BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Wikipedia should be considered an acceptable reference material in the academic community.

"My school discourages the use of wikipedia as a source of information based on the fact that "Anyone can edit it". this does not affect its credibility in any way." I dont understand how if anyone can edit it, the credibility is not affected. If i want i go on and change stuff that is not quite common knowledge i can. But that does no help the kid that is doing the report on the subject, the kid gets fake info from a fake source and fails the assignment. The problem is also laziness. We look at Wikipedia as the bank of unlimited true information, when in reality, thats not what it is. The credibilty CAN be affected by some random guy with a lot of time on his hands that decides to change stuff. So the info is not neccesarily true, but us students flock to it because it is quick, no wadding through info. But wait? Is that not what we need? To develop a through understanding of the subject? Students should look at multiple sources, not just one site. Because of some students laziness they may end up with false information. "Many scientific truths are in fact widely accepted theories. this means that if everyone(Or nearly everyone) agrees to it than it must be true. This is the kind of community that wikipedia works to create where new information only lasts if everyone agrees." Wikipedia is just a dumpster of info, some fake, some real. If you want to use it for widely accepted theories im sure there are MANY other sources you may use. Students just want to be lazy and look in just one place, otherwise there would be no problem. Students that will use wikipedia will stay to JUST using wikipedia and nothing else. And using this website (whos credibility is questionable) is completely ridiculous. "Wikipedias standards are actually very high and grow with every new person willing to offer their two cents." Can i see some sort of statement from Wikipedia explaining the acceptablity of information, and shows the standards of wikipedia. If you can also provide the link that would be appreciated. The bottom line is that in gerenal the students that want to use wikipedia are only going to look at wikipedia, because for a lot of things, wikipedia does provide good info, so kids see that and base all research on just wikipedia. Which poses a problem. Wikipedia does have credibility problems because anyone can go on and change stuff. So these kids are only using one source, whos credibility is questionable. Teachers want students to look into more that one source for their info and develop a deep understanding for the topic at hand. Wikipedia is just a one stop shop for info, that may not be true. I myself am a high school student who cannot use wikipedia, i back up my teachers %100. I look foward to your 2nd round arguments, and maintaining a friendly debate.
Wikipedia should be considered an acceptable reference material in the academic community.

My school discourages the use of wikipedia as a source of information based on the fact that "Anyone can edit it". this does not affect its credibility in any way. Many scientific truths are in fact widely accepted theories. this means that if everyone(Or nearly everyone) agrees to it than it must be true. This is the kind of community that wikipedia works to create where new information only lasts if everyone agrees. Wikipedias standards are actually very high and grow with every new person willing to offer their two cents.
The flavour of the meat you choose to eat, is irrelevant. We are all heterosexual.

Pro will argue that. Apart from a very small number of people who are physically different. Everyone else is heterosexual. Woman produces the egg, man produces the sperm. How consenting adults choose to gratify their sexual urges, is irrelevant. Rules: 5 open rounds. Use your own brain power. No referencing other peoples work/theories. 100 words max, per round. (Not 8000 characters).
Smoking around Non-Smokers and Children should be banned.

Do you think that a smoker would smoke in a school,mall or places like this??He would always go to an open area and smoke.But isn't that open area full with children and people of other age category?? For example- A Park. Would you allow a smoker to smoke in a park tough that is an open area?? What should he do if he is in a park??no, you won't be ae to do so.
Smoking around Non-Smokers and Children should be banned.

If the place does not have a smoking area, the smoker will have to go outside. If they have to smoke immediately , they can go outside also. I did not say anything about the smoker having to wait. Once again, there is always outside. The smoker will not suffer any pain, they do not have to smoke a cigarette very five minutes. Please note that I am talking about going a short time without a cigarette. And if they feel the urge to smoke, they can go to the area or go outside. I notice that your argument is simply questions, and I do not really have an argument to respond to.
Smoking around Non-Smokers and Children should be banned.

It's not ridiculous. You are already lacking in your logic. The smoker would simply not smoke around others, and always go to the designated smoker's area. If the smoker lived with non- smoker children or other people, he would have to smoke outside to preserve the lifes of others. This policy is do reduce the deadly effects of second hand smoke. I will define second hand smoke: "smoke inhaled involuntarily from tobacco being smoked by others." Would you like to inhale deadly smoke without smoking? Second hand smoke causes the same health problems as regular smoke! "Secondhand smoke causes numerous health problems in infants and children, including more frequent and severe asthma attacks, respiratory infections, ear infections, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) Smoking during pregnancy results in more than 1,000 infant deaths annually. Some of the health conditions caused by secondhand smoke in adults include coronary heart disease, stroke, and lung cancer." Now, with all these deadly effects, I would like to not be effected by second hand smoke, when I object to smoking all together. This policy is a stoke of genius.
Best way to murder somebody without getting caught

Because I was in the group I was forced to murder, with out being caught my old friend in crime Martin Croop. The emotional part was hard, but everything about him was easy. I knew that he was 34, male and supper muscular. He lives in a mansion along with his beloved dog Margie, in Honolulu, Hawaii. He goes to bed at 8:00 pm and wakes up at 5:00 am every day, to run by the cliffs of honolulu. If I could just run with him I could push him off of the cliffs and make it look like a accident. I decided to knock on his door and as simple as that I was in. We had a quick drink and I asked him if he still ran, but I already knew the answer it was yes. Then, easier than before, he asked me if I wanted to race him. Of course I said yes, I couldn't miss this easy opportunity. We raced up the hill, me bringing up the rear and as soon as we hit the cliffs, bam!!! I pushed him of about 100 feet. I felt a shiver in my spine I had just murder my old friend. I rushed down there to make sure he was dead, he was. Then it came to me. I had to call the police and make it sounded like he tripped. I did. The police came to me and I explained everything that was my perfect lie. He tripped on a rock. We were racing and he stumbled and now he's dead. They took me in, wrote a report, then let me go. I lay low for the last coupe of months just to be safe, I had done it I thought to myself I'm a complete murderer. That is my story. Enjoy. :)
Best way to murder somebody without getting caught

Push them off the edge of the earth XD No no, I'm just kidding.Please do not read this if you are triggered by self harm.Okay, so to begin this lengthy story, you must have the background information. Being the member of the Illuminati, I was assigned a target to dispose of without getting attention to myself. The target is Joe Brown, 22 year old male, slightly overweight, and lives in a secluded lakeshore house with no family. I begin by learning his routine. I learn approximately when he sleeps, eats, leaves for work, comes back, etc. Now lets go to the day of the murder. After shaving my head, putting on gloves, and wearing new shoes, and covering every inch of bare skin, I sneek by his house, waiting for him to come back from work. As he opens his garage door, I run in and pull a gun on him. I slide a pen and throw a crumpled piece of paper to him. I tell him to write "Today might be the day." Being incredibly confused, he does it. I command him to turn around and put these handcuffs on. After doing as commanded, I take out saran wrap and choke him to death. With the handcuffs on, it was easy to do this without much struggle. I place his body back into the vehicle and place a knife in his hands. I then take the knife and cut his wrists several times with it, and after Im done, I place it on his lap. Im careful not to get any blood on me. I turn on the vehicle, place the note on the hood of his car, and close the garage door after starting the vehicle with his keys. After all of this, no DNA can be traced back to me. It simply looks like a suicide considering the "death note", the self harm, and a vehicle running in a garage with a person who died from suffocation and no signs of struggle (like skin underneath fingernails). I took back the handcuffs, saran wrap, and pen and buried it in some random forest several miles away. I didnt have a cell phone on me either, incase you are wondering. That is my story XD Have fun making one.
Rap vs Metal

Thanks bloodsnhall. Fair enough, I will accept Pro's distinction between real hip hop and commercial, predominantly negative rap, despite how much of a misuse of terms I may feel such a distinction to be. It is good to see that Pro acknowledges the positive aspects of true hip hop culture. Obviously this gives my opponent the opportunity to make a stronger case than if we were including conscious, more positive hip hop, however he still has a lot of work to do with just one round of debating left. I am a little puzzled though by his statements in the comments section referring to the meat of the debate. While the comments should not be considered as part of the actual debate, Pro's comments about what we are arguing need addressing here. Pro: I feel proving that any music genre is a motivator for any crime is irrelevant and that Con misunderstood what's up for debate. I am stating that RAP is a BIGGER motivator to crimanal activity then METAL. This seems somewhat incoherent to me. Before we can establish whether one genre of music is a BIGGER motivator than another, we must first ascertain whether music can ever be a motivator in this way. This is very relevant indeed. Pro seems to be making the assumption that music motivates people to commit crimes, which I don't think is something we can take for granted. To uphold his resolution, Pro really needs to provide evidence of this. Pro: I am not stating that people who listen to metal don't commit crimes. I thought I stated that perfectly clear in round 1. ? I don't believe I implied that you were stating such a thing, and I don't see any reference to it in your round 1 either. Pro: Also to state that no crime has ever been commited because of music is false and I can prove that with one name Charles Manson. The name alone hardy qualifies as proof for the premise. Manson was/is a very mentally unstable individual who had his own motivations for the acts he and his followers committed. The fact that he interpreted certain songs as supporting his views in no way establishes that the songs themselves motivated him to perform atrocities. I think it is probable that Manson would have acted in a similar way, whatever tunes he was blasting on his stereo. Pro: I have also experienced music that has motavated people to commit hate crimes "black and white". anyways This type of anecdotal information is absolutely worthless in terms of proving something in the context of a debate. Pro: either way it is besides the point. On the contrary, it is fundamental to the debate at hand. Until Pro can prove that music motivates people to commit crimes and abuse drugs, his arguments are mere conjecture. This is the premise that my opponent's case rests on and I strongly dispute it. Thank you.
Rap vs Metal

Ooh, I'm such a sucker for these anti-rap debates, I just couldn't resist this one, even with the 24 hour rounds. Many thanks to my opponent for the opportunity to debate. It seems from the initial post, that the resolution Pro has in mind is: "Rap is a bigger motivator for violence, drug abuse, and sex crimes then Heavy Metal in the US." I am assuming that "rap" refers to the musical aspects of hip hop culture. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... I am happy to attempt to negate this. I await some argumentation, notably Pro firstly has the burden of proving that any genre of music can be a "motivator" for such activity. Thank you.
Japanese internment by the U.S. during WW2 was justified

Danielle please read round one again before accepting. Let me know if anything is unfair to either of us so it can be amended. I hate FDR and I like using this as an example of how horrible of a human being he was, but I have a confession. As bad as his policies were, the policy in question was justified. It was not a result of racism or hysteria, but the most logical course of action given the available information. Democrats, please do a better job defending your savior in the future, so I don't have to step in and do it for you.DefinitionsJustified-".having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason." https://www.google.com...This is not to say there were not more perfect ways to deal with the situation at hand, but that there was good and sufficient reasoning. Hindsight is 20/20 in other words, and a judgement of good does not depend on a perfect judgement.U.S. referes to the United States Federal government. The United States has various local governments whose decisions sometimes override the decisions of the federal government. The decision to put the Japanese in internment camps is one that was made by the federal government.edit: Danielle has requested the following definition for justified, so we will use it. "to prove or show (something) to be just, right, or reasonable"
We should rebel against the government, stop paying taxes and re-write the constitution.

I am also from the future. And this rewriting of the constitution only instills a momentary lapse of peace that Pro speaks of. In our history books (from the future) they speak of this transition as "Libeuanimomilis," (a combination of Freedom and Exodus in the New Texan language in the future) which ultimately brings about the end of the world as we know it. Fortunately, I was able to escape with the help of my friend, who I will simply refer to as "Doc" to protect his future identity. It was he that sent me back in time just before the anti-christ and his horde of demon worshiping zombie sheep led by Hitler devoured and enslaved humanity as we know it. I have already said too much, but if my estimations are correct, winning this debate just may prevent Pro from carrying out his master plan to destroy the world with sweet but false promises. Trust me, everyone, I would cite my sources, but they are in the future.
We should rebel against the government, stop paying taxes and re-write the constitution.

re-write the constitution allowing states to form their own Federations. Eventually we will cut off all ties to the united nations and create our own society. trust me I'm from the future, I'm just trying to plant this idea into your head so the revolution will start. Your society is being controlled by government, government is the root of all the problems with America. In a year I may not specify people walk the earth freely, they live where they want and travel where they want to, all for free because there is no form of money in the future. Everyone is equal, everyone is rich with life not money. Changing the world is easier than it seems. the biggest weapon against big corporations is our money. If everyone in America stopped paying taxes the government will crumble. Please tell your family and friends because change does not happen until the flame it lit.
Black Lives Matter is not a racist organization

I shall Rebuttal my opponent's statements, and provide my own arguments to disprove my opponent's contentions.Blacks "Cannot" be RacistFor this silly argument presented by my opponent, I like to provide the definition of "racist". The definition is "A person who believes that a particular race is superior to another" (1). First off, with the movement called "Black Lives Matter", isn't that putting a higher superiority than "All Lives Matter". If one group is supporting only one race than others, doesn't that show they believe they are superior then others? This shows that they are racist, instead of promoting a movement where everyone can get involved without being shoved away.To even add a bit more to my argument, I like to discuss about "All Lives Matter". Like the name says for itself, all lives in society matter no matter the race, gender, or age. It's a clear no brainer, and even presidential candidate Ben Carson even says that all lives matter. Quoted by Carson himself: "And we have to stop submitting to those who want to divide us into all these special interest groups and start thinking about what works for everybody" (2). This quote disproves my opponents statements that Republicans are not racist, and that it shows that the movement is increasing racial tension than lowering it. In fact, stated by Katie Pavlich: "A racist, violent hate group that promotes the execution of police officers" (3). They are causing more harm than good.Sources:1. https://www.google.com...2. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com...3. http://townhall.com...
Black Lives Matter is not a racist organization

Blacks cannot be racist. It's impossible for them to be. Most blacks are hard working and do not want to be on Welfare. They are forced on to collect welfare because of the racist Republicans and the racist police that arrest them constantly. The media does not show enough coverage of protesters for black causes. The Black Lives Matter group is harmless and is not racist because they defend black people. They do not defend whites or Asians or Latinos, only blacks. There's the proof. You cannot be a racist if you support black people only. http://blacklivesmatter.com...
Black Lives Matter is not a racist organization

For this final round of the debate, I'd like to state how this debate went. First beginning with my opponent's argument that Blacks cannot be racist, when in fact they encorage racism. Stated in my opening argument with the definition of "racist" being "A person who believes that a particular race is superior to another". How is it not racist when an organization that focuses on one race, than all other races like the movement "All Lives Matter". I asked this question constantly throughout the debate to my opponent, and he refused to answer. Making claims that I don't understand, when in fact he isn't progressing the debate any further; revealing his ignorance. In conclusion, my opponent provides many claims; but does not progress with them any further. While I did, and provided more evidence for my argument.
Black Lives Matter is not a racist organization

In the following round, my opponent argues that I have showed no proof about the "Blacl Lives Matter" movement is racist; when in fact I did. In the second round, I provided the definition of racist being one race being superior to another. Black Lives Matter promotes this on only focusing on African-Americans compared to other races. My opponent's ignorance is clearly showing on not even looking at the evidence I presented previously, and not even progressing the argument. My opponent is jus making multiple claims, but lacks to Rebuttal my own statemens. This shows that my opponent is lackluster in this argument, and should be behind on points.Also to even further my own argument, here is some evidence that the Black Lives Matter movement promotes more problems than solutions. This even wages more racial tension, comparatively to the "All Lives Matter" movement.Source:http://www.nationalcenter.org...;
Black Lives Matter is not a racist organization

My opponent in this round even follows the definition of racist. In the previous round, I defined racist (Since no definition wasn't defined yet) as: "A person who believes that a particular race is superior to another". In this round, my opponent said the following: "They focus on promoting the black race only". This proves how the "Black Lives Matter" movement is promoting the definition of racist, by showing a belief of being a higher race than other races.Also, my opponent has failed to rebuttal my argument about the "All Lives Matter" movement, in which promotes all lives; even blacks. So far, my opponent has failed to really attack my case and keeps rehashing the same argument.
Dogs are better than cats

Con has mentioned many generalizations as well. For example " Generally most dogs have the ability to hurt kids. " Furthermore, Con has not proven cats are better than dogs either. Con has only included rebuttals, and 2 generalized arguments. Also, most of Con's rebuttals were irrelevant. I am having trouble seeing how ". .. Leftovers? " is a rebuttal. Now for some of my rebuttals. "I looked at source 2 and I knew that this wouldn't work for solids. And number 3 seems to be a temporary solution. Anyone wondering, #3 is a suitcase(unfolded) sized patch of what it is made out of and appears that regular cleaning is needed #1 is almost litterarily(Bad pun? ) a rug. It is also ~$50. Also, a litter box doesn't have to stink up the house. " A litter box cost even more than what you call a "rug". [1] In a litter box, you would clean and scoop it when you get rid of the cat's solids. On a dog pad, you would pick it up with a plastic bag, just like you would in a litter box. A litter box would ad odour to the house, since you wouldn't pick it up right away. Also dog's tell you, or in other words bark after they do their business, so you can dispose of it right away. Cat's usually don't. Now here are some arguments that prove that dogs are better than cats: Argument 1: Dogs can adapt better, and faster Dogs can adapt to the current situation much better and faster than a cat. [2] They can quickly, efficiently realize what is happening, and hat they should or shouldn't do. This is also shown in the article about the dog saving the baby I have mentioned earlier. They also adapt to a new house for example. They quickly observe and smell the house, and adapt to their new home. Argument 2: You have more control, and less destruction is made. After training a dog, they start to listen and become very obedient. [3] You have control over their actions. Therefore if they are doing something wrong, you have control to stop them, unlike cats. Cats are difficult to train, and they usually scratch walls and curtains, unless you buy a scratching pole which cost a lot of money. Also, if the cat ruins the pole, you need to buy another one. These cost a lot of money. A good one is already almost 200$! [4] Argument 3: Dogs come in a higher variety of shapes and sizes. Dogs have a greater variety of shapes and sizes. [5] This way, you can choose which size and shape fits the best into your daily lives. You can have a small adorable dog like a chihuahua one for children. Maybe a medium dog like a golden retriever for a strong, nice fun family pet. Or maybe a big Husky to go on a dog sled, or protect you from danger. Cats are usually only small, which gives you a much smaller, simpler, boring variety of choices. Dogs are better than cats for so many more reasons than these. Dogs are fun and awesome, and are obviously the indisputable better pet for a home. Sources: . http://www.petsmart.com... . http://dogs.about.com... . http://dogs.about.com... . http://www.petsmart.com... . http://dogs.about.com...