BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Barrack Obama should stay as president for another term

Aloha! This shall be my first debate, and you shall be my first opponent. I hope you do not expect an easy victory. In any case, on with the debate! I see where you're coming from as many people don't like any of our current contenders for our next presidential election, but I must say that only one president in history (Franklin D. Roosevelt) has served more than two terms. Granted it wasn't legislation back then. I'll leave my own candidate bias out of this one - as I lack one at all - and continue on why Obama shouldn't serve a third term. Albeit Obama may have improved our country, let's not forget that so have many other presidents, yet they didn't get a third term. Some have been assassinated, others simple forgotten. Point being, why should a president for the first time in nearly 80 years serve a third term out of the blue? Another point I'd like to make is that Obama has made some mistakes as well. One being his withdrawal from Iraq. Many say - and most agree - that he withdrew too early and the Islamic State quickly retook much of its lost territory. When ISIS was actually starting to pose a possible threat back in 2014, Obama, and I quote, said "I don't want to put the cart before the horse. We don't have a strategy yet." Obama ignored the Middle East for far too long and we're just now starting to make progress in this mess. Meanwhile, following the Paris attacks, multiple candidates explained just how they would immediately send in troops to crush ISIS, or have a global coalition fight against the Islamic State. In current conclusion, it seems like our current candidates could prove to do a much better job with our current problems then Obama can. I shall now await your response, my good man. Resources: http://www.cbsnews.com... http://www.cnn.com...
The Harambe memes and jokes are not offensive

If Harambe were alive, the thought of him would be dead. We've all seen the memes and the jokes, but this is a serious matter. Harambe was so much more than a gorilla, and every day, I think about him. He was more than a gorilla to me, he was a friend. Now, as we try to give him the proper sendoff, Cincinnati Zoo, the assassins, are still at large. Not only are they free, but they're telling us to stop honoring him. This is what Harambe would have wanted. In tragic times, there are only so many ways to grieve. The whole world has chosen memes and internet jokes as the primary method. However, Cincinnati Zoo, which obviously is no longer grieving, is trying to stop us. They have called our jokes offensive and stupid. But Harambe would not have had it any other way. This friend, this gorilla, symbolizes unity. The country is able to get together over a significant loss. A small bit of Harambe lives on with us, whether it be in memes or not, and no one should take that away.
Glitz Beauty Pageants Held For Children aged 13 and Under

In Toddlers and Tiaras, almost all of the contestants on the show are at lease under 10. I still watch it and I don't see how they treat the girls like dolls. Anyway, the purpose of glitz pageants are for femininity and tourism. Girls aren't trying to be perfect, they are not judgeed on looks, and yes, they are judged on personality and facial expressions. There are different meanings of the word 'glitz'.http://www.answers.com...
Glitz Beauty Pageants Held For Children aged 13 and Under

A. According to my research, Glitz pagents meet a perfect on feminist standards, which most young girls need at that age. It meets feminist standards because Big hair (including fake hair), flawless makeup, spray tans, flippers (fake teeth) and nail extensions are used and most expected to the contestants. I have seen this before, and some person wanted to ban child pageants. Parents of children are sometimes criticized for entering their children in pageants. For instance, Shelby Colene Pannell, a sociologist, questions why parents would subject their children to gender socialization because pageants are the perfect setting for the” traditional” type of femininity http://www.cbc.ca...That is all I have to say. The link is proof.
Glitz Beauty Pageants Held For Children aged 13 and Under

A. Glitz pageants are commonly split into three categories: swimwear, casual, and formal wear. In swimwear, at a young age most of these girls are put into bikinis and told to strut across the stage preforming their specialized routines. In formal and casual, these girls are given either skimpy clothing or over the top dresses. All of these girls, no matter the category, are instructed to show off their bodies and capture the attention of the judges through their looks and routines. B. Parents pay lots of money to enter these pageants and the preparation is even more expensive. Without all the makeup and touchups done to these girls, they probably wouldn't even be recognizable. Mascara, foundation, and eyeliner, and even spray tans are heavily applied. Their hair is piled high on their heads and some of it isn't even theirs. A fake image of beauty is perceived. C. These girls at such a young age are taught that in order to win, they need to be beautiful. When they grow up and all the glitz, glamour, and competition is gone, when they look in the mirror they won't see beautiful. These pageants can lead to horrible self esteem and eating disorders as a teenager.
Haiku Battle.

This is a haiku battle. The challenge is simply to make more interesting haikus than the other person. We can either have set topics or not. Thus, the first two rounds are to get acquainted with one another, and the last three will be for actual haikus. The PRO and CON positions mean nothing. I only chose PRO because green is a nicer color to surround my name and avatar than red. For those who don't know, the structure of a haiku is 5 syllables in the first line, 7 in the second line, and 5 in the last line. Apostrophication (a word I invented to mean the addition of apostrophes) is permitted to cut down on syllables, but only in a non-ridiculous fashion.
Sinfullness will turn you into a potato retard

I grew up in a large city in the Naneh Province, China. It was in that large city that I was taught about a mysterious power called "Mumbo-Jumbo" and its effects. It was my father's teachings that taught me, if I were to hurt another, then I would never feel the consequence, one way or another. It is now my understanding that, if I were to kill or hurt someone enough, then Mumbo-Jumbo would not take action against me. I was always told that when I die in this life, I would not come back in another. However, if I sinned a lot, I would not come back as an insect, vegetable, or, in no case, would I have mental health problems. This is how I am able to make the claim: "Sinfulness will not turn you into a potato retard." My opponent makes the claim that, "Sinfulness WILL turn you into a potato retard." How can my opponent be 100% certain? How can he/she pretend to have knowledge about what happens after death? I make my claim because that I what my ancestors have believed for 10,000's of years and to say with 100% certainty that there is life after death or even new life is arrogant.
Sinfullness will turn you into a potato retard

I grew up in a small village in the Henan Province, China. It was in that small village that I was taught about a mysterious power called "Karma" and its effects. It was my mothers teachings that taught me, if I were to hurt another, then I would feel consequence one way or another. It is now my understanding that, if I were to kill or hurt someone enough, then Karma would take action against me. I was always told that when I die in this life, I would come back in another. However if I sinned a lot, then I could come back as an insect, vegetable or in some cases I would have mental health problems. This is how I am able to make the claim: "Sinfulness will turn you into a potato retard" My opponent makes the claim that "Sinfulness will NOT turn you into a potato retard." How can my opponent be 100% so certain? how can he pretend to have knowledge about what happens after death? I make my claim because that is what my ancestors have believed for 10,000s of years, and to say with 100% certainty that there is no after life or even new life is arrogant. You accepted this debate hoping to hate on my beliefs, but I hope by the end of this debate you realise, it is your beliefs that are in need to criticism. You have verbally attacked me in the past. I will not forget. I will not forgive. I will defeat you.
Public schools in Western countries should be completely secular.

To answer the first point you raised . Yes it is important for the church to keep up with the times and teach a more open view on religion but that does not mean to stop teaching religion alltogether. The moral principles which religion promotes stand at the basis of much of our history and our way of viewing things. One teacher even went to the point of saying that religion made states possible . These principles must always be taugh and understood so that a person can make the decision of what he wants to keep or cast-away. Next in America the colonists were not immigrants . Before the colonisation of America, in the most part of north America there was nothing than even resembled a state. No one is saying that you be forced to believe in the religion of that country but you are required to study and know it because of it's importance to the history and culture of that state. Knowing a persons spiritual belief may not be as important as knowing their language but it also carries a lot of weight. Understanding and learning the religion of the country you live in gives you a better perspective of that country's culture and world-view. Yes i agree that this topic should be debated in another topic but i disagree with that statement. Your statement is incorrect and your examples sketchy. But if you are going to argue by examples well the former countries of the USSR were all very secular and that left people with wide-spread corruption and decadence. Their experiment to create the "new man " who is moral by definition without the need of religion failed horribly. To sum it up religion has held an important place in our history for a long time after the fall of the Roman empire and to understand our culture and history one must also understand the spiritual side. The moral principles which at one point made the church one the most powerfull organisms in europe are still valid and powerfull even today, And finally the existence of religion might have made way for the creation of nation-states as we know them. Studying the spiritual side of a country is relevant even today because it gives you the insight to understand the country and its people in a better and more fundamental way.
Public schools in Western countries should be completely secular.

Where is your source proving that religion and a country have a strong bond, even nowadays? Atheism is the fastest growing "religious" (or rather, non-religious) movement in Western countries [1] [2]. The statistics show that Western countries' bond with religion is growing more tenuous by the day- and is it not the responsibility of schools to keep with the times? There are still many religious people in Western countries, but there are also many non-religious people- from a logical standpoint, it makes the most sense to allow parents to teach their children what they wish in regards to subjective subject matters such as religion. Your argument, while making some valid points, hinges on the fact that those with different religious or non-religious views are immigrants. This may be sometimes true, but as mentioned before with the example of atheism, people of different religious views may certainly be home-grown. As well, in America and Canada in particular, everyone there aside from the Aboriginals are immigrants- who are Christians (who are the majority in those countries) to say that everyone must learn and believe in their religion, when they refused to learn in believe in the religious beliefs of any Aboriginal group themselves? As well, you appear to be of the view that immigrants should assimilate. This is a point that could be argued in an entire other debate, but suffice to say that that is a very subjective viewpoint, and not necessarily true at all. Immigrants can live with natives or more longer-time immigrants in harmony, without destroying their own culture. Finally, you also appear to be of the belief that religion is necessary for a moral code. This viewpoint is decidedly incorrect. Some of the most irreligious countries, such as Sweden and Denmark, also have some of the highest qualities of life and the lowest crime rates [3]. While I do not mean to say that irreligion inversely results in an improved moral code, it is clear the irreligion does not in the least result in less morals. In sum, it is evident that for the most harmony, especially considering the growing multicultural nature of many Western countries, schools should be secular. [1] http://www.theguardian.com... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Public schools in Western countries should be completely secular.

I understand your argument and to some extent i might say i agree but consider the following. A country and it's religion have very strong bond even nowadays . The perspective and principles based down from generation to generation is strongly tied to the past . So present day mentality in a country is bound by the past and history of such a country.Thus I can say that for a nation to study its religion is important because it gives children the necessary knowledge to understand and choose which of the principles passed down from their parents should they choose etc. I do not agree with the fact that immigrants might feel shamed. Remember that immigrants when leaving their country make a decision to abandom some of their culture and integrate and respect the country they are immigrating to . Paying taxes and raising children is just a small part of that process . When you promote the right to religion etc you have to consider that you are creating a link between the heritage of those people and your own country thus making the abandonment of former beliefs and principles harder. People with the same principles and view tend to group and create enclaves inside society. Look in Usa for examples . These enclaves help keep people anchored to the society they left and promote it's belief system and principles. Because these enclaves are tied up so well their members will also have a better sense of commitment to their enclave rather than the society they live in now . This will make integration harder and loosen state control . So although religious freedom is good , in reality people will use such things to help themselves in promoting their worldview in a country in which they should integrate. Thus I believe that teaching a national religion in school is important because it passes down the basic moral traits of that specific country. A population without those traits will not have a higher moral standart to which it can adhere and a population with multiple moral standarts will lack coherence. Both of these situation will only lead to a rise of instability and civil unrest.
Public schools in Western countries should be completely secular.

It is true that religion plays a large part of many students' lives. However, students follow many different religions. Just as a Chinese family would likely teach their children their dialect of Chinese outside of school, a religious family should teach their children their religion outside of school as well. Indeed, with many religions, such as the ever-ubiquitous Christianity for example, students may be required to attend religious functions once a week or more anyways. Combining this with further Religious Studies seems to be superfluous. As well, often in Western countries, a non-secular school is synonymous with a Christian school. While Christians may be the majority in many Western countries [1], there are still typically significant minorities of other religions that may feel marginalized when their children are forcibly exposed to another religion. They live in the country and pay for their children's schooling through taxes, just like everyone else- they should be entitled to some respect. Of course, religions should be studied within school, as they are a major part of mankind's history. However, it should be confined to a few units in history classes, or as an optional course, for example, and no teacher should claim that the beliefs of any religion are true, or not true. Students should be allowed to make that decision for themselves. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Team Rocket are ghosts

Well that's an interesting theory. Unfortunately however, that is all it is. A theory. Meowth's ability to speak is explained by the show. After his love pursuit left him in order to please a human, he began working hard, with much difficulty to be more human like and impress his Meowzie. Unfortunately it was to no avail and that is when he joined Team Rocket. His speech is not due to some weird defect or because he is dead. It's simply attributed to hard work and perseverance. When Team Rocket "Blasts Off Again", I find it unlikely that they are shot so far away that it twinkles. In fact, I have never heard of someone being launched far enough away as to twinkle. What I do find likely however, is that when they are launched, the gold worn on Meowth's brow reflects the sunlight back towards the camera, thus giving us the twinkling impression. Many of the attacks that blast these Team Rocketers off would not even have the strength to launch the Rocketers far enough away and with enough force as to kill them. More likely, they are just bounced a few meters away, which we can't actually notice because of Meowth's gold twinkling in our eyes, and then they regroup before making an appearance later. Finally, throughout the series, we see Jessie, James, and Meowth using a variety of gizmos and gadgets. With how often they are defeated by Ash and the gang, it is difficult to believe that after their first encounter with the group, they failed to plan for defeat again. As much as I disbelieve they are launched far enough away to twinkle, even if this does occur, it is quite likely that Team Rocket is prepared enough to deploy a landing mechanism of some sort, whether it be a parachute or a cushion for landing. So in the unlikely event that the Rocketers are launched far enough away to actually be hurt, it is unlikely that they are hurt. Now if Jessie and James are ghosts, I have to ask, throughout all the series and all the games, why have we never seen another human ghost? Pok"mon ghosts, sure, they're present, from the slain Marowak to Ghost type Pok"mon, we see an abundant. However, I find it difficult to believe that if in the Pok"mon universe, if it is possible for a human to return as a ghost, that Jessie and James are the only two that Ash encounters throughout many seasons and several regions. It seems to me, that in this universe, humans cannot return as ghosts, or if they do, then they return as ghost type Pok"mon, simple shadows of their previous life. Furthermore, in the Pok"mon Universe, I cannot recall one mention ever of a human dying. In addition, Ash has remained ten years old for over a decade. If there is no mention of death and Ash fails to age, then it occurs to me that it is quite possible that in the Pok"mon Universe, the Humans are trapped in the state they are in. If they're young, they remain young, if they're alive they remain alive. So even if the Rocketers are blasted off far enough that should prove fatal, it is quite possible that they remain unhurt.
Team Rocket are ghosts

First off, i thank you for accepting this argument. Now, i have some stuff from the Pokemon TV show to explain my theory. And, my theory is that Jessie, James, and Meowth are, in fact, ghosts. Now, if you've seen the TV show, you may be aware that Meowth can talk. How can that be. Well, ghosts have the ability to do whatever they want, as their bodies can't hold them talk, so Meowth's ghost can do whatever he pleases, as such, making himself talk. And, you may be wondering, how did Jessie, James and Meowth die? Well, in the show, in about every episode, Team Rocket is shown as , quote, "Blasting Off Again". This means that Team Rocket was thrown into the air so far up, it twinkles. Now this would most definently kill somebody when they hit the ground, so, when they first blasted off, that thus when they hit the ground was what probably killed them. Even when they hit a tree or water, like in some cases with them, the force would have killed them on impact, thhus, them being ghosts. I await my opponents response and rebuttals.
Team Rocket are ghosts

"I have never heard of someone being launched far enough away as to twinkle." Throughout cartoon TV shows, whenever someone was thrown really high up, it most likely produced the twinkling effect, so why not in Pok"mon? "they are just bounced a few meters away" If they were bounced only a few meters away, why can't we seen them before and after it "twinkles"? "it is quite likely that Team Rocket is prepared enough to deploy a landing mechanism of some sort, whether it be a parachute or a cushion for landing." Even if they were smart enough to do something like this, almost all of their gadgets explode in their faces anyway, so it's safe to say one particular time, it didn't work out so well. " have to ask, throughout all the series and all the games, why have we never seen another human ghost?" Have you ever heard of the pokemon Yamask? Or read it's pokedex entry? "o even if the Rocketers are blasted off far enough that should prove fatal, it is quite possible that they remain unhurt." That is highly unlikely, even wit that technology, fatal wounds always happen. I thank you and await your rebuttals
Factory Farming is the #1 cause of man-made global climate change

Thanks for responding, I thought you were going to forfeit the round. "This was that the sources of 'Cowspiracy', mainly the FAO report, as well as basically all sources of the 'report', cannot be trusted as they are, in no way, academic or trustworthy. " Con Bare assertion. You call the FAO report both non-academic and untrustworthy with no proof. "the world total, as stated here (http://www.wri.org......... a source which I trust way more)" Con Again you assert wri.org is more trust worthy without proving it. Basically Con is stating that the World resource institute WRI is more reputable than the FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. "Free range This term is often found on meats, eggs, and dairy products, but the USDA only regulates use of the term as applied to poultry like chickens and turkeys. That means all beef, lamb, pork products (and so on) labeled as free range aren"t actually regulated by the USDA" "FREE RANGE or FREE ROAMING: Producers must demonstrate to the Agency that the poultry has been allowed access to the outside." usda.gov "No signs of life were outside the buildings, and if it wasn"t for the faint sound of panicking hens from within the metal buildings the place would seem deserted." Jewel Johnson "Pro's sources regarding greenpeace and the amazon rainforest can be disregarded, as they are not linked to factory farming. " Con Based on this evidence I argue that the cattle raised in Brazil and the clearing of Amazon rain forest the qualify as factory farming. Thus the green house gases emitted by the clearing and burning of the Amazon rain forest should be counted as factory farming. The clearing and burning of the Amazon certainly qualify as man made and greepeace made it pretty clear there would be dire environmental consequences for these actions. http://www.onegreenplanet.org... http://www.fsis.usda.gov... http://peacefulprairie.org...