BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Muslims should all be deported

I don't know what the hell this mumbling about Trump and God is all about, take the marbles out of your mouth. Bottom line, president Trump has already put restrictions on Muslims from 7 countries, now it's time for him to take it further. You can whine all you want but when Trump makes it law, and your cave living Muslim relatives can't arrive in the USA anymore from any country in the world, then I will be happy. . I'm going to be Trumps right hand man like Hess was to Hitler, I will head the Muslim Removal Agency (MRA) and have them all removed from North America, Europe will do the same. People are about to reach their limit with these constant bombings and terrorist attacks, it's time to push back, all bleeding heart soft cry babies can whine and complain about it, hey I have a suggestion, why don't you move with them to the desert, eat all meals with your hands and pray 22 times a day and do your bombings and beheadings over there while crapping in a hole because Muslims haven't evolved from the stone age, they are the most primitive and barbaric people in the world. But the majority of people in the USA want Muslims removed, that's why they voted for Trump. You can whine and cry about me being hateful but the truth is 9/11 was the deadliest attack on the American people and that was done by Muslims, now it's time to remove all the sleeper cell, disgruntled, grubby unshaven, pyjama wearing Muslims from this country, and Europe will do the same, close and fortify the border with Turkey and keep the Muslims back in their home, because there is no place for them here or Europe, and by electing Trump the nation has shown that we don't want them here. We can find our own people to drive cabs and work at Dunkin Donuts. So you take your whinny, bitchy attitude and go cry someone else a river because your complaints are falling on deaf ears and the ban on the 7 countries is already in place weather you like it or not.. Now I just want it taken a step further.
Muslims should all be deported

Just like my President has already started with the ban on the 7 Muslim countries, I suggest we go a little further by not allowing Muslims to immigrate to this country period. As for finding out who the Muslims are, that's simple, I will create a new task force in the ICE department called "Muslim Removal Agency" (MRA). The MRA will go from house to house and ask each family the same way the terrorists do right now, say a Christian prayer, if you can't not and we prove that you are Muslim, you have 30 minutes to pack up what you can in a suitcase and you are being escorted to the airport to be flown back to Asia or Middle East. Unlike the terrorists who kill Christians if they can't prove they are Muslims right on the spot, the MRA will escort people to airports to ship them back to the other continents on the other side of the world. Muslims are barbaric, primitive people with their uncivilized sharia laws and mistreatment of women, these people haven't evolved from the 1200's yet. Just like the Christians who drove back the Ottoman empire from invading Europe, we will now use more civilized methods of deporting Muslims. (which also includes you, the ISIS sympathizer) Go back to your cave in the desert. At least I don't propose any killings, I suggest relocations, just like when the Jewish people were relocated to Jerusalem, Muslims should be relocated back to the middle east, let them blow each other up over there, and eat their halal back ribs LOL. I am more then happy to assist President Trump in running the MRA, I will lead the task force in all the subdivisions, I will kick in the doors, knock knock, your face is covered up, you are OUT of here, I see those pyjama outfits, you are gone, pack up your sh!t, you are going back to your country. No killing or beheadings like the barbaric Muslims do, just relocations. And once the task is complete, all Mosques are being demolished and bull dozed over. Nobody agrees with me?? That's a good laugh there, this is why Trump was elected in a democratic society, because everyone thinks like me, they are just afraid to state it because we are such a polite society and everyone wants to be politically correct, BUT in their minds they are thinking just like me. We and Europe are tired of these ISIS losers, ever since 9/11 these random acts of terrorism seem to happen every month now. It's time to eradicate and remove these sleeper cells, these angry losers who have never had a girlfriend in their lives, these social misfits who can't function in society so they decide to blow stuff up or kill people. By the way you and your halal odor pyjama wearing carcass will be the first one I visit as the President of (MRA) when we deport you back to Uzbekistan or whatever Stan you are from.
Muslims should all be deported

Because of yet another terrorist attack in New York yesterday I propose. Muslims should all be deported to Asia and Middle East from Europe and North America. Europe and North America have been Christian societies for 2000 years in Europe and 300 years in North America, the values, beliefs and traditions are all Christian based. Now all of a sudden we have the Muslim people in Europe and North America, and we have bombs going off, we have terrorist attacks in Boston, Now York San Bernandino, we have attacks all over France, Germany, Belgium. I say round up all the Muslims, grandmas, kids, parents, ALL of them from each house and deport them back to where they came from. Most terrorist attacks today are by home grown people of Muslim immigrants. I say deport them all. Just like when Hitler deported all the Jews, I say deport all the Muslims and the violence and the bombings and killing will stop. Let Christians live on separate continents from the Muslims, let the Muslims blow themselves up in Asia and the middle east. If you want to debate this, tell me why we shouldn't deport the Muslims, and don't tell me that it's only a small ratio of radical Muslims, because all Muslims hate Christians, so that argument wont fly here.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is Obvious for Emotivist Cynicism

Being lazy means not doing what you're supposed to. It can mean getting as much as one can for as little as possible, but it doesn't have to. For example, an engineer who invents an efficient machine isn't lazy. You're also taking a one-dimensional understanding of bullying and ignoring the difference between local and global entropy. The second law of thermodynamics applies to the universe in general, not to specific scenarios. Local entropy can fall while global entropy is rising. In the short-run, yes, conceding to the bully is the path of least resistance, but it comes at the sacrifice of one's sense of self. This leads to cognitive dissonance since one isn't in charge of one's own being, so at best, one defects from the bully. At worst, one contests the bully and refuses to go along with the program. In fact, we even see this in nature when it comes to the behavior of liquids and gases. If you push a liquid or gas from a certain direction, it doesn't move towards the opposite direction unless contained by a solid. Instead, it spreads out. On the other hand, solids have limited durability, and eventually, they break down from being pushed so much. We must remember that for each action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Hierarchic organizations do not necessarily exist for the sake of bullying like you described. They also exist for the sake of entrusted adjudication as well as voluntary management.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is Obvious for Emotivist Cynicism

So if people are lazy, it means getting as much as they can for as little as possible.Therefore, lazy people will only bully others if they can get something from it. We can assume that the value of what they get has to be greater than the effort they put in to obtain it.Conversely, the bullied person will only do the action the bully wants if the consequences of not doing it are worse than the bother of doing it.This means that the interaction is efficient, and is conserving energy.For example, suppose I'm going to get coffee and the bully tells me to get her one too. So I get two coffees. It takes less energy than it would have if we had each got our own coffee. The system is more efficient.That's why we have these hierarchical structures in organizations, because if we boss each other around, we get more efficiency of scale and specialization etc. So I don't see how bullying is naturally chaotic. It's the opposite.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is Obvious for Emotivist Cynicism

Being lazy is not necessarily the same as being a sloth. Yes, it can entail being unwilling to work, but a more complete definition entails not caring to do what you're supposed to. In turn, yes, lazy people can do nothing, but they can also try to get as much as they can for as little as possible. Therefore, they're willing to make the effort to make others make an effort for them. On top of this, in reality, lots of matter exists at rest while entropy is constantly rising. There is no need to believe these two forms of laziness are incompatible.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is Obvious for Emotivist Cynicism

(To be clear, the point of this debate isn't to justify a position, but to show how crazy it is such that people don't believe in it.) http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... Let us say that human nature is emotionally defined and that people act in their own self-interest. I don't agree with this, and this does not necessarily mean that people will pursue profit. For example, people can also screw around with discourse ethics in order to prop up their own social status. They do this because they just don't care. It isn't about maximizing financial capital, but political capital instead. After this, let us say that people can choose to do nothing, and in fact, emotional cynicism encourages this such that people are lazy. That is consciousness can exist in reality, but exist in a null state. Therefore, it becomes feasible for us to live in a world where literally, every "thing" is a "person". Just because things don't act until acted upon doesn't mean there isn't someone on the inside. In turn, let us say that due to human nature's emotional quality, people don't think before they act to figure out how to get things done. Again, I don't agree with this, but let's say it's true. That is basically, human nature constantly bullies each other around to do things for it, but let us say that due to human nature's emotionally cynical quality, once people are bullied around, they don't do anything. They'd rather die than do. In turn, we can believe that the natural world around us is constantly composed of people who perpetually bully each other around, mess each other up, and don't get things done. Therefore, the world should become perpetually more chaotic AKA it should constantly have more entropy. Therefore, the second law of thermodynamics is obvious.
school uniforms

I also didn't dress like that in school, but all it takes is one person to dress inappropriately to have the administration enforce a strict dress code. I don't have a problem with piercings for the most part, just as long as they are tasteful. It is just inappropriate for girls to show as much chest and butt as they do. Not to mention I don't want to see all these boxers and stuff... they make belts to solve that problem.
school uniforms

I do agree that uniforms should not be required in public schools, but with the youth as it is today, more strict dress codes are needed to disallow some of the trends in schools today. There is no reason why a 16 year old girl needs to show off her chest or have her butt hanging out of her jeans. The same goes for guys that wear their pants low enough that their boxers are barely inside of their pants. If kids today don't start cleaning up their looks, school uniforms are going to be enforced and people are going to have to front the money for them.
ALL Souls in Creation have a right to LIVE, a STANDARD of LIFE and Continuity!

"he Mind-"Soul"-Body (and Con clearly, DOES accept from the inference that Soul is easily "defined") represent Life that has a right to the Full existence-extent of its Value."- I didn't accept anything. The "soul" is not easily defined, nor is it proven to exist. What value does this "mind-body-soul" thing have? What gives it its value? "I am merely stating that Life cannot be held as cheaply as some areas of mankind and Earth Hold it So."- But it is by some as you just stated, so therefore that statement contradicts itself. Maybe it SHOULD not but you have not supported that point. "Life is an Absolute right from the moment of "Personal", "Existence" Creation of Life to the Vanishing Point at which Life has Exhausted its overall value."- As I keep asking Pro to explain, where does this absolute right come from? Who or what makes something an absolute right? "Heaven (etc.) will assure you that Life is Second to God ONLY from Creation itself; in fact what can, "God" define as Greater than Life although (of course) Less than Creation?!.. So once accepted that the FULL extent of Life-sustenance, MUST be "Upheld" then that sort of "Library Loan" MUST NOT be, casually, "Dismissed"?!.. That is all.. The argument is Clear?!.."- I think so, but you have made it really convoluted. First of all you are presupposing the existence of God which you have not proven to exist, nor have you defined. You have also not proved the existence of heaven or defined heaven. You have also not shown why or how things such as life and creation are valued or where you are getting the information about these values. Your points are completely unsupported assertions.
ALL Souls in Creation have a right to LIVE, a STANDARD of LIFE and Continuity!

Ok... Lets start over from "I Honestly Don't, understand what Pro's argument Is...".. The Debate here IS Simple.. It's, if you like, an extension of (but not including) the Abortion Debate.. The Mind-"Soul"-Body (and Con clearly, DOES accept from the inference that Soul is easily "defined") represent Life that has a right to the Full existence-extent of its Value. All I am stating is that people have a right to live On and (cheesy) "Prosper" to the Limit of what their "Statement" of Life allows.. I am merely stating that Life cannot be held as cheaply as some areas of mankind and Earth Hold it So. Life is an Absolute right from the moment of "Personal", "Existence" Creation of Life to the Vanishing Point at which Life has Exhausted its overall value. Other "Souls" (existences) may not hold Life in Contempt wherein the case is that the Life is to be, shall we say, "Terminated" against the run of its "Race". Heaven (etc.) will assure you that Life is Second to God ONLY from Creation itself; in fact what can, "God" define as Greater than Life although (of course) Less than Creation?!.. So once accepted that the FULL extent of Life-sustenance, MUST be "Upheld" then that sort of "Library Loan" MUST NOT be, casually, "Dismissed"?!.. That is all.. The argument is Clear?!..
ALL Souls in Creation have a right to LIVE, a STANDARD of LIFE and Continuity!

"Life is NOT Cheap"- Cheap? Since when does life have monetary value? "It is Dearer to God than anything except Creation itSelf?!"- This presupposes the existence of God which is not proven. Also. how does Pro know God's opinion? "The right to Life should be ABSOLUTE!.. This does Not, neceSsarily apply to Unborn Life, but Does apply to "Established" Souls?!"- First of all, Pro assertion that the right to life is absolute is unsupported. Next, Pro goes on to contradict himself by saying that the right to life does not apply to the unborn, making the right to life not absolute. Established souls? What makes an established soul? Who says a soul exists? I honestly don't understand what the rest of his paragraph was saying. "The Definition of "Soul" is Superfluous to Con's counter-claim.. Call it what you Like?!"- It certainly is not. Pro has not established what a soul is, its relevance to his argument, or proved the existence of a "soul." " It is about the basic, right for people not to be "Selected""- What does Pro mean by 'selected' and where does this right come from? Who or what validates it? "If we need to talk semantics about "Soul" then ask a Kindergarten Kid to play the Year 2 exercise in what Soul is... No-one, alive cannot sense something that represents this definition"- I do not sense a "soul" and neither do many others. Pro needs to prove the existence of a soul before he keeps ranting on about it. I honestly don't understand what Pro's argument is....
ALL Souls in Creation have a right to LIVE, a STANDARD of LIFE and Continuity!

Life is NOT Cheap.. It is Dearer to God than anything except Creation itSelf?!.. The right to Life should be ABSOLUTE!.. This does Not, neceSsarily apply to Unborn Life, but Does apply to "Established" Souls?!.. In such a Case where a Soul has Sufficient "Value" then it has sufficient, "Claim" to Living Existence, RepreSentative of that Value AND More!.. Life must be allowed to have its doman of "Worth" at the Position it Requires?!.. AND Continuity to the limits of its "Extent"! This, Must remain as what amounts to "Commandment"!.. Any Opinions?! The Definition of "Soul" is Superfluous to Con's counter-claim.. Call it what you Like?!.. Basically, the "Premise" of Life, if you prefer is my reference to an absolute right for the "Owner" of a Span of Life to have its Value extend to the full limit of its Worth.. The argument here is Not about what a Soul, "Means".. It is about the basic, right for people not to be "Selected" or etc. etc. for Not-living but to Live the Full-span and Distance that their Life-right dictates.. The argument, simply states (once again) that Life is the "Soul's" birthright and is the Foremost Upholder in a Creation more than able to Sustain ALL such "Claims"?!.. If we need to talk semantics about "Soul" then ask a Kindergarten Kid to play the Year 2 exercise in what Soul is... No-one, alive cannot sense something that represents this definition... Round 2, simply states again that Life Must gain prevalence in an "Intelligent" "Universe" from Death and his "Weak" "Harvest".. That is the simplicity of a Universe that is 400bn Light-Years Wide?!.. Ok?!..
ALL Souls in Creation have a right to LIVE, a STANDARD of LIFE and Continuity!

Life is NOT Cheap.. It is Dearer to God than anything except Creation itSelf?!.. The right to Life should be ABSOLUTE!.. This does Not, neceSsarily apply to Unborn Life, but Does apply to "Established" Souls?!.. In such a Case where a Soul has Sufficient "Value" then it has sufficient, "Claim" to Living Existence, RepreSentative of that Value AND More!.. Life must be allowed to have its doman of "Worth" at the Position it Requires?!.. AND Continuity to the limits of its "Extent"! This, Must remain as what amounts to "Commandment"!.. Any Opinions?!
If you discover a unicorn, you should give it to science

"I think you should give it to the scientist and this is why. Biologist job is to learn about animals. If you give the biologist sometime. They could figure out what they eat, where they live and how to find more." If we gave the unicorn to science, they are likely to figure out what is eats, where it lives, and maybe where to find more. But that is not all they will do. They will poke and prod the creature to find the properties that cure cancer. Conducting experiments with the sole purpose of discovering more, regardless of whether the animal feels pain or not. And even if they do treat humanely, let's say it does cure cancer. Now what? Now they hike the prices of the cure to become rich quick. Just look at chemotherapy (it's so expensive). Look at what Martin Shkreli did. Jonas Salk was just a nice dude, most people will make it incredibly expensive. And then we will be worse off because people will die from cancer even if there is a cure. "Also, if it is the last one we would be saving the species." If it is the last, we would not be saving the species. There is only one left, who will it mate with? "Lastly from what I've seen of unicorns in media, their magical. You would be giving magic to the world. And a whole entire new study would come up; Magicology. With magic we might be able to give food and water to people." Of course magic could be used for good but people will also use it for bad. With technology, there are benefits but tons of costs. Adding magic into the mix has more costs than benefits. Criminals learning magic for their own good. Think of a Magic Mafia. Or a Magic North Korea. Think of World War 3 but with magic instead. Doesn't sound too fun does it? The best thing to do is to let the unicorn go. It avoids mistreatment and world war 3 with magic!
If you discover a unicorn, you should give it to science

I think you should give it to the scientist and this is why. Biologist job is to learn about animals. If you give the biologist sometime. They could figure out what they eat, where they live and how to find more. Also, if it is the last one we would be saving the species. Lastly from what I've seen of unicorns in media, their magical. You would be giving magic to the world. And a whole entire new study would come up; Magicology. With magic we might be able to give food and water to people.
Resolved: That all forms of slavery are morally unacceptable

Thank you. "Well you have to look at #8 of my argument" And you have to look at my refutation "So you're saying that the right to read is not important eh? Ever heard of "knowledge is power." Maybe they would want to read so they wouldn't be ILLITERATE, whereas they wouldn't be able to recognize their legal rights or political powers, and they wouldn't be reliant on their masters to inform them about society." A slave becomes much less valueable when they can only work part time. The slave wouldn't go to school so they could get done faster. "Well what if you've been in debt for quite a while? And what if you couldn't afford to pay off the debts in time? It's either slavery or prison! I think I'll take the slavery for 200 Alex (it's a joke off of a Tyler Perry movie)" If you HAD another source of employment, you could pay off the debt. It is unlikely the slavemaster would take the slave because he would have to give him food, shelter, and water. By being a slave because of debt, you would just "Get along" without making any real money. "No, I think we'll be fine." Not an argument. Without money to gauge how much money is worth, people will disagree. "I think so" I disagree. Thank you
Resolved: That all forms of slavery are morally unacceptable

^o^ Ok let me rebut your counterarguments. ""1) Slave can own property" How can you maintain property with no income?" Well you have to look at #8 of my argument ""3) Slave can be educated" Why would they want to be? They would never use those skills if they are being forced to work in fields." O.o So you're saying that the right to read is not important eh? Ever heard of "knowledge is power." Maybe they would want to read so they wouldn't be ILLITERATE, whereas they wouldn't be able to recognize their legal rights or political powers, and they wouldn't be reliant on their masters to inform them about society. ""8) Slave can work elsewhere" If you can work elsewhere to get a source of income to pay off debt, you would not need to become a slave to pay off debt." Well what if you've been in debt for quite a while? And what if you couldn't afford to pay off the debts in time? It's either slavery or prison! I think I'll take the slavery for 200 Alex (it's a joke off of a Tyler Perry movie) ""10) Slavery is a form of punishment or to pay off debts" That is fine until we begin to disagree on how much slavery is worth, and how much work slaves have to do." No, I think we'll be fine. ""Under those circumstances, slavery is perfectly fine." I think not." I think so Thank you