BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Banning romance novels at school

I don't think romance novels are necessary to adolescent survival, and if romance novels are distraction to productive work, then they should by all means be banned by schools experiencing the problem of romance novel distraction. I think romance novels are sloppy mush, and they distort the minds of many youngsters. I've never heard about students acting out their romance novels, but I think romance novels pose a problem even if they don't act the books out. If the kids are behind their desk reading about sordid passionate love when they should be doing a 50-step calculus problem, then the school should be responsible for taking those books away. I don't know how a person could ever get hooked on something stupid like romance novels, but if they are spreading like an epidemic then we should end that epidemic. If kids are interested in literature, they can take an English class and read much better books than romance novels. You bring up the hypothetical situation of a student not having enough time to read a book at home, and only having time to read the novel at school. I'd argue there is no time at school to read sloppy mush, only for work, and the time AFTER SCHOOL should be used to read stupid things. and what on Earth do you mean by "Last mistakes of others?" What does that even mean? If you're slacking to read some sordid mush, you're the only one making a mistake. I think you're using the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion there.
Banning romance novels at school

I am against banning romance novels at school because it is only a problem if it has been acted out or anything related to what happens in the book. If kids start using inappropriate jokes and references from the book, then the school should take upon themselves to discipline or punish those specific students. Let's say you loved romance novels but you never have to time to read it at home, so the only place you can read it at is at school. It wouldn't be fair to you if all you wanted is read your book but because of last mistakes of others you never knew, you couldn't read the book.
Pennies should be abolished

Pro has the BOP.If we used nickels, Americans would pay a "rounding tax" of about $2 billion to $4 billion per year [1]. But Pro wants to abolish nickels, so that tax would surely be much higher. This neutralizes any benefit that comes with the cost of making pennies. Poor people who make small purchases are hurt, as are charities that use penny drivesNext, pennies are sentimental. About two-thirds of Americans want to keep the penny [1]. 1. http://tinyurl.com...
Pennies should be abolished

Pennies are a waste of time and money. For instance, according http://www.usmint.gov...;, it costs 2.41 cents to make a penny. Not only is the penny cost inefficient, it also should be noted you can't use pennies in parking meters, vending machines. and in some ATMs. Abolishing the production of the penny, just like how Canada did, will result in less taxpayer money spent on a pointless object. Therefore, the penny, along with the nickel should be abolished in production.
God Does Exsist

so you ignore the entire scientific community and trust the opinion of 1? you ignore what the other scientists believe and only believe Francis Crick. Obviously a whale will not evolve into an elephant. there is no need to. a microscopic bacteria over a billion years will evolve into a whale or an elephant though. When there is a fossil record(PHYSICAL PROOF)that shows the progression of an organism how could you not believe it. You are choosing to believe that a mystical being that has never been proven to exist, never shown its existence and the only thing that lets it be known is that supposedly its son came to Earth and told. Again you are believing one single person. The bible states that god created the earth and all of the creatures on it in 1 week. Dinosaurs lived over 60 million years ago and have died and a new era of creatures has evolved. There are fossils of creatures from 550 million years ago. Man has only been around for the last 100,000 years.
God Does Exsist

Scientific Proof Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools. Meaning we cannot get a whale to evolve to an elephant. History says that Darwin came first in the attempt to explain life outside creationism in 1859. Then science wrestled with it for over 100 years until the scientific community realized that Darwinism had major flaws in its theory. So the next attempt was Steven Jay Gould with his theory of Punctuated Equilibrium in 1972. Because he saw the flaws with Darwinism he attempt another theory. Finally in a desperate Scientology-like attempt we have Directed panspermia in 1973 by Francis Crick-the same man who discovered the helix structure of DNA. Directed Panspermia suggests that the seeds of life may have been purposely spread by an advanced extraterrestrial civilization or can be spread from Earth to other planets by humans. Crick found it impossible that the complexity of DNA could have evolved naturally. Science does not have an answer God 1, Man 0
God Does Exsist

A dictionary is a man made object not naturally occurring in nature. So that is a bad example to use because obviously a dictionary cannot "heal its own torn pages or reproduce its own newer editions". A better example may be the Earth. The Earth is completely natural. I think we can both agree on that. The Earth has water cycles and rock cycles which both recycle the same atoms. Dirty water becomes clean water falling from the sky as rain. Metamorphic rock sinks down into the mantle and is turned into magma and then erupted out a volcano and is volcanic rock. As far as science knows today matter cannot be created nor destroyed. 600 years ago common knowledge of the smartest humans was that the Earth was flat. Isaac Newton was believed to be an insane man when he explained gravity. Yet today all of that is proven and has become common knowledge. I am not saying that i disagree with Antoine Lavoisier's Law of conservation. I am simply saying that it is a possibility.
God Does Exsist

Evidence 1 The Universe Was Not Started By A "Big Bang" Ask yourself, Could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary? The likelihood is most remote. But if so, it could never heal its own torn pages or reproduce its own newer editions! Antoine Lavoisier's Law of conservation of mass states, "matter cannot be created nor destroyed.[1]" Hence, what started or created the big bang to happen? Obviously this is a question that science can never answer, because the answer is not scientific but spiritual. Hence, scientist cannot explain what caused the big bang to occur. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
There is Nothing Wrong With Pornography

Pornography seems to be something that is taboo and out of the subject in any homes in America. It is treated like filth, trash, and exploitative. However I stand before you today to try and disprove some preconceived ideas about why pornography is bad. This will be a three round debate following these guidelines; Round 1: Opening Statements, Main Argument is Presented. Round 2: Debating, Argue against the statements presented. Round 3: Closing, Debate final points, bring it all together in a closing argument. In my opening argument I will take three of the most common arguments against pornography and hope to dismantle them and show the contender and the viewers the facade of these contentions. #1: Pornography is Addictive and Life-Controlling. This is a common argument and I can tell you from experience that it is a simple one to put away. I can tell you that from experience that pornography usage never for me has gone over short spans of time and has never taken over my social, family, or schoolwork. It is only used when I have downtime and simply want to feel pleasure for a short amount of time. I have never felt one iota that it was controlling my life in any way at all. And most people I know who watch pornography are completely normal people who have very active lives socially and otherwise. #2: Pornography Distances You From God. I am an atheist, so this argument in itself does not apply to me, and even if somebody is a true believer, nowhere in the bible is pornography criticized or ever spoken about. This argument should be irrelevant as God is an in-falsifiable hypothesis and therefore cannot be taken into account here. #3: Pornography is Exploitative of Women. The women in most of pornography are acting of a sound and consenting mind when they decide to perform in pornography, I however do not think this should be a gender-centered issue as men are equally portrayed in porn. Therefore I will continue referring to both sexes. Pornography is exploitative in the way that all sexualized media is. Magazine covers feature scantily-clad women, underwear ads for men show buff near-naked men. Sex sells. and there is nothing wrong with that. The fact that pornography makes money has nothing to do with its morality. We are simply following are evolutionary instincts by wanting to search out sex, and that is 100% natural. I want to conclude by saying I wish this debate to be civil and not get out of hand.
There is Nothing Wrong With Pornography

Note: My adversary just offered his closing remarks without rebuttals, so I will assume mine remain uncontested and he himself accepts that porn can indirectly cause harm.Again let us look at the title."There is nothing wrong with pornography"My adversary is not claiming that there is nothing "morally wrong with watching pornography" or " There is no objective reason to believe porn is wrong". This is not his resolution and both of these claims do not apply to this debate. He must abide by his resolution. I have shown multiple ways in which pornography can have a negative effect on people. If anyone one of these claims is shown to be true, then there is "something wrong" with pornography. Perhaps if he chose a better resolution he would have been able to defend this. With this current resolution, it is sadly impossible to defend. There is no way to claim there is "nothing" wrong with (x). That is dependent on a persons perception and submits itself to a query of questions and facts. He could have verily easily argued the fact that it is morally permissible to watch, but again that is not the case.His resolution is impossible to uphold.
There is Nothing Wrong With Pornography

I have stated that there is nothing innately wrong with pornography. My contender has given ample examples of ways pornography can indirectly cause "negative things", but in the end he has given absolutely zero examples of its objective wrongness. I have tried to show this to him in a manner of telling him that it is not porn itself causing things like bad work ethics or teenage pregnancy, and even though the morality of these things are completely subjective and they are indirectly linked to porn, the contender still clings to these and claims I am using "straw man" arguments. In conclusion: my contender has provided no evidence that porn in itself is wrong, and therefore I have one this debate.
The Federal Government should permit the sale of human organs for transplantation

First round is for acceptance Please: No semantics Dropped arguments are to be considered concessions No new argument in last round unless its in response to a new point in the previous round PRO Burden is to give reasons the federal government should change the status quo and allow for the sale of human organs for the purposes of organ transplantation. The CON burden is to give reasons why enacting this change should not happen. Pretty simple.
The act of murder is immoral

Let us remember that we are not focusing on individual (or even collective) views on the moral nature of murder. Rather, we are concerned about whether or not the act of murder itself is inherently an immoral act. In this debate, I will encourage an open discussion about this issue by asking questions that emphasize different aspects of the matter at hand. I. Is anything inherently immoral? Is murder immoral if it is perceived by the majority of the public as immoral? We see answer is no because things in the past that were viewed as moral at the time but are viewed immoral now. Hence, an institution (e.g., slavery) has a moral value that is solely based on belief within a given context and is subject to change based on shift in popular mindset. II. We lack definite values to assign to life and death, so how can we call a cause of death "moral" or "immoral"? Morality is the distinction between good/right and bad/wrong. Good/bad and right/wrong are values that are assigned based on relativity of different concepts. For example, something is good because is is better than something that is bad. We do not know what death truly is other than an exit out of existence (as we know it), so, without a set definition, how can we value it as good/bad/right/wrong? And without that, how can we say the cause of death, regardless of intent, is good/bad/right/wrong/moral/immoral? III. It is impossible to know what a death preempts or enables to happen in the future. If it is, in theory, moral to prevent something that is immoral, then how can we deem any act moral or immoral in real life? The morality of an act cannot simply be judged by the act itself but by the results that it has. And the morality of the results cannot be judged because a future that is preempted cannot be evaluated. --- Thank you.
The act of murder is immoral

Definitions:Murder: A killing committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditationMorality: Characterizes the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong). A lack of morality (i. e. , straying toward the "bad/wrong" side of the spectrum) would be immorality. Resolution:"The act of murder is immoral. "Terms of Debate:Con will attempt to nullify the resolution. Pro will attempt to affirm the resolution.
should people be aloud exotic animal

I don't think that people should be allowed exotic animals. They can be aggressive, and hard to care for. More often than not an animal has to be put down because it's owner couldn't care for it. Exotic animals are wild, even if they are bred in captivity and raised by humans, they could snap at any time. Animals like dogs, cats, hamsters etc. are tame, through centuries of selective breeding they can be trained to accept humans as masters.
Extremely strict parents are good for children.

Basic Rules and Agreements: 1. No vulgar, slang, or racist language is allowed. 2. Intentional spelling or grammar errors are not allowed. 3. The first round is for introduction and agreement purposes. 4. If sources are used, they must be cited with URLs or titles of books and authors. 5. Debaters cannot vote for themselves. 6. To support the brevity of this debate, the character limit of each round is set to 4,000 characters. 7. Plagiarism is not allowed unless it is from one's own source. In other words, you can copy off yourself, but you have to paraphrase other works. The topic of this debate discusses whether or not strict parents are healthful to children in terms of academic success and later success in life. I will be taking the Con/Against position of this topic: I do NOT believe strict parents are healthful. When I say "strict parents," I do not mean the average American families that tell their children to clean their room. I mean the parents like Tiger Mom. (I suggest researching who that is before accepting this debate challenge.) I wish good luck to my contender in this debate.
Extremely strict parents are good for children.

I thank Con for posting the final round, and for a gracious debate. Con's R3 is brief, offering two arguments. The first is that success should be considered subjective and defined by each individual person. While this is an unsources claim from personal preference, Con goes on to suggest a defintion that success is conquering difficult tasks and goals. Since not conquering difficult tasks and goals was never one of Con's objections to strict parenting, this definition of success leaves him without any offense against my advocacy. Con's second point is that he feels that Chua used too much of a single parenting style. While Con may indeed feel this way, it does not constitute an negative argument. Con has not refuted that strict parenting produces feelings of parental warmth and love, or provides later health benefits. Con also did not retract or offer alternative interpretations of his earlier arguments which I argued gave victory to Pro.
Extremely strict parents are good for children.

My apologies to Pro for a shortened round, but I have decided that, although Dictionary.com offers a general definition, the real meaning of "success" in life and the philosophy of happiness varies from person to person. Someone might say success is fame and fortune. Others might say luxuries, while others may say the pure effort put into every accomplishment. In my eyes, success is the ability to feel proud of one's achievements. For me, that would be conquering difficult tasks and goals. Many different types of parents support different types of success in their children. Some parents are relaxed and allow their children to be free and happy while they can. Others, such as Tiger Mom, try hard to achieve the best effort in life. My only point now is that Tiger Mom forced one single parenting style and philosophy into her children a little too much. Congratulations on my opponent for this debate. Though I don't say this often as a conclusion, I have to admit he has high chances of winning.
Extremely strict parents are good for children.

It's been a known fact to many that punishment and discipline have been part of parenting for many years. In fact, just recently, the story of a "Tiger Mom" has arisen. According to the story, Tiger Mom believes that "Chinese mothers are superior." Her daughters, Sophia and Louisa, are not allowed to "1. attend a sleepover 2. have a playdate 3. be in a school play 4. complain about not being in a school play 5. watch TV or play computer games 6. choose their own extracurricular activities 7. get any grade less than an A 8. not be the No. 1 student in every subject except gym and drama 9. play any instrument other than the piano or violin 10. not play the piano or violin." This system of parenting is efficient, but does not help the child any more than "regular" parenting style. Many western parents agree on the same fact: kids should be taught that learning is fun, and brute forcing academic excellence into children is not a good parenting strategy. I hope not to offend anyone with racial stereotypes, but it is a widely known fact that Asian mothers have one priority: forcing academic success. According to them, a lack of success means unsuccessful parenting. However, neither Sophia nor Louisa have taken anything higher than middle-class jobs. They haven't become Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. They haven't become music stars with neither the piano nor violin, two instruments they spent hours playing on in their childhoods. The only reason why they are famous is that their mother wrote a book about the controversial topic of extreme parenting strategies. First, I would like to point out the definition of a "happy life". The happy life, as some define it, is a satisfaction of one's existence. When one has a happy life, one is proud in his past achievements and confident in conquering future goals. Tiger Mom, although she has fulfilled these guidelines, adds unnecessary stress and anxiety to her daughters' lives. An average westerner, with a middle or lower-class job, can still be a happier man as long as he enjoys what he does. Not everyone needs to be rich like Bill Gates or popular as Brad Pitt. It is questionable whether or not Sophia or Louisa are happy with their current occupations. As children, they never chose their own extracurricular activities. Therefore, none of them know any activities they could enjoy or have talents in. Though Asian mothers do exemplify higher grades and academic success than the rest of the world, this success is not completely beneficial to a child's growing up. Successful lives are not always happy ones. Successful lives are lives where people are proud of what they do, and enjoy what they do. You don't have to be good at something to enjoy it. (1) http://online.wsj.com...
The United States and other Allied forces in Afghanistan should not be pulled out.

We invaded Afghanistan to oust the Taliban regime, and were mostly successful at doing so. The Taliban still (thanks to Pakistan) controls some areas and is still fairly powerful. Our goals in Afghanistan was to eliminate the Taliban as a militant organization, and provide democracy to the people there. Again, we have only been partially successful in that. Hamid Karzai was elected (through possibly rigged elections), and the Taliban has not been removed completely as a militant organization. This can be compared to the Iraq war in many ways. There is a semi- stable government that is fighting Islamic hard- liners with the assistant of the West. Since the US pullout of Iraq, violence has gone up dramatically. President Talabani's government does not seem to be going anywhere anytime soon, but the same cannot be said about the Karzai government. The "peace talks" in Doha with the Taliban were a terrible idea, and have failed before they even started. The Taliban opened their own little "embassy" of the non- existent Islamic Emirate. We went into Afghanistan under Operation Enduring Freedom to remove the threat of terrorism from Afghanistan. We have made excellent progress so far, but the continued presence of the Taliban is not acceptable. What this debate really boils down to is if you're alright with a Taliban presence in Afghanistan. I do not, and I will not support a pullout until the Karzai government is confident that it can continue to exist without a western presence. Operation Enduring Freedom's Goals listed in here: . http://en.wikipedia.org... Iraq violence surges after US pullout: . http://www.aljazeera.com... And slightly off-topic: a brilliant documentary of the regime we ousted, and why it coming back would be a nightmare: . http://topdocumentaryfilms.com...
Are Trump supporters racist

Sources in comments.Never has Trump said all Muslims are terrorists and the executive order does not target Muslims. [1]Not to mention the concept of 'single issue voters,' where the voter bases their decisions on the candidates' view on a single issue. So even if this so-called "Muslim ban" is what you say it is, not all Trump supporters believe it should be implemented. [2]Plus, it is impossible to be racist against religion. Thus, the whole foundation of your argument collapses. [3]
Are Trump supporters racist

At the end of the day Trump's policies target specific groups. There is also a debate on this on http://www.DebateIsland.com... http://www.debateisland.com... Whether supporters admit it or not to themselves, there is a general theme that it is racist to target other ethinc groups, like muslims. Not all muslims are terrorists, and it is not fair to discrimanate against such a large part of population. It is racist.
Are Trump supporters racist

Sources in comments since there's a 500 character limit..."anti-muslim ban"Trump's executive order doesn't even mention any countries; it cited pre-existing laws established by the Obama administration, yes, the Obama administration deemed the countries high risk, not Trump's. [1]"Mexicans"Trump has never targeted Mexicans, but illegal immigrants. [2]"African-Americans"No evidence of Trump being racist toward black people, though there is evidence of him being liberal on the topic of race. [3]