BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cheaters should never be forgiven

"Cheaters should never be forgiven" Using that premise alone, I can name a situation where cheating is justified. A couple lives together for 5 years, gets married, then the husband becomes a raging alcoholic. He destroys everything in the house, is verbally abusive to his wife, beats her to the point where she can't talk anymore. He hits his kids and threatens them regularly. There comes a point where they haven't had a single nice word spoken to each other in years. He says that if she divorces him, he will hunt her down. Years later after living with this, she meets a very handsome nice man at the store and they secretly meet each other for years as a way of escaping her terrible home life. She kisses him, and eventually packs all of her things and takes the kids and leaves her old husband. After leaving, her old husband is angry for a while, then breaks down and sees all the pain that he's caused. He has a lifechanging epiphany. Should he not forgive her for cheating?
Smoking ban is unacceptable

Smoking is a choice that the individual make, and therefore it should be up to the individual person if he or she wants to smoke or not. I earlier mentioned that it was a human right to smoke and failed to explain why. America is a land of freedom and liberty; we have the right to speak and to do what we want. Our society tells us that we need to pursue our own happiness but it does not tell us what kinds of happiness we are allowed to pursue and which we are not allowed to pursue. Therefore we need make those choices of what we think will make us happy ourselves and then try to get that. There are some who wants to owe a mansion and some who wants loads of children and then there is us who finds smoking a greatness in our life. "People could argue that having laws against other drugs is "robbing them of a greatness"" I am not saying that just because we find it a pleasure to smoke, that all others should start smoking or that drugs should be legalized. I am just saying, if the government is making everything that can hurt you illegal, then we should be covered up in sterilized safety boxes. If we kept smoking legalized then people should think more and ask the question to themselves: do I or do I not want to smoke? This would make people use their brain more and make them stronger instead of just being afraid of everything that are dangerous.
Smoking ban is unacceptable

Asphalt is just as dangerous as smoking. The fumes from asphalt can give headache, skin rash, sensitization, fatigue, reduced appetite, throat and eye irritation, cough, and skin cancer. So why should it only be smoking that should be banned. When we walk outside on a hot summer day, we can see the heat on the asphalt. That is the poisonous fumes from the asphalt. So every time we walk outside we are exposed by this dangerous poison. https://www.osha.gov... http://news.harvard.edu... http://www.invw.org... "To point again to it its significance, the report was was a direct assessment of 11 studies conducted in North America and Europe, which involved more than two million births and alsmost 250,000 asthma exacerbations." You say that smoking is the main cause of births and asthma exacerbations, but it is only one of many. According to http://www.nhs.uk... then there are many other causes to asthma. See also: http://www.webmd.com... "Because of the detrimental health effects of smoking, naturally a lot of money is saved in implementing anti-smoking laws or an outright ban. The American Heart Association found that a ban would significantly decrease the amount of emergency room visits; who would bring down the cost considerably. Medline Plus even reported that the United states would save up to $92 million each year if asmoking ban was implanted" Smokers are not only an expense for the government because all of the money we use on cigarettes is basically taxes, which is shown in the following two links: http://www.tobaccofreekids.org... http://www.tobaccofreekids.org... Why should we stop smoking when we are helping create workplaces? Let us start from the beginning. It all starts with an idea, a lot of people are trying to figure out what the newest cigarette should contain and after the idea it needs to be produced, this create a lot of factory work, both from the production but also for the packing, doing the production we buy the products we need, such as paper, filter, cardboard, all the tobacco, plastic and so on. So we make other factories work as well. After the packing we need someone to deliver the cigarettes to the stores and so on. If we accepted the smoking ban, then we would lose a lot of working places. Another workplace we are aiding is the hospital, because if we end up at the hospital, we need to pay for our treatment. All in all, then the government would lose a lot of money if the smoking ban was accepted.
Smoking ban is unacceptable

Accepted. =Benefits=The improvement in health remains one of the strongest benefits in a smoking ban. A 2014 international the Lancet report [1.] found a 10% decrease in premature birth and severe child asthma attacks within a year of anti-smoking laws being introduced. In addition, the report also concluded that there was a 5% reduction in children being born very small for their age. One of the leading study authors involved commented:"Our study provides clear evidence that smoking bans have considerable public health benefits for perinatal and child health, and provides strong support for WHO recommendations to create smoke-free public environments on a national level." To point again to it its significance, the report was was a direct assessment of 11 studies conducted in North America and Europe, which involved more than two million births and alsmost 250,000 asthma exacerbations. The studies definitively show that children [whether indoors or out] receive some of the worst impacts, finding that they account for over a quarter of all deaths due to exposure to second hand smoke [2.]Because of the detrimental health effects of smoking, naturally a lot of money is saved in implementing anti-smoking laws or an outright ban. The American Heart Association found that a ban would significantly decrease the amount of emergency room visits; who would bring down the cost considerably. Medline Plus even reported that the United states would save up to $92 million each year if a smoking ban was implented [3.]As can be seen, the benefits expand to both health impacts and significant saving in costs. I'd point out that Pro has presented a case without including any sources or additional information in support. The BoP is on them to sufficiently prove that smoking should not be banned. Enjoying it "at restaurants" and it making people "feel good" do not provide valid reasons. More importantly, just because Pro finds smoking a "greatness"; it doesn't necessarily mean that everyone else does. People could argue that having laws against other drugs is "robbing them of a greatness". It would be on them to show how they are objectively great and why they should be completely legal. [1.] ] http://www.bbc.co.uk... [2.] http://www.sciencedaily.com...[3.] http://www.livestrong.com...
Smoking ban is unacceptable

The reason the smoking ban is unacceptable is because, it is a human right to smoke. We are a country of freedom. We are allowed to be the person we want to be and we make our own happiness. Smoking is unhealthy that is proved by science and a lot of experts says that it is a bad choice to make, but it is our choice and it is us who decide whether we want to smoke or not. The smoking ban is taking the happiness from us. At restaurants, some of us like to have a cigarette before and after the meal. This makes us happier and makes us feel good, so why should we be robbed from that greatness in our lives.
Democracy and Socilism Are Compatable

You never said you weren't referring to the American system of democracy either, and thus my assumption. By your definition and criteria, it seems you started a debate about something that's a given, like saying about America that democracy and capitalism are compatible. Of course they are. There's no debate there. If you want to take the strict definition of democracy and socialism without defining any parameters, which do exist in the real world, then I guess I should concede the debate to you. I can't debate that the systems of the countries you cite don't work because everyone knows they do. When your definition of two things is so narrow that you can't lose, it doesn't make for a very interesting debate. Maybe a clearer description of what you wanted to debate about would've been helpful.
Democracy and Socilism Are Compatable

I never said I was referring to the American system of democracy, but even if I had been the two are compatible. It seems you are arguing that capitalism is the same as democracy, at least in America. So, time for another definition. Capitalism: an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth [1] Nowhere in the definition of capitalism does it say anything about a government elected by the people. Similarly, the definition of democracy contains nothing about private ownership of property or wealth. By definition, socialism and capitalism are indeed opposites, but since neither is the same as democracy, neither is the opposite of it. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Democracy and Socilism Are Compatable

First of all, when you say "democracy" I can only assume you're referring to the system we have in America; one which includes capitalism as a major component. And when you say democracy and socialism are compatible, I can also only assume you're saying that a socialistic type of government can coexist with our present system. That being said, one thing missing from your definition of democracy (at least America's form of democracy) is it's a system that entails private ownership of property. The reason I said they were polar opposites is because either the individual owns property or the community does. (Your cited definition of socialism mentions the community ownership of property, so the opposite of that is, of course, private ownership of property). You can't have both. Private ownership of property is a major component of our democracy, you can't leave out that aspect of the equation. The list of countries you mentioned are successful, yes, so if you're saying their form of government is democratic, fine, but it's not the same as our system, and therefore where's the debate? I'm not here to debate the virtues and detriments of either system, but only if they are compatible. My assumption is basically this: you're saying that a system of socialism similar to any country on your list is compatible with our present American system. I'm saying they are intrinsically opposed to one another on the basis I have outlined above, and therefore are not compatible.
Democracy and Socilism Are Compatable

Let me start out by giving the definitions of socialism and democracy. Democracy: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. [1] Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. [2] From these definitions, you can tell what the two basically are. Democracy is a government in which the power belongs to the people, and either they (direct democracy) or representatives elected by the people (indirect democracy) make decisions for the community, in this case a nation. Socialism is a system of social organization that supports giving the ownership and control of industry, money, land, etc. to the community as a whole. Therefore, any nation where the community controls money, power, and land collectively, and where the people or their representatives make decisions, is both socialist and a democracy. How could a country be two things that are supposedly "polar opposites"? In fact, there are many countries in the world that are socialist (although they don't necessarily consider themselves that) that might surprise you, especially the top 10. For one, China. Now before you jump and say how oppressive and tyrannical China is, wait for the rest of them. The other nine most socialist countries in the world are as follows (not necessarily in order): *Denmark *Finland *The Netherlands *Canada *Sweden *Norway *Ireland *New Zealand *Belgium Many of these countries are very successful, and all of the top ten (other than China) are democracies. Many Americans might be surprised to find that one of the most socialist countries in the world is just to the north. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] http://blog.peerform.com...
m games and kids

I accept your challenge and I hope the best from my opponent but don't get mistaken I will crush you so good luck my opponent here are my top reasons 1. De-sensitizes killing. The thought of my little boys picking up a gun to shoot someone is not only disgusting, it teaches them to disrespect life. What if that could carry over to their own life? 2. Mean to women. I already live in a house with a manly husband and three little boys, so I have enough testosterone to deal with on a daily basis. Many of these ultra-violent games foster violence toward women -- something I definitely don't want them to carry over to how they may treat me -- or your daughters, who may someday be their future girlfriends. 3. Inappropriate sexual content. For the same reason we don't let our youngsters watch a rated-R movie, many of the latest violent games have sexual content and nudity. I don't know about you, but I don't want my boys to learn about the birds and the bees through a game. 4. Explicit language. I knew my son was guilty of playing a violent game when one day he said, "Oh, sh@#!" I asked him where he learned that word, and he said, "I played Call of Duty." Enough said. 5. Bad conflict resolution skills. Violent video games show kids how to express themselves physically, through violence. It's already way easier for a child to push another child when they're angry than to express their emotions and resolve a conflict through words. My boys have their fair share of quarrels, but I don't want them to learn they should resolve conflict through violence. 6. Measures success through killing. What kind of message does it send to our kids when they get rewarded with points by killing people? I love to hear my kids say, "I did it!" when they are playing a game -- I just want my kids to derive that feeling of success through positive, challenging achievements, not the accompishment of killing someone else. Why It's Particularly Bad for Young Brains Little kids have a hard time distinguishing the line between the real-world and the gaming world, as young minds are still forming what is real and what is make-believe. To kids, these virtual experiences feel very real, not only because the graphics today are so amazing, but because they are taking on a first-person role in the killing process. Rather than just watching a rated-R violent movie, when kids play a game, they are one of the main characters inside the adventure. The entire experience becomes a more meaningful -- and deadly -- in their brains, which are forming new connections everyday. How to Limit Exposure You know your own kids and how sensitive they are to material, so ultimately you're the best gauge for your own kids. When you buy games, pay attention to the ESRB ratings and look for the rating of "E" for everyone. But it's not that easy when big cousins they look up to (or even their daddy) likes to play these games. I told my kids to blame their mother: "When you're in a situation where someone is turning on an M for Mature game, tell them that it's not ok for you to play or watch them play that game. If they have a problem with that, tell them to go talk to me."
Best Car Brand: Ford

This question will elicit extremely true opinions like the one above. Chevy lovers will of course say Chevy is better and Ford lovers will say just the opposite. The truth is that both Chevrolet and Ford make very good vehicles that will last a very long time if properly maintained and if neglected neither will last very long. And in certain years Chevy and Ford have both made vehicles that were poor vehicles from day one. Pinto & Chevelle are two examples of cars that would not last no matter how we'll they were maintained. And as you can see in the above answer that person likes the styling of Chevy better than Ford. Well, that is not the engine putting out that hp. That is the gears that they have in them, including high performance intake, high performance exhaust and other high performance options that they could add. Not what the engine is putting out. I didn't mean to make it sound like I was saying the gears added hp, but that is what makes the car faster. And you could build a faster Chevy engine without having to add many high performance parts, as you would with ford. I also know from experience that if you put the right gears in a car, you can tend to put out more hp at higher rpm's. Didn't say created, but more like put out more hp.
The use of atomic weaponry against Japan in World War II was justified.

A) Hiroshima was a city with military significance(1) B) Simply stopping the war would have been a foolish and short-sighted move. The Japanese government was dangerous and belligerent. The Japanese resorted to desperate tactics in order to kill American troops (ie kamikazes), and they had no intention of simply accepting a surrender. We were locked into a war with a dangerous, violent, and aggressive enemy. Its is laughable to assume that the Japanese would have simply left America alone after the war. Anti-West Propganda in Japan was prevalent. The Japanese had no desire for peace or for an end to the war with America. They were in no position to expect us to stop fighting. As I mentioned in the Potsdam Declaration, the japanese could have ended the affair and everyone could have been fine. But they didn't. They started a war, and they should've been prepared to finish it. Your argument is inherently invalid, and one which you provide no base for. I expected more than a mere talking point. We couldn't just stop the war. By that logic, the soviets had no right to invade Nazi Germany. They should've just stopped and let Hitler regroup. Your reasoning fails on nearly every level. 1)http://www.gojapango.com...
The use of atomic weaponry against Japan in World War II was justified.

We could of just stopped the war. It destroies all ur arguments. The offsprings that were harmed were numorious! It killed many and none of these arguments work for it. ITs just justifiing murder of kids. The two cities that were bombed weren't even military cities. It wwas the two cities that were the most christian. The Japanise were nazis. The nazis were right"... Hitler is one of the greatest men. The old trust him, the young idolise him. It is the worship of a national hero who has served his country." - David Lloyd George, Prime Minister and Statesman, Great Britain. "Hitler was right" - British Attorney General (Senior Nuremburg Prosecutor) " I believe now that Hitler and the German people did not want war. But we declared war on Germany, intent on destroying it, in accordance with our principle of balance of power, and we were encouraged by the 'Americans' around Roosevelt. We ignored Hitler's pleadings not to enter into war. Now we are forced to realise that Hitler was right. He offered us the co-operation of Germany... I feel ashamed and humiliated..." (British Attorney General, Sir Hartley Shawcross, Stourbridge, March 16th, 1984) The Nazis weren't bad They *put a stop to massive unemployment; *ended hyper-inflation; *restored the self-esteem of the German people (for a few years till the defeat in 1945); *built the Autobahn; *laid the technological foundations for modern utilisation of space; *forced the world to rethink international relations to such an extent that much of Europe has enjoyed peace for over 65 years.We should of paired up with the nazis! Not bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The use of atomic weaponry against Japan in World War II was justified.

The bombs killed 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki (the Dresden bombing killed over 500,000). More than 95% of the casualties were civilians. The war was already won when they dropped them. Part of the Radiation genocide, and creation of the Cold War Hoax.] Harry Elmer Barnes wrote an essay on a subject never made public by the U.S. government. He was the first Revisionist to explain that Japan had made an offer of surrender, on the same terms as those accepted on V-J Day, six months before the dropping of atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. "Hiroshima: Assault on a Beaten Foe," National Review (May 10, 1958). The ends were not military but political. As early as 1948, Churchill wrote in his "History of the Second World War" (Volume VI) : "It would be false to suppose that the fate of Japan was decided by the atomic bomb." The American admiral, William A. Leahy, confirmed this in his book, "I was there": "In my opinion, the use of that barbaric weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not much use in the war against Japan." And indeed, the emperor of Japan, Hirohito, had already engaged negotiations for the surrender of his country as early as May 21st 1945 with the Soviet Union (which was not yet at war with Japan), through the intermediary of the Japanese minister of foreign affairs and the Soviet ambassador, Malik. "Prince Konoye was asked get ready to go to Moscow, to negotiate directly with Molotov." Leahy, the American admiral, concluded (op.cit.): "By being the first to use the atomic bomb, we stooped to the moral level of the barbarians of the Middle Ages...This new and terrible weapon, which is used for an uncivilized war, is a modern barbarity unworthy of Christians." Thus all those leaders, which a genuine "International Court" made up of neutral countries would have placed with the war criminals alongside Goering and his gang, discovered an unhoped-for alibi with the "gas chambers", the "holocausts" and the "genocides", that could justify, if not eradicate, their own crimes against humanity. The Founding Myths of Israeli Politics by Roger Garaudy. The Great Hiroshima Cover-Up And the Nuclear Fallout for All of Us Today http://whale.to...
The use of atomic weaponry against Japan in World War II was justified.

The nazis were good. Hitler was fighting the reptiaian aliens!!! [There isn't any evidence for homicidal gas chambers, only gas shelters or disinfection chambers to kill lice that spread Typhus (hence the use of Zyklon B), a major cause of death at the time and the reason for all the bodies seen in the mass graves at Belsen, that were used to convince people of Nazi 'death camps.' The gas chamber myth can easily be seen in the absurdity of the morgues that are passed off as gas chambers at Auschwitz I and Auschwitz II, and in the actual mechanics of using gas to kill humans (see Mechanics of Gassing Gas chambers). There also isn't any written evidence for a policy of genocide known as the 'Final Solution'. Other telling evidence is the Persecution of revisionists and the studious avoidance of Forensic examinations relying purely on Eye Witnesses. The Holocaust story started out as propaganda 1 (see Soap Lampshades Nazi 'gas chamber'), and at the war end served to hide the British Tavistock (Illuminati/Zionist) creation of the war (see: Wars Bormann Himmler Hitler Stalin), along with war and post war crimes (1 2, 3, 4, 5), while it helped create the state of Israel (1948 1), and now helps justify the present genocides in Palestine, & Iraq. It is the main source of Zionist power.1 Also, one of the main uses for the hoax is to maintain: 'Humans can be evil'.