make them "slaves". Especially in the economic situation this country is in currently, employees would be being hired for extremely low hourly wages, since everybody is desperate for a job.
Legalize marijuana in all 50 states

Okay though that could work, think about it, marijuana since we can remember has been a drug that has made people think their invincible hence why if we would make it legal kids would abuse this privilege and it would lead them to go to harder more dangerous drugs. Now if we would ever actually legalize it nation wide there would have to be an age restriction because kids using weed would end terribly especially for the parents of said kid.
Legalize marijuana in all 50 states

So first off I would not like this to be a nationwide bill, I believe in the tenth amendment, and that we should leave it up to the individual states to decide for themselves, such as Colorado where marijuana is legal for recreational use. You say it is a gateway drug, but if Minnesota made marijuana legal most people would still not use the drug, therefore making it legal wouldn't make it any more of a gateway drug than it already is.
Legalize marijuana in all 50 states

This is America Spence... You get to choose how you live your life. If you think getting high for fun is sad, pathetic or just plain wrong doesn't do drugs. But if you would like to do drugs and harm your own body, by all means go right ahead. Its called Natural Selection, the smart people live happy, healthy lives and pass on their genes. The ones who do drugs will live sad and unhealthy lives and will probably die young. In The United States people think for themselves
Legalize marijuana in all 50 states

See that's the thing, legalizing marijuana in Colorado was probably the worst thing we possibly could've done. You see because now kids all want to go to Colorado because they think oh well its legal there but you see then they bring it here and get arrested all for what, getting high every now and then. See if we are just legalizing it just to get high then there is no point, getting high is just something people do to have fun, and frankly if you need a drug to have fun with the people you are with then maybe that's a wake up call to change your way of life because a life where you remember who and what you did is better than a life where you don't remember anything at all. Me personally i would rather live a life drug free and be able to remember the good times verses not remembering anything and being high all the time.
Legalize marijuana in all 50 states

Like I said legalizing an illegal substance will not cause everyone to go out and use it. I personally would never use any type of illegal substance drug even if it was legalized, I assume that you wouldn't use the drug if it was legalized either. If you accept that people wouldn't use drugs just because it is legal then you can safely join the pro side of this argument. Currently the drug war has failed, Highest number of prisoners in the world and drugs are flooding through the border. For the past 30 years drugs being illegal have done us no good.
Christians should not be afforded the protection of the law

I hope my reply is a worthy one, but that will be for the voters to decide, of course! To address the first comment my oppnent made, regarding the unlikelihood of God reconciling "His" existnce with "His" tolerance of evil practices - I have no choice but to agree - either "He" doesn't exist or, if "He" does exist then "He" either couldn't care less or is too weedy and pathetic to do anything about it. However, this acknowledgment of the realities on the ground does not negate my main argument. The point is, whether Christian beliefs in the power of "God" are right or wrong (they are wrong, by the way) they (the Christians) believe (erroneously) that their deity is the supreme power and has the ability to exhalt a man to eternal graciousness or condemn him to everlasting purgotory, according to that individual's behaviour whilst on Earth. With reference to my opponent's second point, I am obliged to concede that he is correct in discerning that faith blinds Christians from distinguishing between fact and fiction. To use an ecumenical phrase, my opponent and I are both "singing from the same hymn sheet" on this one! Indeed, I should like to take this opportunity to point out that there is, actually, very little I disagree with in my opponent's analysis of the Christian faith. It is, in my humble opinion, a very astute one and I have difficulty finding fault with it. However, my opponent did write: "I don't think that many Christians believe that God can save them without any other assistance. However, Christians may pray because they think God will answer their prayers and perhaps save them from evil by making the police help them. " So, what my opponent is saying is that a Christian walks out of a Bible Sudies Class (possibly intoxicated as the reuslt of having imbibed too much Coca-Cola) and walks towards his bicycle when a bunch of Hell's Angels emerge from the darkness, corner him, bundle him to the ground and deprive him of with his wallet and phone, he gets on his hands and knees and prays to "God"? "Dear God, some thugs have turned me over, please phone the police and tell them where I am, Amen"? No, I don't think so. Finally, as I am running out of time, I shall address my oppoenent's final point. How do we know who is Christian and who is not? It is true that many Christians are ashamed of their faith and even more are a bit like Manchester United fans, good-time supporters - they only follow "God" when "He" is on the winning side and when push comes to shove, they still rely on their fellow humans for protection. To sort this problem out, all church-goers should be rounded up and have their foreheads tatooed with "Bible-Basher" or "God-Botherer". Okay, I was just joking about that last bit, but you know what I mean! Thank you.
Christians should not be afforded the protection of the law

Christians believe "Deus est meus tectum" (God is my shelter) and "We ought to obey God rather than men" --Acts 5:29. They believe in a "Higher Authority" than that of the state and that their deity will protect them, and that's all well and good - let them get on with it. So, in view of this, surely it is an act of outright, unmitigated, unashamed, disgraceful, appalling, hypocritical audacity for Christians to call the police after they have been robbed or attacked? Why don't they appeal to their "Higher Authority" for justice? Because, in their heart of hearts, they know that the whole religious malarchy is a total sham and that there's no such thing as a god or an afterlife - they're just too scared to admit it to themselves, that's all. In light of this, surely the limited resources of the law enforcement community should be restricted to assist non-religious, law-abiding citizens who really appreciate their help and that cannot rely on the a "Higher Authority" for protection? If Christians need the help of the police and the judiciary to fight their battles for them, then all I can say is that their god is pretty pathetic one. Thank you.
The Harry Potter series is superior to the Twilight saga.

Okay I understand but really the Pro's statement does not do any thing but correct my statement. Like I said the media favor twilight more. Now the pro did not say any thing about that because it is true. Every body loves twilight, not just girls but boys too. SUPPORT ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/61244302.html www.eatliver.com/i.php?n=6877 http://warriorclancats.forumotion.com...
The Harry Potter series is superior to the Twilight saga.

Ok it watch both movies and I really don't like any,but if i really had to choose it would be twilight.First twilight made $191,195,655. Also harry potter is very boring, and I am not the only that thinks that. Lots of people think it's very boring. Also mostly all thee media says that twilight is better than harry potter. EXAMPLE: www.eonline.com/news/harry_potter_vs_twilight_winner.../213012
The Harry Potter series is superior to the Twilight saga.

I had a lot of fun arguing this with another person, and I'd love to debate it again. Lets set out some ground rules:1. This debate is foremost regarding the books, not the films (movies). For this reason, arguments like "the Harry Potter special effects are bad" will be invalid.2. Remember that this is a debate promoting why one seires is better than the other, not an opportunity to bash either one. For this reason, arguments like "Harry Potter has no real plot" will not be valid, unless they are followed by saying "whereas Twilight does have a plot because so-and-so".3. Debators can't make empty comments like "Twilight is best because Harry Potter sucks". It needs to be backed up by information or have a proper explaination that serves as faesable evidence.I'd like my opponent to begin the debate in Round 1 (this round)."Better" is basically including plot, characters, messages, story line, depth, writing technique, and things like that. Please accept and post your arguments!1ST ROUND IS NOT ACCEPTANCE! See last paragraph
Abortion and the Biblical Sixth Commandment

I chose the philosophy category for reasons that will become obvious. The Biblical Sixth Commandment states "Thou shalt not kill." Abortion opponents like that. But there is a problem. It is impossible to obey the exact literal wording of that Commandment, and therefore it must be interpreted differently from what it literally says. Why is the literal wording impossible to obey? Modern science has discovered that the volume of physical space occupied by the average walking human body is not entirely human. In fact, about 90% of all the living cells in that volume of physical space are bacterial, and only about 10% are human. http://www.sciencedaily.com...; Some of those bacteria are "symbiotic"; humans can't survive without them, and the bacteria can't survive without the humans. But other bacteria are pathological opportunists. The immune system of the average human body is constantly *killing* those bacteria. You would probably die within a week if your immune system started literally obeying the Biblical Sixth Commandment. Therefore it is necessary to interpret that Commandment differently from what it literally says. How about "Thou shalt not kill humans."? Obviously abortion opponents could embrace that interpretation. It also has advantages with respect to the living things that we often kill for food (including seeds), and with respect to the bugs or rats that we kill because they would eat our food. Unfortunately, this particular interpretation is seriously short-sighted. Consider dolphins, for example: http://www.militaryphotos.net... If dolphins have names and language, should we believe that we are allowed to kill them as freely as we kill bacteria, simply because they are not human? And what of the far-distant future, when we start exploring the stars and eventually (it is a *big* Universe out there!) encounter other technologically advanced species? Will it be smart or stupid to believe that all non-human intelligent beings can be freely killed, *just* because they are not human? Consider for a moment "the other side of that coin", which has been portrayed in such fictional scenarios as the movie "Independence Day". Those non-human intelligent beings seemed to think that humans could be killed freely! Perhaps they had their *own* version of the Biblical Sixth Commandment, perhaps "Thou shalt not kill your own kind."... It should now be obvious that we (and all other intelligent species in the Universe) need a less-specific interpretation of the Biblical Sixth Commandment. So, how about, "Thou shalt not kill intelligent beings."? I don't see any problem with that. But abortion opponents will. Because *no* unborn human qualifies as an "intelligent being"! (Humans don't even qualify for several months after birth, but that fact is irrelevant to any abortion debate.) Your Challenge in this Debate, should you choose to accept it, is to specify *why* the Biblical Sixth Commandment should be interpreted in some way that forbids abortion, similar to how I have specified why its literal form is flawed, and why an alternate interpretation is necessary. Thank you.
is Ferrari better than Lamborghini

I'm glad to see you finally post your argument. Now onto my own. These few are of typical Ferrari racing vehicles: http://www.autoweek.com... http://corseclienti.ferrari.com... These few are of typical Lamborghini vehicles: http://www.motorstown.com... http://www.autorightwheel.com... Aside from racing, here are some current, consumer Ferrari models: http://pictures.topspeed.com... http://pictures.topspeed.com... Current Lamborghini models: http://www.hdwallpapers.in... http://carpaper.net... Now don't get me wrong, I love all of these cars. The reason I side with Lamborghini is that their cars are much more streamlined and futuristic than Ferrari's. They also have more extravagant models, such as the following: http://blog.caranddriver.com... http://uncrate.com...
Opponent picks topic.

I have broken no rules whatsoever. What rule am I being accused of being accused of breaking? " The debate topics have to be somewhat different, to prevent ten rewording of a single topic. I can change the topic you provide slightly as well for the debate to be a fun experience. At the start of round 2 I will underline and bold the confirmed topic. "I did not however break this rule. The rule clearly states to not reword in order to keep things different. I did not break this rule. I did not reword my topics, I changed the amount of pageants that should be banned, and changed the punctuation. In other words I re-punctuated and re-amounted. This changes the topics slightly, because it turns from a normal sentence, to a extremely important sent ace, to a question. I have also re-numbered them, making the amount of pageants that should be banned. Therefore topics 1 and 4 are not the same. This makes the topics SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT.Obviously, your topics are NOT somewhat different. All topics are about beauty pageants. Re-punctuating them does nothing.of somewhat: "An unspecified amount or number" [1]Your definition is incorrect. The correct definition is 'to a moderate extent or by a moderate amount'.So as you can see, since it is unspecified, any amount is acceptable. So slightly changing it which I have done without rewording, but re-punctuating and re- amounting is completely acceptable.Since I have broken no rules, and my opponent has already broken a format rule, since they didn't choose a topic, nor explain their arguments, or which position they are, I automatically take control of the debate. Since my opponent has already surrendered all their points.You have broken a rule.Since I am unable to continue this debate thus far because my opponent did not choose any position, nor made an argument, or choose a topic, I should not be penalized for this action.You are the first one to break a rule, in R1 A2.
Opponent picks topic.

I have broken no rules whatsoever. What rule am I being accused of being accused of breaking? " The debate topics have to be somewhat different, to prevent ten rewording of a single topic. I can change the topic you provide slightly as well for the debate to be a fun experience. At the start of round 2 I will underline and bold the confirmed topic. " I did not however break this rule. The rule clearly states to not reword in order to keep things different. I did not break this rule. I did not reword my topics, I changed the amount of pageants that should be banned, and changed the punctuation. In other words I re-punctuated and re-amounted. This changes the topics slightly, because it turns from a normal sentence, to a extremely important sent ace, to a question. I have also re-numbered them, making the amount of pageants that should be banned. Therefore topics 1 and 4 are not the same. This makes the topics SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT. of somewhat: "An unspecified amount or number" [1]So as you can see, since it is unspecified, any amount is acceptable. So slightly changing it which I have done without rewording, but re-punctuating and re- amounting is completely acceptable. Since I have broken no rules, and my opponent has already broken a format rule, since they didn't choose a topic, nor explain their arguments, or which position they are, I automatically take control of the debate. Since my opponent has already surrendered all their points. Since I am unable to continue this debate thus far because my opponent did not choose any position, nor made an argument, or choose a topic, I should not be penalized for this action.source(s) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...;
Opponent picks topic.

You have broken the rules."Provide ten possible arguments for me to choose from. Do NOT try to define, explain the topics, as I can interpret the arguments any way I wish, provide any arguments or provide your side on the topics you provide. Anything here should only be greetings or topics. I decide which side I wish to be, IGNORE the fact that debate.org says that I'm pro. The debate topics have to be somewhat different, to prevent ten rewording of a single topic. I can change the topic you provide slightly as well for the debate to be a fun experience. At the start of round 2 I will underline and bold the confirmed topic." Your ones are NOT different, in fact 1&4 are the SAME.This is a format breakage. Even though I have broken the format, you broke it before me. So, you forfeit all points.
Opponent picks topic.

Thanks for giving me the oppurtunity to create a topic. Here are my 10 debates:1.Beauty pageants should be banned. 2.Beauty pageants should be banned..3.Beauty pageants should be banned...4.Beauty pageants should be banned. 5.Beauty pageants should be banned,.6.Beauty Pageants should be banned!7.Beauty pageants should be banned!!8.Beauty pageants should be banned9.Beauty pageants should be banned!!!10.Beauty pageants should be banned.!!!
Animals that exhibit homosexual behavior exist in nature

Well first of all I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to use Wikipedia as a source because I could just go on there and type in anything I want. But regardless, your sources don't really prove anything since it's all false. First of all, unlike humans, hen animals hump another, they aren't mating believe it or not, usually they're just declaring dominance. Nextly, just because two animals follow each other around a lot doesn't mean they are gay, infact they only stay together enable to defend larger portions of land, so unless my opponent is going to mistake a police man having a partner for him being gay- gay animals do not exist.
Animals that exhibit homosexual behavior exist in nature

The fish snags the worm. This is not truly going to be a debate, because the statement "Animals that exhibit homosexual behavior exist in nature" is irrefutable fact, established by extensive scientific research, which I provide below. The research: https://en.wikipedia.org... List of Animals that exhibit homosexual behavior: https://en.wikipedia.org... As it clearly says at the beginning of the second link, in order to get on the list, the animals must have... "documented evidence of homosexual behavior of one or more of the following kinds: sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, or parenting" As the statement I support is also supported by countless organizations and the scientific community. I rest my case.
Christian ethics should only be situational

Understood your point, and although I actually still disagree over the question whether the majority of the Old Testament's rules are not obsolete, meaning in thus many rituals and judical parts of it, you are most likely to be right about the fact that the Decalogue should be kept. I did read the verses of course, however I think I did explain my different interpretation of that to yours, did I not? Regarding the Sabbath day, I did not see how that might be not formal breaking of the Law, however I do see now and have to say that going in this argument with certain beliefs I go out with a big challenge of revising them and perhaps looking at the Scripture from another angle. Therefore, should I admit that I no longer fully hold the claim I made, at least for the time being, and therefore before any voting admitt you as a winner. Thank you very much for the debate, it is indeed very useful to put your own belives against a criticism and see, if their hold. as this is how one finds the Truth.
Christian ethics should only be situational

Yes, unfortunately no, had you read the citations I provided you, you would know that the Torah is valid and binding in exhaustive detail until heaven and earth pass, not the coming of the New Covenant. Indeed, because the New Covenant is the Torah written on the hearts of believers (Heb 10:16), Christ has doubled down on His expectation of full obedience. What the book of Hebrews was written to address was the potential apostasy of the Christian Jewish converts by returning the temple cultic practice, not that they would obey the Torah. Thus, what has become obsolete is those temple cultic practice that merely foreshadowed the coming of Christ. Thus, a man need not be circumcised, but need too not steal. Given this, you claim that the "majority of the rules from the Old Testament became obsolete" is heretical. And no, Jesus said obedience to the Torah in exhaustive detail determines your standing in, not entrance into, the Kingdom. However, if you affirm Christ and repudiate the Torah, you are a liar without the truth in you. This is John's way of saying you are not a Christian and going to Hell. The Torah is the commands of Christ. You cannot separate them from any other part of Scripture. See Matt 5:17-19. As to Jesus violating the Sabbath, I stand on His answer. If you wish to stand with the Pharisees, that is up to you.