BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Forks vs. spoons

FORKS ARE BETTER THAN SPOONS Forks are better at stabbing. It can be used to pick up food but doubles as a defensive weapon. A fork is a far superior defensive weapon than a spoon is with its three prongs and stabbing abilty. It has a design similar to a pitchfork which is an actual weapon. How would you defend yourself with a giant spoon? yeah, didn't think so. Unlike spoons, forks can't be used to hold liquid drugs while they're being smoked. Forks prevent you from becoming a drug addict while spoons help turn you into one. If you've ever done the dishes then you know how dangerous spoons can be. if you ever let water pour over a spoon you'll get water splashing everywhere. Forks are safe and reliable, with no worrying about messes. Forks are a better knife substitute. This means that all benefits incurred by knives are inherited to the fork if there aren't any knives. This means your ability to cut, spread, and stab will be with a fork, not a spoon. Spoons hold liquid, sure, but so do cups and cups are better at it. Ladels are better are grabbing lots of liquidy food than spoons are too. Accidentally biting down hard on a spoon is worse than biting down on a fork. We all do this from time to time. The fork's prongs have some flexibility that increases give whereas the spoon doesn't. This could potentially save you thousands at the dentist office. Or tens of thousands if you live in Beverly Hills, had no insurance, and needed several teeth fixed. Forks are better for the environment and less expensive to manufacture since less material is used. Forks are also somewhat lighter so potentially it has a broader use among extremely unfit people. You'll find forks in the road more than you'll find spoons in the road. . Forks are easier to clean since you don't need to bend your sponge around a slope like you do with a spoon. There's also no danger of having water splashing everywhere.
My kid won't stop jacking off in public

mine too, i just don't know what to do. I tried to contact professional help but everyone i have talked to has deemed the situation too extreme. i fear for my life, everyday he gets more violent (last week he beat my hispanic neighbor's child with a lawn chair). just the other day i witnessed him casually firing shots from a glock out my bedroom window (while jacking off). i heard a scream but i don't know what happened out there because he's locked me inside the house. help me.Photo of my son:
RESOLVED: The phrase "Equal Opportunity" refers to probability, not possibility.

(adj) equal (having the same quantity, value, or measure as another) . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...(n) opportunity (a possibility due to a favorable combination of circumstances). http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...This debate was started over a disagreement of the meaning of "equal opportunity" in another debate, and the above definitions were accepted as clarification of terms in round 1. Thus the definitions are carried over into this debate. The above definitions are not negotiable.
Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings.

I would think that you would understand by now that it is the voters who ultimately decide who wins the argument, not you. Anywho, my response: "The title of this argument is "Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings." The kids who are predisposed susceptibility to the emotional deterioration ultimately are the ones who shoot up the schools, ergo video game violence in theory does significantly contribute to school shootings. Therein your evidences are invalidated and I win the argument." Con has not addressed my initial evidence, nor has the slightest hint of evidence to back up his claim. If violent video games were the cause for these school shootings, then tell me: what happened to all of the other factors that caused the earlier shootings? Our school systems today have undoubtably learned to combat them significantly, but not completely. Another thing that I must present is the likeliness of violent video games influencing students to commit these crimes. Video games, as well as the violent ones, are imbued into our society. They provide entertainment and satisfaction for millions of teens in the United States. Although it has been shown that they can cause aggression in certain cases, for the most part, they do not play a significant role. "School shootings are not a simple issue with a single solution. This violence is rooted in psychological imbalances within the students themselves, poor parenting and a decay in significance of traditional institutions along with the guilt forces they rely on for effectiveness - to name a just a few."[1] With nearly all statistics on school shootings, these factors that contribute to the crimes appear in virtually every case. The part that video game violence plays is very insignificant indeed. Conclusion: Most, if not all school shootings are rooted in psychological imbalances within the students themselves, poor parenting and a decay in significance of traditional institutions along with the guilt forces they rely on for effectiveness[1], not violent video games. The real cause lies significantly more with the student and his/her social environment, rather than the entertainment activities(violent video games) he/she partakes in. Sources: http://www.holology.com...
Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings.

"It has been proven that there is a casual link between predisposed kids that end up fulfilling their disposition via the cognitive deterioration of emotional tolerance by playing violent video games[1]. Case in point." [1]http://www.msnbc.msn.com...... I would like to add to Con's statement that it has also been proven that the amount of school shootings since 1993 have significantly decreased[2]. Let's look at what game genres that we have present today cause aggression in teens. According to con's earlier source[1], the main genre of video games that cause "the deterioration of emotional tolerance" are violent first-person shooters, such as ones mentioned like "Call of Duty" and "Medal of Honor: Frontline". It's relation with school shootings has a vital flaw, though. Throughout the period of time (from 1993 - 2001), when school shootings were at their peak in this statistic[2], the more violent genres of first-person shooters that caused aggression in teens[1] did not exist. At this point, it must be safe to assume that it was not the violent video games that heavily influenced the school shootings. [1] http://www.msnbc.msn.com... [2] http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu...
In a democratic society, term limits are unjust!

I affirm: In a democratic society, term limits are unjust! Because I am affirming, I accepting the ENTIRE burden of proof, though my opponent may present arguments for the negative side. Term limits ensure that elected public officials cannot remain in power indefinitely. [1] Rounds Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: 1st Affirmative opening arguments and 1st negative rebuttals.Round 3: 2n Affimrative rebuttals, 2nd negative rebuttals.Round 4: Closing/Final rebuttals for each side. References[1] Debate.org "Term Limits." http://www.debate.org...;
In a democratic society, term limits are unjust!

Thank you, blackvoid, for your well thought out arguments. You have left me with somethings to think about :D ==REBUTTAL TO CON==My partner has graciously accepted some of the Burden of Proof for this debate. Because of that, I wish to extend a thank you for being willing to argue your point of view. Contention 1: They (the people) want term limits. My partner has made the fallacy argumentum ad populum. To every democracy, no matter which form of democracy the nation uses, there is always a degree of authoritarianism to it. I defined a democracy as "self government" where the people elect the leaders. Because it is a democracy, it is unreasonable (or unjust) to take away the right to elect who the nation wants to elect.Contention 2: Fair CommpetitionIndeed, the election campaignins do need reformed, but I do not see how term limits help fair competition. My suggestion: If the debt goes over 2% while in office, that person cannot be re-elected. Moreover, if someone has done more harm than good whie in office, that person cannot be in office as well. Contention 3: Solves seniority Again, I agree that this needs to be reformed. However, I fail to see the advantage of term limits over reform. C4. Legacy incentiveWith term limits a politician has a definite amount of time he can be in office. Because of this, he is incentivized to produce positive results as quickly as possible because his tenure isn't indefinite. He can't just say "I don't have to worry about getting the troops home right now, there's always next year". He must act now within his limited tenure if he wants to be remembered as a great president. This encourages politicians to get their platforms enacted immediately and to start working on fixing the country's problems right away, because he knows he doesn't have all the time in the world. --BlackvoidThis point is mute because the electors can still vote the politician out. ==DEFENSE OF MY ARGUMENTS==Contention 2: Term Limits prevents the right person from taking office. My partner says that having no term limits also keeps mediocre politicians in office for an extended time. While this may be true, I have already given an alternative to term limits which will prevent corrupt politicians. Contention 1: I will respond in the next round. Thanks!
In a democratic society, term limits are unjust!

I look forward to a great debate with you, considering you do have an excellent record. What is a democracy? Before we begin to discuss whether or not term limits are just within a democratic society, it makes perfect sense to know what a democracy is. A democracy is defined by the Encyclopedia of Philosophy as "a government by the people" and/or "self-government. " Against Term Limits Position Contention 1: Term limits contradict a democracy. In a democratic society, the people have the right to elect whom they wish to elect. Term limits take away/limit that right. Therefore, in a democratic society, term limits are unjust. Premise 1 is true by definition. Premise 2 states that term limits take away the people's rights to elect whom they wish to elect. Term limits, as defined in round 1, are limits on how long a person can stay in office. Therefore, this limits who the people can choose to elect the people whom they wish to elect. Hence, it follows logically that term limits are contradictory to a democratic society. Contention 2: Term limits prevent the correct person from taking office. This contention ties in to the previous contention. If there was a person who was perfectly fit for office, led the people well, and the United States citizens (or citizens of any democratic society) wish to have the person in office again, then it is logical that they should be able to keep the good political leader. As the saying goes, "Do not fix what is not broken. " Cross Examination I would now like to take time to cross examine my partner. How long should a leader stay in office? Can you justify that length of time? If a leader was well-liked and has done lots of great things for his nation, shouldn't he be able to have more than that amount of time that you mentioned above? If not, why not. Thank you. References [1] Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Democracy. <. http://ic.galegroup.com... >
The earth is flat

#1. I assume you are correct, Physiologists don't study the shape of the earth. #2. I don't have any evidence that the government is lying to us. #3. That makes sense. #4. Yes, That is what I use as well. #5. Psychologists have absolutely nothing to do with the shape of the earth. #6. Your right, My explanation is ridiculous. #7. This is a useless argument on my end, No doubt. #8. True #9. Cool. I have no issue at all. At least, I hope I haven't caused you any offense. I will have you know that the flat earth society has members around the globe. I'm sure you can find a member near you:) They specialize in the act of being astronomers and physicists and will easily prove their point when they sail to the edge of earth where they will find some Russian kid hanging off the edge with a selfie stick. I'm quite impressed with your grammar and choice of words:) eritis mihi mundus oculis capti fodere cubilia
The earth is flat

How do you know, Are you, Physiologist, physiologists don't study the shape of the earth. They just keep secrets and try to make us believe in lies Provide evidence for this assertion. But how can the earth stay in one place if gravity exists? I don't have to explain this, Physicists already have. The sun's gravitational pull with other factors keeps the earth in place. Just because you have lots of fancy words in your argument does not mean you know more then I do. There is a thing called google translate. . . 99. 99% psychologists are rightPsychologists don't study the shape of the earth. . . Now does that sound logical too you? Your explanation doesn't make a lick of sense. there is lots of evidence right because it's all around us. Be specific, Otherwise, This is a useless argument. And you can't see planets or stars if you look straightaway. Umm. . . YEAH! Human eyes can't see forever! How old are you? 15, You have an issue? If the earth is flat, Ph. D astrophysicists are completely incapable of simple math.
The earth is flat

How do you know, Are you physiologist, Or scientist of some sort? Well the government knows alot more then we do, They just keep secrets and try to make us believe in lies because they are hiding the real truths. Your gonna need to come up with more evidence then what you have already. Because it is true the earth os really big and we are tiny. But how can the earth stay in one place if gravity exists? Now there is a contradiction already in youre argument. Just because you have lots of fancy words in your argument does not mean you know more then I do. I'm 20 years old guy and I have something more to say: Lets say youre right. Say there is gravity and all the 99. 99% psychologists are right, And we live on a ball. Then our earth would be sitting on something else for support because gravity would be a pulling factor. Then also if we travel the world, We will come to a place (where the support wouldbe) and we would fall in the direction that support was coming from. . Now does that sound logical too you? When you think of it, It is dumb. Lets continue here. : lets say im right. The earth is flat and there is lots of evidence right because it's all around us. You fly a jet in the sky, You see across the earth, There is nothing going down. And you can't see planets or stars if you look straightaway. Give me some more arguments I can shred. How old are you?
The earth is flat

Wrong. Either 99. 99% of physicists are stupid and incoherent, Unable to use technology or this idea of the earth being flat is. If a sphere is large enough, Then if you are tiny enough on it, It will appear flat. Simple perspective. There is a thing called gravity, Which can be shown through various equations and experiments. Why else do things drop? Due to its nature, Gravity would not work on a flat earth. I will await your other factors and arguments. Atrox melior dulcissima veritas mendaciis-Juke
Atheists have morals

It doesn't matter what the morals do to the world it just matters that they are morals. Also secular humanists seem to have pretty good morals and secular humanists are atheists. The truth is, Atheists are atheists because they dont want to follow religious law i.e. MORALSReligious laws aren't morals. Also if you ask any atheist they will tell you they are an atheist because they don't believe God exists.CONCLUSIONI have proved with secular humanism that atheists do have morals that even theists would consider moralistic. In this debate Con has not made a single valid argument, instead talking about what would happen if atheists made morals which isn't even relevant.
Atheists have morals

MORALS: a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.Morlas, if decided by a human, wouldn't be morals, because if every human decided his own morals, the evil humans would go around killing people and it would be ok.You're argument is invalid because the definition of morals makes it personal. While it's unappealing those evil people are acting according to their moral; what they believe is acceptable and unacceptable.However much of society does have similar morals; which actually goes against the idea that morals come from God because no matter what God a person has they all get very similar morals even though "there is only one true God that gives morals."So atheists CAN have morals.
drugs should not be banned

My opponent should’ve elaborated a bit more on his opening statement. What kind of drugs? Some drugs are legal and others are illegal.Prescription drugs are medicine supplied by your doctors under strict conditions. These drugs are given to their patients with specific instructions, and therefore, you must not overdose. - Any medicine can be classed as a ‘drug’, which eliminates the idea for it to get ’banned’ or terminated from supplying. A drug which isn’t a medicine, such as: Cocaine, cannabis, heroin etc, must be banned regardless of someone’s freedom to excessively use them. These drugs are of course illegal & must stay that way for a number of reason. Thinking independently for your own sake is a huge mistake on the issue of ‘drugs’. Your idea is to legalise drugs, so that everyone can freely use it in order to taste ‘freedom’, which could eventually kill them. Well, here’s the problem:People, on a national stage would cause chaos all over the globe. It would make the riots that recently occurred in London, look like a friendly playground. Students would be behaving in a disrespectful manner, causing teacher’s freedom to diminish, and their will to teach. The markets would collapse, bringing the economy down by 60 - 80 percent as people would start looting. Most drugs reduces a person’s ability to think & remember things due to brain cell damage. As a result, we would not be able progress in the near future educationally, technologically, mentally or physically.
Consequentialism is wrong

My opponent has made a few mistakes, some minor, and some major. Firstly, he has made a strawman fallacy in saying that "my" example isn't conclusive as I have not justified the value system within it. He made the thought experiment with the assumption that the murder was morally corrupt and stated that consequentialism doesn't account for it. I responded in saying that it does account for it, as it takes the value of both the life and the job into account, and judges the result accordingly. You yourself stated that the overall impact of the physicist's death would be objectively beneficial under the situation you presented. What are you trying to say in your second paragraph? It appears that what you're trying to say is that an action be better or worse depending entirely on the consequences. You are saying that we cannot judge morality on actions alone, as we don't have enough information on the impact they have. Why do you come to the conclusions you do? I fail to see the train of thought here. You initially concede with the idea that an action has to be judged with a knowledge of the consequences, and then state that the consequences hold no moral content? Please elaborate your train of thought. This debate is under the assumption that there are positive and negative values in existence. What is and is not positive is irrelevant to this debate as the true topic is the idea of there being positive and negative things in the first place. Utilitarianism states that happiness has positive value and pain has negative value. The world with the most happiness and the least pain is the ideal universe under this form of consequentialism. You have yet to prove why a system of judging the quality of a world is ethically inadequate.
Consequentialism is wrong

I would like to ask my opponent why that person's life is worth more than the brother's job and how a Consequentialist would come to such an opinion if the brother bloomed to become the next Einstein but would never have got his physicist career's success if his rival hadn't died at that moment in time and so objectively the world benefits far more by that guy dying. See, we can play with "consequences" as much as we like, in the end both sides can be objectively superior or inferior in their consequences. Thus, I conclude that within the framework of Consequentialism nothing can be deemed morally correct, nor incorrect and that if nothing can be deem moral or immoral than such a basis of morality destroys the need for morality altogether. If my opponent is unable to prove that anything can be deemed moral or immoral according to Consequentialism then he has failed to prove that Consequentialism is capable of identifying right from wrong. If he then uses Consequentialism to disprove morality altogether, then he has defeated the need for Consequentialism to begin w as there is no reason to care for what is the correct moral code and wrong one if right and wrong do not exist.
Consequentialism is wrong

As far as the definition goes, my opponent left out an integral aspect of wikepedia's definition: "if a goal is morally important enough, any method of achieving it is acceptable" This heavily suggests that an action is not deemed morally acceptable simply because it holds some benefits, but rather is deemed morally acceptable if there are sufficient beneficiary aspects. So to take your example, a consequentialist opinion would be that the life of a person is worth more than the brother's job, so choosing the job over the life would be a reduction of good and therefore bad. In addition to that, you never gave any reasons as to why your example would be morally corrupt in the first place. I await your response.
Consequentialism is wrong

First, let's define "Consequentialism". http://plato.stanford.edu... Consequentialism holds that whether an act is morally right depends only on the consequences of that act or of something related to that act, such as the motive behind the act or a general rule requiring acts of the same kind. If my opponent does not like this definition, we can go for the wikipedia one: https://en.wikipedia.org... Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence. Now I shall proceed to explain why such a basis for morality is flawed. If I go and kill someone because my brother wants their job and they are more likely to get it than he is then I have consequentially done good for my brother. In fact, according to consequentialism, there is no such thing as a bad act because there's always a benefit to any act.