BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tanning is bad for you

Hello, Both sun tanning and tanning bed are bad for you. Skin cancer is not one of them. Here are just a few of the side effects associated with sun tanning: 1.Frequent tanning can cause premature aging of the skin. A 20 year old with excessively sun-damaged skin can look 30 or older. 2.Tanning can cause the skin to change. Common changes in the skin include freckles and sunspots. 3.Tanning results in more superficial and deep wrinkles. 4.Excessive tanning may contribute to skin cancer. In fact, more than 90 percent of all skin cancers result from too much exposure to UV radiation in the sun. 5.Tanning excessively over prolonged periods of time can decrease your immune system's ability to combat diseases. You said that tanning has also lead to increased self-esteem and confidence. To be able to look tanned, it requires long period of tanning, it will definitely increase the chance of getting skin cancer. Looking tanned doesn't necessarily means looking good, you are only in the US, probably never been to other countries in Asia. Over there, tanning skin is considered bad looking. You also can't speak for all Americans, paled people get dates, get married, win pageants. What is your definition on "tanning in moderation"? The period and amount of tanning before you actually diagnosed with a skin cancer? I would like to see your way proving of the actual quantity/quality of moderation tanning. Thank you.
Tanning is bad for you

I have to disagree with this debate topic. Tanning is not ALWAYS bad for you. In fact, tanning in moderation and using the proper skin care products can be beneficial to your skin and body. The sun (and tanning bed lights) give of a Vitamin D which promotes strong and healthy bones. Vitamin D can also promote healthier vision (although, you should always wear protective eye glasses). Also, tanning in moderation can provide your skin with the correct balance of oils that is essential for healthy, breathable skin and can prevent (and in some cases cure) acne, dry skin, exczema, and numerous other skin conditions. Tanning has also lead to increased self-esteem and confidence. So not only is tanning good for you physically, but it can also be good for you mentally. Tanning, in moderation and with the right care, is not bad for you and should be done for increased health benefits.
Tanning is bad for you

I am against tanning. Many studies show that tanning is bad for you. It causes premature aging and skin cancer. The sun's UV rays damage the DNA of the skin's epidermal cells, triggering enzymes that race to repair the damage. However, these enzymes do not always repair the DNA successfully, and all this unrepaired damage can lead to mutations that increase the risk of skin cancer. Also, repeated unprotected sun exposure can cause photoaging – wrinkles, sagging skin, and spots associated with sun damage.
Tanning is bad for you

The humble Vitamin D is a lot more versatile than first thought. Most of this nutrient is absorbed from the sun. "A D-related hormone in the skin soaks up the ultraviolet rays in sunlight and travels to the liver and the kidneys, where it picks up extra molecules of oxygen and hydrogen. This process transforms the "pre-vitamin" D into a potent hormone called calcitriol. Part of the evolving understanding of this nutrient is that scientists now think many tissues in the body - not just the liver and kidneys - can convert the pre-vitamin D to make their own disease-fighting calcitriol." (Reader's Digest Research) Without sunlight, the body would use up its reserve of vitamin D in a matter of a few weeks. For those over 50, 20-60% are low in Vitamin D...thus the increased risk of bone damage in the later years. "Researchers are also probing links between prostate, breast and ovarian cancers and a lack of sunshine and D. Indeed, scientists at the National Cancer Institute recently surveyed death certificates in 24 states and found the chances of dying from any of those cancers was reduced by 10 to 27 percent for people in the sunniest areas." (Reader's Digest Research) In Finland, where the sun shows its face for only a few hours a day during the winter, the natives have the world's highest incidence of Type 1 diabetes. "18 volunteers with mild hypertension and put them under UVB lights for at least six minutes three times a week. After six weeks, the amount of D in their systems had more than doubled and their blood pressure had dropped significantly - to normal for some." (Readers Digest Research) Obviously, getting a tan is beneficial for the body. The sun is the best resource for Vitamin D, a vitamin that has shown to more important than first thought. Your argument was tanning is bad for you. You made no reference to the alloted time. However, it would be beneficial for a person to get 10-20 minutes of tan time a day without sunscreen. After that, ample sunscreen should be used and applied regularly every hour for maximum results.
U.S. citizens should be required to take a test before voting.

I would argue that paying people to vote would not be a reasonable way to increase voter turnout, the poor do not vote because they want money out of it. It is because they feel as though they aren't represented and do not think its worth the time if there vote does not count. And by implementing a test that slows that process down even more it would simply lead to a larger loss in voter turnout. How much would you offer to vote? The amount offered would have to be a state decision, which would just lead to political corruption. States that are predominately one party would offer almost no payment so that voter turnout doesn't change, while battleground states would offer incentives making them even more important to candidates, which would just corrupt the system even more. I am not suggesting paying voters at all. But to further illustrate the flaw in paying individuals to show up to vote. You have to consider that many of them are at work and cannot lose the 1-4 hours of work. So in order to incentivize them to show up to vote you have to at least meet their requirement for work. So assuming everyone who voted was payed minimum wage, and there were 126 million people who voted in the 2012 election[1]. so with simple math (126 million x 7.25 minimum wage) =913.5 million dollars. And assuming this process worked you would have higher voter turnout meaning that this price would be higher. By offering a billion dollars in incentives to vote, you are basically bribing for votes. The cost of the 2012 presidential election was 6 billion, so we would have a massive increase in the cost of a presidential election.[1] Sources: http://bipartisanpolicy.org...
U.S. citizens should be required to take a test before voting.

I see, so this has essetially become a debate about which is worse: voter ignorance or low voter turnout. Very well.I would first like to address that low voter turnout is not objectivly a bad thing, but can lead to underrepresentation, and there are ways of fixing that. The poor vote less, as well as young adults and minorites. [1] [2] A way to increase voter turnout and to lessen voter ignorance would be to pay voters for voting. [3] If voters are to be paid for voting, this will give the poor (and everyone) an incentive to vote, and an incentive to become more politically knowledgable.If you pass the test, you get money, and your vote was fairly educated. It's a win-win.Paying voters and giving them a relativly easy political knowledge test work well together, but just paying voters without the test (which would increae voter turnout) is a bad idea.This is because many people who would not vote begin to vote, ignorantly. Higher voter turnout with increased voter ignorance is detrimental. Ignorant, misiformed, irrational votes affect the lives if politically informed people. [1]Therefore, I believe voters should have to take a political knowledge test, and to make up for less voters, the voters who pass can be paid.Citations:[1] https://www.americanprogress.org... [2] https://www.boundless.com...[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com...
U.S. citizens should be required to take a test before voting.

There is voter ignorance absolutely, but the problem is not caused by those who vote, it is by those who do not vote. Since 1982 congressional election, there have never been more than 50% voter turnout for a congressional race [1]. Informing voters is not a bad thing, but a test on ones knowledge, whether it is done intentionally or not, will limit peoples ability to vote and infringe on their rights as American citizens. People in the state of Arizona were waiting 5 hours to cast their vote[2], by adding a test you will lengthen this time for those who can make the time to vote. And for those who do not have the time it will simply lead to even poorer voter turnout and and an even more polluted election. And while the test may seem simple, for those who can't read or write, or speak english, it is just as challenging as a literacy test.
U.S. citizens should be required to take a test before voting.

I'm going to make this argument simple, since it is basically my opening. I believe voters should have to take a political knowledge test before they vote. Not a literacy test. Just a test to see if your vote is blind or educated. I'd like to start off with a quote. "It seems that present-day elections are no longer about the candidate or proposition with the most appealing content, but rather the candidate or proposition with the best-edited commercial, the brightest colors or the most memorable slogan. In essence, ignorance and superficiality have taken a stronghold on our voting system. People, more than ever before, are voting without knowing what they're voting for." - Isaac Mohr [1] An example of voter ignorance: Only 38% of Americans know that the Republican Party controls the House of Representatives. There is a similar percentage of Americans who are aware of Democrats currant control of the Senate. The votes of ignorant U.S. citizens can be detrimental to our system. It's one thing if people don't vote at all, but if Americans blindly vote for someone in their party, or even someone whose name sounds good, they are polluting an election. The test world be a simple and easy test. It would test the voters' political knowledge knowledge, such as the candidates' parties, stated goals and plans, etc. I await your reply. Citations: [1] http://www.cbsnews.com... [2] http://www.forbes.com...
Was Super Bowl 49 Rigged? Seattle Seahawks vs. New England Patriots

Well, as the BoP is on Pro, hopefully he can fulfill it before the end. Now for my contentions. 1. The pass wasn't a bad call 2. Kearse's catch 3. There was no reason for the Patriots to win 1. Wilson's pass percentage is 63% [1]. The catch was a probable touchdown. Ultimately it may have been less probable than the rush, but still a likely conversion. Now, it was actually (in theory) a good call. This is because if completed, obviously that's great. if not, it would stop the clock, which leaves time for at least one more attempt. A run would have left the clock running, and they only had one timeout remaining. Additionally, the Patriots were expecting the run, so the Seahawks thought they'd catch the Pats off-guard. 2. Kearse would have let the ball drop on his late-game catch if the game was rigged. 3. if the game was rigged, Seattle would have won. The Seahawks franchise is more profitable to the NFL. Of the top 25 selling jerseys, four Seahawks players are in the ranks, and one CUSTOMIZED jersey is up there. A specific customized jersey is outselling all Patriots players beside Tom Brady, who is the only Patriot in the top 25 [2]. Additionally, with the Patriots poor image after the deflate gate scandal, the NFL would be making a bad decision by having them win. [1] http://espn.go.com... [2] http://www.nflshop.com...
Was Super Bowl 49 Rigged? Seattle Seahawks vs. New England Patriots

There is no way any coach as good as Pete Caroll would have thrown a pass over giving the ball to one of the best running backs in the game. Marshawn Lynch averages over 5 yards per carry and he would have been the go to player if not for the fact the Super Bowl was rigged this year. The NFL had a lot to gain by New England winning this season The Super Bowl was rigged!
Homosexuals should be accepted and respected by the society

Naturalness The example : cheating with your wife, is bad because it really causes a negative impact on other person (wife). Homosexuals do not. Born black Homosexuals should be seen as an identity. Not as a verb. Because not all hope they will have gay sex. Some wants to hide it. Black skin is an identity, too. Homosexual's negative impact Ayn Rand said many bad things about homosexuality. But casual heterosexual sex is immoral and disgusting. "It's a harm to one's self. " Homosexuality has turned to man wanting man and women wanting women. So what you said of man wanting women and women wanting man don't have an impact in this case. What bad is a gay man has to be married to a woman because the man's parents don't agree. That's a harm to one self. Those bad thing do not happen in all cases, some homosexuals have a happy life and just like heterosexuals. Is bible a reliable source? You didn't have proofs why bible is reliable. It's only your opinion. Some verses of the bible could be fiction. Handicaps Yes, it was considered as an affliction related to sin. But think, if the Old and New Testament were trying to tell people that handicaps is good, why won't they tell you that homosexuals are good. Handicaps and homosexuals were cursed by people. Handicaps are now accepted and respected. But homosexuals are not, maybe if the bible say that it's okay to be gay, people will accept them. Jesus Jesus won't heal all homosexuals (if he come back) because some homosexuals are proud being gay and don't want to be a heterosexual. Homosexuals are considered as bad as handicaps in the bible. And if Jesus wants to heal homosexuals, why didn't he?
Homosexuals should be accepted and respected by the society

First, I want to apologize to Con for breaking the terms. I really hope that he would forgive me for this inconvenience. I misunderstood the terms. Now, I will make my argument : Homosexuality is not a sin It is natural if we are born with black skin. But it's not a sin. Being gay is not a sin. Sins always have a negative impact on other people, like stealing, murder, or cheating. I don't see the bad in homosexuality. Homosexuality is actually the same as heterosexuality, just man with man or woman with woman. And even if the bible says that it is sin. Is the bible a reliable source. How do we know what does God think about homosexuality? No good reasons to not accepting and respecting homosexuality Some may say that homosexuality is different. Some may say that the bible does not approve it and declare it as not immoral. Let me tell you, handicaps were used to be called sin by people and they used to hate them. But Jesus heal them and make a close bond with them. So I don't think there are any good reasons for people to not accepting and respecting homosexuality. Thank you.
Homosexuals should be accepted and respected by the society

Thank you for accepting my terms. Rebuttal to point #1 (and point #2 really): Both of your points are null and void as per the terms you accepted that I gave in round 2 If you will scroll up and recall, one of my terms was that debate was not over respecting an individual that makes the choice which both of your arguments are for. You can respect me as an individual for all the good and charity I might do in society, or as a worker in whatever my field of work is, but that does not mean you should respect my decision to….for example lie when it is convenient for me to do so. As I said in the first round the position of all Christians against homosexuality is and always has been “love the sinner, hate the sin” Loving and respecting the sinner, does not under any circumstances mean loving and respecting the sin Yes, Ellen is a great comedian, and I loved her judgments on American idol, and she was fantastic in ‘finding nemo’. But being good and respectable in some fields of ones life does not make by default all other fields of activities in your life good or respectable. What she does in bed with other women is still a sin. Just cause Willy Nelson is a respectable musician does not mean that his smoking weed is a respectable act. Just because David Petraeus has been a great General and very respectable in serving his country and should be thanked for all he has done fighting terrorism, this does not by any stretch of the logic you have been advocating make cheating on your wife okay or respectable. Natural: You make mention of the fact that the act is natural as if this should mean that it cannot be sin. This is a grievous fallacy. I point you back to think about the Generals situation. Do you think when he cheated on his wife with his biographer that the act was not “natural”? Of course it was. All sin is natural. Would you contest that if I came to your house and murdered you that it would be a sin. Probably not, it would be a sin. Could you ever hope to make a sane case though that the murder would be unnatural though? You could not. Murder is just as natural as any other sin, animals will kill each other all the time, not even for food reasons always. You point about the naturalness of the act is completely irrelevant to making your case that homosexual acts should be accepted and respected. I await my opponents response
Homosexuals should be accepted and respected by the society

I think that homosexuals should be accepted and respected in the society because : Point 1 : They are people too Yes, homosexuals are a little different from us. But they are human too. They are entitled to every singles rights that heterosexuals have. They have the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Homosexuality is not a disease. It is not a disorder. It is not a sin. It is not a crime. It is not a free choice. It is natural. It is normal. [1] In my opinion, harassing homosexuals is racist. Point 2 : They don't cause any harm in the society Homosexuals won't cause harm in the society. Except if they are evil, and most of them are not. There are many people that even made great contributions to the society. For example, Macedonian king Alexander, Russian Mathematician Pavel Alexandrov, American poet John Ashbery, British choreographer Sir Frederick Ashton, New Jersey governor James McGreevey, and comedian Ellen DeGeneres. [1] Now Con could present his case. 1. . http://www.madarong.com...
Homosexuals should be accepted and respected by the society

I accapt this debate but only on the condition that for this debate we define the meaning being "homosexual" in the resolution as:the homosexual lifestyle choiceand not as:people who choose the lifestyle choice.and most certainly not as:a genitic race called homosexualswith that understanding set we can have this debate. all the christians who are against the lifestyle choice still will tell you "love the sinner, hate the sin" so as an individual, weather larry identifies as a homosexual or a heterosexual, all can still respect larry's skill as a archetect or a firefighter or whatever.the only thing contested is respect and acknoledgement of the homosexual acts themselves being considered socially no longer taboo, bad, sinful, wrong, or horrible even. This here is what I contend should not be accepted and respected in sociaty, much like smoking should, while still remaining free to do it, should not be accapted or respected as something to partake in in socioty. Smoking is not cool, it should stay that way, and the same goes for homosexual actsif my opponenet does not accapt these terms I set in round 1 he forfiets the debate to me.
Flat Stanley is daddy

I read Flat Stanley once when I was a child, and I never believed that the Earth is flat. I always wondered why. I think it's because the secret group called Stop The FEO removed the brainwashing powers from some of the copies of Flat Stanley. Maybe I am one of the lucky ones because I never believed that the Earth is flat and soap didn't come out of my ears even once. In conclusion, Flatstanley is part of a secret conspiracy and I'm one of the lucky ones who isn't part of the conspiracy.
Flat Stanley is daddy

Thet maks cents. Am I are brainwash? Hao culd I posiblee kno? No wey 2 conferm, sints mai barain washerz culd hev implamanted mentel bloks 2 perevent mii forom confermign teh truth. They'refour, thu oneley thang 2 du es except mi f8, as dis es my reealidy nwo. eye em cuntent livig a lye, and atempeting 2 du utherwize wuld porobably bering meh nuthig butt sufferign. teh famus filosofer Zhuangzi wonse wunderd if he wurz a man dreemin heh wuz a buterflai, or a buterfly dreemig he wad a men. teh poynt uf thes lyne uf thot was tu guestion if wii cen turuly truzt owr percieved reealetie 2 B reel. Ther no way too conferm ef we cen turust owr reelaity, thus teh bast wey to liv es 2 mak teh moust owt uf our percrpted relalidy. So erth flat, nevr will chang my mind silly boi!
Flat Stanley is daddy

OKKKKK, mayhaps stanley my secrete dady... ad NOT. MY daddo no es flat... He REAL man, not flayt!! He tell me everday "U R MI SON END U'LL DO WUT UR F***ING TOLD," so must be dadr. But wut if I brainwashe by flat stanel...? If that r true, how come soap not come out of mi ears?
Flat Stanley is daddy

Well, Flat Stanley is for toddlers and very young children. You are a pre-teen, and you read Flat Stanley. Wait a minute! I just realized something... You are part of the Flat Stanley conspiracy! In fact, Flat Stanley is your secret daddy in this conspiracy! And I can prove it! You think the Earth is flat. Flat Stanley is really a brainwashing technique made by the Flat Earth Organization (FEO) to make people believe that the Earth is flat, which is one of the reasons why a lot of people believe that the Earth is flat. You are a die-hard Flat Stanley fan, and you probably read it a lot. It all makes sense if you think about it! Secondly, your icon happens to be the official icon of Project FES (Flat Earth Stanley), which is the plan that I mentioned earlier. It couldn't be more obvious than this, folks. Like I mentioned earlier, you are a die-hard Flat Stanley fan. No one is ever this dedicated to Flat Stanley and believe that the Earth is flat. That means Flat Stanley is your secret daddy. U JUST GOT EXPOSED LOL
Flat Stanley is daddy

Hallllo. THis isss abot me, yesm? I'm sorr, no am anybod'd daddy, but culd be if u liek?? ;) ;) Am sEngle BUT NOT 4 GAY dad sayd thats bad last nite. Hmmm I will ascept debate but idk why u think I am an dad, no has childurn I anm 12. I watch Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace" last nite for 20 eth tyme IS SOOOO GUD my favort movie, u like? anakin hadd no daddyt either.
Jesus Christ was a real person + He was the son of god

I am very sorry for not being able to present an argument last round. This was because private matters appeared over the weekend. If my opponent skipped his turn to make up for that, then I am thankful. My opponents argument is that Jesus' claim is the only one that is remembered today, and therefore it must be true. He/she also claims that because Jesus' claim was the only one that was accepted by the church and remembered, it must be true. R1) As far as my understanding of the bible goes, Jesus was certainly not "chosen by the church", rather the church at the time worked against him because they saw him as a threat. R2) The fact that Jesus is still remembered can be attributed to him being a charismatic man, who gained the support of the people, and to the fact that literate people managed to collect stories about him. These are still nothing but stories. Conclusion:While there is no doubt that Jesus was a remarkable man, there is still no proof or true reason to believe that Jesus had a divine connection or that he was the son of god.