BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sweatpants

The argument is technically not about them being specifically evil, and by definition, they are not the same. But I feel this way towards them because they are so comfy and you want to wear them, but you can't because they are socially unacceptable and generally ugly. This is an opinion argument, but here are a bunch of people who agree with me: http://www.phillyburbs.com... http://www.thegloss.com... http://www.lovelyish.com... http://www.amirite.com... frommywriteside.wordpress.com/2012/07/27/the-ugly-sweatpants formalsweatpants.com/comic/the-ugly-duckling http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com... http://mysticmedusa.com... theglamoroushousewife.com/2011/11/sweatpants-are-for-others-not-me/R06; http://zeldalily.com... memegenerator.net/instance/28037121R06; http://www.answerology.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.ca... There are many, many, many more, but my copy/paste hand is tired. As you see, the general public thinks they're ugly. This is not a joke, I take fashion VERY seriously. Also, read this: refinedside.com/2014/01/28/sweatpants-are-evil/
Smoking Is Bad For The Public

Well, pro has stated ZERO sources so.... also, -It suppresses your appetite therefore you lose weight. -It calms your nerves when you are under stress and keeps you focused. For this very reason psychologists have been doing studies on the positive side effects of nicotine on the mentally ill. They found that the mentally ill take in nicotine at higher rates than the normal population: 90% of schizophrenics, 70% of those with bipolar disorder and more than 50% of depressed individuals smoke. The article by DR. D.C. Jarvis states that this is because they have more mental noise that is reduced by nicotine. Therefore, helping them to focus on the world outside them instead of their internal hallucinations. There are other citing of nicotine being beneficial for colon and gastrointestinal problems. However, this has not been proven. -It helps people think more clearly. -Smoking helps when you have an oral fixation. It something to put in your mouth. -Smoking can be a social activity. A way to hang out with friends. -Smokers take more breaks than the average worker. -To look cool. -Nicotine is a psychomotor stimulant, and in new users it speeds simple reaction time and improves performance on tasks of sustained attention. -Lastly, if you are in a rock band and are seeking that raspy voice like Joan Jet. Smoking well help you get there. Source(s): http://jcrows.com... http://smokingsides.com...; http://www.bmj.com...;
Democratic Candidates in the 2008 Election

In case you didn't know, his parents got a divorce when he was young and his mother remarried a Islamic extremist which they then moved to his home country where he then attended an Islamic school for nearly 7 years (which by the way practices Muslim). Thus is why he has already stated that if he is elected he will not swear in on the Bible, but the Koran. Last time I checked the Koran was used by the Muslim religion. And I don't know how you don't see that him not standing for he pledge of allegiance is not disrespectful?? Even when Americans travel to foreign countries, we stand and respect their customs and courtesies. So if an average American can show this kind of respect, then why can't a public figure who is trying to become the leader of our country do the same? He is a fake and his entire campaign is ran off lies and falsehoods. Any true American who can honestly vote for someone who won't honor America's customs and traditions is really not an American at all!!
Democratic Candidates in the 2008 Election

1. He didn't "disrespect" the American flag nor the pledge of allegiance. At worst, politicians act outwardly and excessively patriotic as to appeal to dedicated American voters. 2. It matters what his father is due to the fact that it explains Obama isn't Muslim. One can't be born Muslim, it isn't an ethnicity or an inherited trait. And by "trying to go out of his way", Obama has attended church ritualistically for over 20 years, even marrying his wife in the church. He has been forced to bring it to light because of the false propaganda against him.
Democratic Candidates in the 2008 Election

It does not matter what his father did. He was born in Hawaii and his father was an extremist and his mother was an atheist. Obama only commited to the Christian Church to try and prove to people that he was not in fact Muslim. Any man that has to go out of his way to try and prove that he is something, obviuosly has something to hide. He is not who he says he is and it is very difficult to believe anything he says. And besides that, no matter what religion he may be, nothing gives him the right to disrepect the American flag and it's pledge of allegiance!
Democratic Candidates in the 2008 Election

I know that there is alot of questions involving this year's presidential debate. Perticuarly with the Democrats. Alot of people are doubting Hilary because she is a woman. I personally do not consider sex or race in any part of my decision when it comes to voting. Which brings me to my next point. Obama is being critized for his race and religion. I have no problem with him being black or being Muslim. I do however have a problem with a man who refuses to stand for pledge of allegiance to the very country he is running for!! There is line between what you believe and what is right. If you have objections to certain customs and traditions that have been carried since the birth of our country, then maybe you are running for president in the wrong country! If there are any Obama followers out there that would like to join in, please feel free.
Is disney good for today"s children

"Look spelling and grammar aren"t my strength look at the argument when you vote not the little details. Kids should visit Disney because it makes great memories that can last a long time I know it"s expensive but aren"t the good memories worth it. Diversity doesn"t just have to be found in a place like Disney it can be found anywhere. We don"t have to depend on Disney for that. Disney may not be big on morals but they are not thinking of those things they are a company that is thinking more of what they believe an audience will want and are not looking to make a certain group happy. " Spelling and grammar are a category to vote on, therefore it is relevant so vote con on spelling and grammar Some people may have a bad time at Disney or don"t like a Disney movie therefore they will have a bad memory. Therefore the memories they make will be bad and ruin a child"s purity. Also Disney has been known for being racist and offending people, like that time when they stereotyped black people. That is not entertaining to the audiences and people did not find this funny. Disney is not big on morals but they should because in world where there is hate, Disney should not contribute to this hate as they are meant for unity. They are dividing. That does not provide a child entertainment in fact it fills hate in heart.
Is disney good for today"s children

Look spelling and grammar aren"t my strength look at the argument when you vote not the little details. Kids should visit Disney because it makes great memories that can last a long time I know it"s expensive but aren"t the good memories worth it. Diversity doesn"t just have to be found in a place like Disney it can be found anywhere. We don"t have to depend on Disney for that. Disney may not be big on morals but they are not thinking of those things they are a company that is thinking more of what they believe an audience will want and are not looking to make a certain group happy.
Is disney good for today"s children

"Disney is a large buisness and they want to make money so that explains why things are so expensive. Disney movies aren"t ment to be realistic so that"s why the people in them aren"t portrayed with realistic bodies. Disney is not about being realistic so they don"t really plan for there endings of movies to have morals or big lessons." There are many misspelled words in your arguments. Judges vote con on better grammar That argument you does not support why kids should go. If Disney excludes people from eating or doing all these fun things from impoverished families that only can afford a ticket, then you are discriminating. 132 dollars for a ticket is outrageous. At my local theme park, its 49.99 for a ticket and $75 for a season pass. That is ridiculous and it can produce as equal memories. So what if they aren't realistic, can't you have some diversity where the world is always tensed up on the big issues of being politically correct. That would make them more income than overcharging the prices Shouldn't a movie have a moral? Or a lesson that the character learns. A child remembers those than a parent telling them In conclusion, please vote con because has no sources to back him up, his grammar is off, and he has failed to extend his argument Source:https://www.mousesavers.com... Source:https://www.sixflags.com...
Is disney good for today"s children

Hello Sir... I will argue con for disney First, I think Disney idealizes the perfect person in their movies. The majority of Princess were white as well. I think Disney as of now should try diversifying instead of figuring the "perfect body" Disney movies have been very weak after the loss of PIXAR. They have failed to produce a SINGLE solely Disney movie Frozen is overrated, like I said, it idealizes the prefect body The parks do create memories, but they can reduce the prices because they are outrageously high. Poor families cannot afford these luxuries which definitely tells children they are not equal In Conclusion...Disney has no morals to their endings and they have overpriced everything and a marketing scam
Gun Control

Who said it was about the right to shoot up schools and churches? I'm not advocating for that, But the existence of those shootings doesn't mean that the 2nd amendment doesn't protect the guns that school shooters choose to use. You can kill people in a church or school with a musket too and they still wrote the 2nd amendment, While being well aware that guns can be used to kill people. But if the government has advanced weaponry, And the 2nd amendment is about fighting corrupt government (which it is), Than obviously the founding fathers wouldn't say we should only use black powder guns (or whatever guns liberals arbitrarily decide can be legal). My point with the rpg's was that other people obviously agree with me as well, Nor is Pakistan a 3rd world country because rpg's are legal for some people, Nor does it make Pakistan a worse country. The reason Pakistan is so bad is for political and racial reasons, Problems that wouldn't exist in a white country if you gave rpg's to white people. Whites are the reason why America is a stable developed country, And this won't change if we have access to the full range of arms protected under the 2nd amendment, Which includes explosives, Which existed back then too. Background checks infringe on someone's liberty because the government, That the 2nd amendment exists so people can violently resist when it gets corrupt, Gets to decide who can own guns. Is this not obvious to you? I already explained this so I have to assume you're just choosing to ignore it. But on top of that there is also a fee to do it, And a fee in order to have a basic right is unconstitutional by itself and disadvantages the poor. Which is why poll taxes were banned. There are lots of normal aspects of society which aren't right, Nor does the 2nd amendment say "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, Unless someone feels restrictions are a normal part of society", This only became a normal aspect of society because someone decided to infringe on the 2nd amendment in the 90s, It wasn't a normal aspect of society before this, And to justify an infringement because it's been around for a couple decades does not change what the 2nd amendment says.
Gun Control

The 1st amendment is also about criticizing society, As I said. It's about the right to voice your opinion on things without legal consequences, And when it was written that was mainly about the right to criticize the government. I didn't say it was only about criticizing government, But that was what caused it to come about, It was never about the right to sadistically panic people, And trying to force it to include your point in order to make ridiculous exceptions to the 2nd amendment isn't reasonable. What is so hard to believe about me supporting the right of the people to own RPG's? I'm not the only one that thinks this, Certain tribes in Pakistan are legally allowed to own them, Not that I look there for justification for my beliefs, But your shock is ridiculous. Regarding bi-polar people, Any threat they may possibly pose from being able to buy a gun is not worth the threat to the people's liberty that background checks impose, Nor are they likely to go on a shooting rampage anyway. As shown by the fact that most don't though guns are easy to obtain. You saying that gun control doesn't violate the 2nd amendment doesn't change the fact that it does violate the 2nd amendment.
Gun Control

So you believe any citizen should be able to equip themselves with an RPG? I can't believe that someone would really believe that. If you do think civilians should be allowed to purchase these, According to you it would have to be completely unrestricted because any form of regulation is against the 2nd amendment. The first amendment is not only about the right to criticize the government, It governs all types of speech, And my example still demonstrates that the amendments to the constitution are not without some restrictions. I never said ban all guns, I said increase controls, That does not go against the 2nd amendment. I don't think locking up all mentally ill people is a good solution, Many people with mental illnesses are otherwise fully functioning people, Bi-polar people for example don't need to be in an asylum, But it should be known when they try to purchase a gun.
Gun Control

Is a ban on RPG's against the 2nd amendment? Yes, Because it infringes on our ability to protect ourselves from tyrannical government, Nor were explosives on a similar scale a concept foreign to the founding fathers, And if they wanted to ban them they could have written that the 2nd amendment doesn't protect bombs. It is not comparable to shouting fire in a movie theater in regards to the 1st amendment, Because the 1st amendment is about the right to criticize the government (and reasonably it is about the ability to criticize society as a whole as well), And panicking people without a reason is not included in this. But the regulation of the ownership of firearms is different because this is directly what the 2nd amendment addresses. If a person is too mentally ill to be trusted with a gun then they are too mentally Ill to be trusted in society and should be in an asylum, They shouldn't be used as an excuse to infringe on other's rights. Nor should jihadis, As they should not be allowed into the country in the first place. Gang members are usually blacks and hispanics, The races that commit most violent crimes, And we shouldn't limit white people's rights because blacks and hispanics kill people.
Gun Control

Gun control is not a violation of the 2nd amendment just like yelling fire in a crowded theater is not a violation of the 1st amendment. The supreme court has recognized that the 1st amendment does not mean unlimited free speech, And a similar argument can be made with the 2nd amendment. Gun control measures such as background checks, Training, And licenses do not infringe upon the right to bear arm, Or prevent citizens from rebelling. These measures would simply keep dangerous firearms from the people who are incapable of that responsibility. I don't think gang members, Mentally ill, Or jihadis are your allies when fighting a tyrannical government. There are already restrictions, Should people be able to possess rocket propelled grenades? If so, Is that an infringement on the 2nd amendment?
DC characters are more OP the Marvel

I will name off Marvel characters that are overpowered. Galactus: Consumes PLANETS in order to LIVE. Hulk: Giant raging beast that is immune to pretty much everything. Thor: A super-skilled Thunder god that is immortal and invulnerable. Wolverine: Adamantium Skeleton and killer claws, therefore making him unkillable, and making him a mass-murdering animal. Deadpool: Is literally INVULNERABLE. Nothing can hurt him. Even if you cut off his head and limbs and put them into a blender then run them over with a sixteen-wheeler, HE'LL GROW BACK. Silver Surfer: Cosmic guy that is completely invulnerable. Sentry: He has the power of one million suns. I think that's pretty explanatory. Black Bolt: If he does so much as whisper, the SOUND WAVES have enough FORCE to DESTROY a CITY. Scarlet Witch: She has extreme magic powers and can manipulate probability. Hercules: Exactly like Thor but more muscle and strength and less hammers and electricity. Franklin Richards: A LITTLE KID that can create universes and alter realities. DC doesn't seem so OP now, does it?
nerds "candy"

Well con has not fulfilled his BoP. He has given no reason for nerds being nasty.Nerds are sweet and come in a plethora of flavors lots of people love.You can even make little jokes out of the name. And check out this cute picture of nerds candy: s://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com...; alt="" />Plus what tastes good is subjective. Who are you to call them objectively nasty? I say there not.BoP unfulfilled by convote pro. (Im a nerd) <3
Eating vegan is better for the enviorment than omnivoire.

Eating vegan is better for the environment than eating meat. Cows can be raised either free range or in feedlots. If you pick the former they use massive acreage which causes deforestation. [0] Feedlots require many times the amount of grain up to 16x. [1] Either way the environmental impact is enormous. The negative effects of rain-forest deforestation are common knowledge. We cannot afford to let this natural oxygen producing and pollutant sponge to be destroyed. The feed lot method puts a massive strain on our water supplies. According to the FoK documentary the world's cattle alone could fed 9 billion people. [2] That's assuming we fed the grain used for cattle directly to humans. Combine that with a whooping 2,500 gallons per pound of beef, and you got an environmental disaster. [3] Note, different sources vary one ib of beef takes between 2,464 gallons of water to 12,009 gallons. Other meats while more efficient than beef, are still considerably less efficient than plant based alternatives. [4] With chicken requiring 2.5x and pork 4x. Yet, this is both the inedible and edible parts. Take out the inedible and even milk requires 10% more pounds of grain than produced. Chicken 4.5, pork 7.3, and cattle 20 ibs of feed per ib of edible meat. Fishing is not any better. [5][6] Not only are we simply running out of fish, but we are destroying the ocean habitat. This includes the beautiful coral reefs. Factory farming fish has its own perils. [7] Catfish require 2 ibs of grain per ib of fish. [8] Many fish farms use smaller wild caught fish as feed for factory farmed fish. [9] Anyway you look at it, giving up meat is the environmentally friendly option. If your thinking solely of the environment vegetarian and fish are better options than beef and pork. Thanks for your time and energy reading. Sources 0. http://www.greenpeace.org... 1. http://www.animalliberationfront.com... 2. http://www.forksoverknives.com... 3. http://www.vegsource.com... 4. https://alumni.stanford.edu... 5. http://wwf.panda.org... 6. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... 7. http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org... 8. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... 9. http://www.farmedanddangerous.org...
You cannot be against abortion and for the death penalty.

You bring up some valid points. Listen up. First I will address the claim "you can't be against abortion and for the death penalty." Putting convicted murderers to death affirms the sanctity of life by making sure those murderers will never kill again. It simultaneously assures society justice will be done. The taking of innocent human life is the worst crime a human being can commit and our penal code should reflect it by ensuring the penalty reflects the crime. When the punishment fails to fit the crime, citizens stop believing in the system. Abolishing the death penalty for convicted murderers takes away society's justice. The same compassionate liberals who consider the death penalty to be "cruel and unusual" treatment of convicted murderers are the very same compassionate leftists who support partial-birth abortion where a baby is forcefully removed from the mother's birth canal, then punctured in the head with scissors and has his or her brain sucked out. These are the same compassionate liberals who condone and advocate the intentional creation and destruction of human life for the purpose of scientific experimentation. These are the same compassionate liberals who opposed the reinsertion of feeding tubes into Terri Schiavo as the entire nation watched her slowly die of hunger and thirst, one of the most slow and painful deaths imaginable. I support our justice system, therefore I support capital punishment for those convicted of taking innocent life. Now answer me this, what crime has an unborn child committed? Now you bring up the question of how one could support the sanctity of human life and support offensive wars. Answer me this, how many innocent Americans died on the morning of September 11th, 2001? How many Americans were threatened when Osama bin Laden declared holy jihad against all Americans, military and civilian, all around the world? How many innocent human lives were ended by Saddam Hussein when he used poison gas against his own people? How many innocent women did Saddam's regime rape and kill? How many innocent people are blown up every day by radical Muslims who strap bombs to pregnant women and force them to walk into market plazas? I support the sanctity of INNOCENT human life. I support the life of the innocent 1.5 million unborn children who are brutally murdered each year by abortion clinics. I don't support the life of convicted murderers whom liberals want to give the right to enjoy the right to live, that very right that they denied their victims.
You cannot be against abortion and for the death penalty.

This is something that has puzzled me for awhile, so I'd like to debate someone that exemplifies almost the same views as the republican majority. I think ReaganConservative is an excellent opponent for such a discussion. First, I'd like to clarify my meaning in the opening statement. My thoughts are, if it is a degradation of the sanctity of human life to kill an unborn baby, isn't it also a degradation of the sanctity of human life to kill an adult human, despite his deeds? And if not the death penalty, what about wars not in self-defense? Is an offensive (or "preventative") war not a breach on the sanctity of human life as well? I think that you can either be for abortion, for the death penalty, and for offensive (or "preventative") wars, or you can be against abortion, against the death penalty, and against offensive (or "preventative") wars. You cannot be morally justified to pick and choose. I anxiously hope you accept this challenge.