BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Air should be privatized

Historically, people have enjoyed free access to the Earth's bounteous resources as a birth right. They were able to hunt and gather food, grow crops and graze livestock, build shelters and obtain water wherever they wanted because the land and its provisions belonged to everybody. People took this for granted and still do in many parts of the world which are not controlled by pro-capitalist governments. However, in capitalist countries property rights are enshrined in law and the land and its resources are either privately owned or are controlled by public institutions and, as such, it is not possible for anyone just to build a farm on any piece of vacant land - they have to either rent or buy it. This means that if you want to eat you have to produce food yourself on land you either own or rent, or buy it from somebody else. Similarly, unless you are happy to take your showers in rainstorms and drink from puddles, the provision of water is a service that must be paid for. It is amazing then that, in capitalist societies, members of the public are allowed to greedily gulp down as much fresh air as they want without paying a single penny for it. That's because people currently take fresh air for granted not realising that there is a cost to maintaining it. We are all jointly responsible for polluting the atmosphere and unless something is done to limit the damage we are doing the planet will soon become uninhabitable. Therefore, large landowning companies should be entitled to charge the public a levy for maintaining the quality of the air they breathe. Currently, those private companies that own large tracts of forest in various parts of the world which capture carbon and produce oxygen that are essential to our well-being are paid nothing for their diligence. But, of course, maintaining pristine forests is not profitable and the shareholders pressurise the companies' management to tear down the trees, sell the valuable wood and use the cleared land as grazing land to produce meat for export. Now, since any commercial organisation's primary responsibility is to their shareholders they have no option to comply with their demands and this means that, for example, in the Amazon basin, an area of forest equivalent to the size of three football pitches is being cleared every minute. (1) Charges for air should be levied on customers based on both on their consumption of oxygen and their production of damaging methane. This way, the people who exercise the most, and who obviously consume more than their fair share of oxygen, should be made to pay more accordingly. Meanwhile, the obese breathe less oxygen but, because they expel large quantities of harmful methane gas from the lower regions of their digestive systems, so they should pay extra too. The companies who own forested land would be able to compete based on price per tree saved or their promise not to allow the hunting of endangered species of animal roaming on their property. To conclude, in capitalist countries, the user pays and that should apply to fresh air as well as everything else. Thank you. (1) http://www.wwf.org.uk...
Queen's bohemian rhapsody is pretenious garbage

1) I did not say that the song was necessarily good because people liked it, I said that if it was prententious it is unlikely that it would have much popular appeal. Furthermore, any claims that Pro makes about the quality of the song based on people's reactions are rebutted by this claim. Finally, Con asserts the because the same argument can be made for the music of Justin Bieber, it must be flawed. I see no reason why this should be the case. In what way could we determine whether a song is good, if that is at all possible, except by looking at whether people like it?2) Pro doesn't respond to the point about muppets. Instead, he asserts again that my argument that people have different musical takes could be used to defend the music of Justin Bieber. Indeed, it could. That I do not like a form a music does not give me grounds to call it objectively bad. Aesthetic quality is determined b tastes and people have many different tastes.3) Just because something is not normal does not mean it is prententious. Most people are taller than 5'2" tall, but being shorter than this does not make one prententious. Pro has also not shown that there is any objective value to having a chorus.4) Pro's claim about the vocals has not been warranted. He concedes that there is a relevant musical for the seeming nonsense and fails to address the fact that other parts of the lyrics tell a story about a young man's struggle with mortality.5) Conceded by Pro. Bohemian Rhapsody is probably not a very good song to dance to but to each her own.6) Technical skill does not have to make a song great, only not garbage. The music may seem bad to some people, but it took great skill and effort to write, play, and record. This is enough for us to conclude that it is not terrible. Pro's claim about Muse is not warranted. I like Muse and don't fine their songs uninspiring.Voters, please enjoy listening to Knights of Cydoniahttp://www.youtube.com...
Queen's bohemian rhapsody is pretenious garbage

1)Con has made arugement that because said song is popular, it is not garbage. This is bullpoop, popularity is not based on quality of song it is based on marketablity and chance. Justin Bieber is widely played because many people like it. Nuff said'. There are plenty of bands that do not get airplay such as Lifetime (greatest band in the world) that are of the highest quality. 2) Again, this is essentialy the same arguement as #1. I have different music tastes but again:the biebs! 3)More songs have a chorus than those that do not have a chorus, therefore it is pretenious. 4) A song does not have to offer thoughts on the human condition, but the lyrics, not matter how good the vocals sound, are idiotic and could have been thought of by a mentally challanged 5th grader with severe ADD. 5) ok you got me there but she's still a bitch who likes queen. 6) Technial skill does not make a song great. Muse is the best example for being technial but having uninspiring songs.
Queen's bohemian rhapsody is pretenious garbage

http://www.youtube.com...Just to be clear, we are debating about the song Bohemian Rhapsody by Queen. Specifically, is it pretentious garbage? I think it's a fine song, though not Queen's best, and I think Pro has failed to prove this assertion.Counterarguments:1) Other people's opinions about and reactions a song have nothing to do with the quality of the song. The song is widely played because many people like it, which should be an indicator that it is not pretentious garbage (people tend not to like pretentious garbage).2) Pro will have to post a link to a video because I don't hear chanting muppets on crack in any of the verisons I checked. I will respond to Pro's question anyway: it is possible that what sounds awful to you may sound better to other people. Perhaps you have differing musical tastes.3) Lots of songs have no clear chorus. Pro thinks this is because "said song think it is too cool for school." However, the song does not have thoughts of its own. It's unlikely that Queen made the song with the intent of proving that they are too cool for school, but if Pro can submit some evidence of this we can consider it.4) A song does not have to offer any thoughts on the human condition. If anything, making bold claims about the human condition would make a song more pretentious. Instead, many of the unusual lyrics probably serve to add more complexity to the vocals on the song. Freddie Mercury was ranked as the 18th greatest rock singer by rolling stone (a bit underrated in my opinion, I have no idea how Bob Dylan surpassed him), citing his four octive range [1]. The lyrics showcase Mercury's singing ability.However, the song does tell an interesting story about a young man who is setenced to death and must deal with his own mortality at a young age. While it might not offer a profond conclusion about the human condition, the song does tell a troubling story that gives the listener something to link about.5) See number one. Other people's attitudes toward a song have nothing to do with the quality of the song.Arguments:1) The song features innovative vocal editing, a vocalist with incredible range, a complex guitar solo, and it weaves together very different sounding segements into a coherent whole. All of this requires great technical skill to play and record and brilliant songwriting ability to arrange at all. Because of the great among of skill required to produce it, we should not consider the song garbage.Conclusion:The inadequacy of Pro's attacks and the great skill required to produce the song should be enough for us to conclude that it is not prentetious garbage. You don't need to like the song, but you can't reasonably conclude that it isn't a great musical accomplishment regardless.Source:[1] http://www.rollingstone.com...
Queen's bohemian rhapsody is pretenious garbage

1)This is the only song that I can not tolerate under any means. First of all, this is the song so called "music lovers" claim to like even it is impossible to escape the song, it's everywhere. It's on the radio, at school dances, even tv ads. Therefore, the so called "music lover" has not boosted his cred in any way. They also claim to love queen but cannot state any other songs by queen. Talk about liers. 2)Also, how could anyone love what sounds like the chanting of muppets on crack (listen closely 3:28-3:32)? 3)There is no clear chorus, because said song think it is too cool for school. 4)Lyrics are non-sensical and do not offer any thought on the human condition. "I see a little silhouetto of a man Scaramouche, scaramouche, will you do the fandango? Thunderbolts and lightning - very very frightening me Galileo, Galileo, Galileo, Galileo, Galileo Figaro - magnifico-o-o-o" 5)The girl who broke my heart danced to this song so it must be a pretious garbage song.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was neccesarry

The decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was a big mistake. The purpose of the invasion was to find weapons of mass destruction that supposedly Saddam Hussein was in possession of. However, no such weapons were found. Bush Jr. also invaded Iraq to finish the job that he believed his father should have done. If Bush Sr. decided not to dethrone Saddam, what makes Jr. justified? The effects of the invasion don't justify exposing the entire country to the horror and desolation of war: countless Iraqi civilians killed and displaced, the Iraqi military disbanded.
The State (government) is more evil than good.

This debate is a retry of another debate that failed due to computer difficulties on Pro's part. The first round is for acceptance and definitions only. The only rule is that their should be no new arguments in the last round.Definitions:Evil- less morally right than morally wrong Good- less morally wrong than morally right Government- Any large organization with the power to make and enforce laws within a given territory, that has more power than the people.Morally Wrong: More Loss of life than Protection of LifeMorally Right: More Protection of Life than Loss of Life.Morally Wrong: More Bodily Harm Inflicted than PreventedMorally Right: More Bodily Harm Prevented than Inflicted (except when loss of an individuals life is what prevents said individual from bodily harm)Morally Wrong: More Harm to Society than Benefit Morally Right: More Benefit to Society than HarmMorally Wrong: More Rights (property, speech, press, basically all of the Constitutional Rights) violated than necessary, or creating an environment where it is necessary to remove rights when the situation could have been avoidedMorally Right: Protecting these RightsI welcome whoever accepts and wish to have a great debate. Good luck.
Blind people should be allowed to drive cars just like everyone else.

1. There are no negative consequences Blind people should be ALLOWED to drive cars because it would not actually encourage any of them to get into cars. If I take off my glasses, which are about | | thick, I'd be blind. Yet since I'm not officially blind, I can still drive a car. But even though it's legal for me to drive a car without my glasses, I wouldn't cause I wouldn't be able to see the gas gauge. 2. It would make blind people feel better Blind people feel bad enough as it is. They can't read Manga, watch porn, or fight crime. Unless they have super hearing. There's no point making them feel worse. None of them would jump into a car and start driving, but if we let them drive they'll feel happy. Banning them from driving cars would only make them feel bad. 3. It would make YOU feel better Haven't you always wanted to help out blind people? Don't you feel sorry for them as they walk the street with those dogs and sticks, bumping into things on their way down the street? Well now here's your chance to help make them feel better about themselves. Yay!
Blind people should be allowed to drive cars just like everyone else.

MoonDragon... you're a rockstar! Thanks for accepting this challenge. < > Driving is NOT A RIGHT; it's a priviledge. < > I agree. They are sightless people that are better suited to walking and remaining as passengers. < > I'm sure the blind people in all the other countries in the world are heart-broken by this, as I'm sure they were all applying for U.S. citizenship and being able to drive a car was a critical part of the criteria for their acceptance as Americans. Phooey! < > If you place a fan directly in the face of a sitting blind person and turn the fan on high, they'll experience the same joys without side-swiping other blind drivers. < > I drive in Los Angeles every single day. I don't need anymore excitement on the roads. Trust me. < > I am inclined to agree, but the major problem that I have with this plan is all of the cars that are just stalled in the middle of the road because the blind peoples' cars will be constantly running out of gasoline. They won't be able to see the gas gage drop to empty and will stumble out of their cars and get slammed into by other drivers. It would be such a mess to clean up! No. No driving for blind people until they can see. That is safest!
Blind people should be allowed to drive cars just like everyone else.

How dare you deny blind people the inalienable and sacred American right of car driving? They're people too! To deny them the right to drive is to deny them the right to be an American. Blind people too deserve the feeling of air rushing by them as they streak their convertible down the open lanes of the American highway, savoring the delicious taste of freedom as they cruise. Shame on you, telling blind people they shouldn't be allowed to drive cars. Plus, if we allow our blind people onto the roads, it would make driving that much more exciting. Don't you get bored driving past the same types of people? Imagine now if we unleash blind drivers. Suddenly our daily commute becomes that much more exciting. You never know how the driver in front of you might behave, would he see you? Would he suddenly careen left or right? And of course as an added bonus, since driving becomes a lot more unpredictable, people would have to drive more cautiously, making our roads safer for everyone.
MMA is better than Teekwandoo

The statement itself is an example of "errors of comparison" fallacy as these things are like apples and oranges. Tai Kwan Do is about self defense and more importantly it is about discipline. Even in Tai Kwon Do competitions, the sparring that is done involves only light contact where points are awarded for a light hit and the force of these hits are strictly regulated. Outside of sparring events, students are taught to respect all others and only use what they have learned to defend themselves and only as much as is absolutely necessary. MMA is purely fighting for sport and inflicting as much damage on another person as possible. Yours was a very vague statement. these two disciplines are very different in philosophy and practice. To the point that saying one is "better" than the other is highly erroneous.
constitutional republic (Con) Vs. Pure Democracy (Pro)

Good luck and have fun. Main Argument: I believe and what many other believe is that the government should be limited to what they can and can't do. The Constitutional Republic prevents Government from impeding on the constitutional rights of citizens living in the specific country. The peoples' voices are more heard through the government because the citizens vote in members of the government that benefit that communities needs. This causes less "mob rule" meaning the minority gets the same amount of voice as the majority. also, the government keeps the government in line, let's take the United state for example. If the president makes a crazy move, it must go through all three stages of Government for that bill or piece of legislation to pass into law. This prevents a dictatorship from forming since the Government has no restrictions to their laws or regulations. The republic keeps these politicians in order so they may not impede on these sacred rights of the citizens of the country. Sources:. http://study.com...http://www.conservapedia.com...https://en.wikipedia.org...https://legaldictionary.net...
constitutional republic (Con) Vs. Pure Democracy (Pro)

This debate will be on the Constitutional Republic (Con) Vs Pure Democracy (Pro) Argument. I will be arguing for constitutional Republic (Con) and (Pro) will argue against me for pure democracy -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rounds:Round 1: Will be accepting rules and conditionsRound 2: Each side presenting main argumentsRound 3: Each side presenting rebuttalsRound 4: Final arguments and closing statement-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rules and Regulations:1. No Racism of any kind will be tolerated. any form of racism shown will result in the debate being closed.2.All Points or "Facts" will and should provide Evidence to back-up point or "Facts".3.Personal attacks of any kind won't be tolerated. any form of personal attack shown will result in the debate being closed.4.The Opposition and the Owner of the debate should and will stay on topic at all times. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Voting Rules:1.If you vote, please post why you voted for the person you voted for.2.Keep the comment section clean and civil as possible.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Good luck to my opponent and let us try to keep the debate as civil as possible.This is my first debate, so this will be my test run for this debate
The credit crunch is the fault of human worrying.

I would like to concide defeat in this debate , for many reasons . first up i have been unable to get on a computer regularlay and will struggle to do so over this debate , and as i have already missed one round , i see no point because also as i was typing my argument for this round , debate.org has logged me out resulting in the loss of it , which to be honest i do not want to type again. my final reason for withdrawing and conceiving defeat is that I have no "reliable" sources , i was hoping this debate could be more personal opinon , rather than sources , as i find them biased and unreliable , all sources most of the time. But my main reason is lack of access over the next week to a computer. I urge you all to award all 7 points to my opponent.
The credit crunch is the fault of human worrying.

I would like to start off by saying , that I myself am conufsed by what the title means in a way ! but what i mean is that its because of what people think , how reluctant people are to invest. The general idea of people these days for not investing is " I'm not investing , nobody else is". its like saving power for instance , " what diffrence will one person make ". I think that peoples attitudes towards things , are the reason we are here . not because of greedy bankers , polticans , the war and many more cuases , granted they are all causes , but the main problem is that mankind is refusing to work as a team to get rid of this credit crunch , its " everyman for himself" these days , the rich will get richer and the poor , poorer. So , all that confusing aside ! (hopefully). I would like my opponent to disprove my theory that well basically - the main cause of the credit crunch is human nature. that would of made a better title perhaps . also , please no voting according to things like i said something that didnt make to much sense , if you understand what i mean , please vote accordingly , im sick of being vote bombed by people who say that you make no sense , but know what you are talking about. thank you
wrong is wrong

I apologize for the forfeit, I wasn't sure when the 1 day period for arguments had started since your response. So I would ask for reconsideration by voters. I will respond to my opponent's points. "you have only the choice of belief, and if thats the case satanism is true like christianity depending on what you believe"But now I believe you contradict yourself. Your resolution is about objectivity, but then you state that if you believe in something that to our world is objectively wrong, then that belief trumps all other thought. The only issue with this is that this is a relativist mindset, and therefore stands on the Con side of the resolution that wrong could equal right. So you have argumentatively forfeited the round here. "votes mean nothing. . you lose because you are unable to counter my position. . lack of arguments"If I had a lack of arguments, I would agree with you. But I had three arguments in case you missed them. "wrong is wrong. . is not an assumption"According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of assumption is "an assuming that something is true b : a fact or statement (as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for granted" So if you are taking for granted or believing to be true that "wrong is wrong" then you are actually assuming that statement. However you are not proposing an opposite side and by doing so making a debatable resolution. Let's recap.1. The resolution is not debatable. This still stands because the resolution at its core, is an assumption, not an arguable assertion. Therefore this really is not a debate.2. My opponent's opening argument is false. My opponent has still failed to prove that if Christianity is true, then Satanism is true. I have shown that in the objective reality my opponent wishes to uphold in this debate, Christianity claims all Satanic worshippers to be false. Therefore, Satanism is false if Christianity is true, and I should win this argument3. Belief could be made up. My opponent never addressed my example, so it still stands. But keep in mind that my opponent basically took on my relativism argument as his own. But because relativism is the Con of this resolution, Pro forfeits the debate. -42