BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Terrorists should be killed not put in jail

While I agree that terrorist and terrorist acts are despicable in nature and in many cases deserve swift and just punishment we cannot abandon our morals and values in pursuit of revenge.Due ProcessIn the United States we believe in something known as due process. Before you go to jail or get the chair you must first go through a very structured process of justice to be sure that everyone gets a fair shake. Even terrorists. If we just give people death without due process or without chance for jail we are no better than the terrorists themselves who assigned themselves the position of judge, jury and executioner during their terrorist activities. "An eye for an eye" This is a term for revenge plain and simple. If someone takes your eye you wish to see their eye gone as well. Governments, especially one as well known and respected as the United States government (or any Western country for that matter) cannot partake in the business of revenge. There is no place for it. If we are to say that we believe in freedom and are opposed to terrorists then we must give everyone a fair and decent chance at life and liberty. We cannot practice revenge. Inflaming Passions If we decide to just put terrorists to death then we run the risk of inflaming the passions of various groups. These groups include: nationalists, human rights proponents, religious groups and international organizations. We cannot risk endangering more lives due to revenge or anger due to these killings. If terrorists know they will be killed if captured by the United States they will obtain a "nothing to lose" attitude which will make them that much more dangerous. Also, we would lose a lot of respect on the world stage particularly from the UN and liberal Western Europe.Did you see the backlash the US got from water boarding? That's not even considered a real form of torture. Can you imagine if we just put all these people to death? While terrorists are evil we cannot just put them to death. Not all of them necessarily deserve death and we have to extend to them the chance to prove their innocence before execution if one is warranted.
Terrorists should be killed not put in jail

I think that terrorists should be killed by the chair and not be put in jail. I'm sure there will be lots of people saying that it is there right to go to jail and not just be killed. Terrorists kill too many people to just be put in jail and not be worried about for the rest of there life. There is the chance they will escape and kill even more people. There is always the rule an eye for an eye. Why not make that the lives of thousands of people for the life of 1 man. Take this website for example . http://www.allvoices.com... That's 400 terrorists that are back in our world because the chair was not used.
Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide.

Pro will make a brief summary. Pro has proven meat, eggs, and dairy are unhealthy. Pro has also proven that a person can receive enough nutrients on a vegan diet. Finally Pro has proven that a vegan diet is healthier. Con's arguments are redundant and non-persuasive. Pro has proven the environmental harm of non-vegan foods. Pro has also proven animal cruelty. Last, but not least Pro has shown that more people could be fed if every was vegan. Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide.
Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide.

Resolution: Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide. This is a normative resolution. I Pro will contend for the resolution. Con will contend against the resolution. Meat " the flesh of an animal used as food" [1] Dairy "Full Definition of DAIRY 1 : a room, building, or establishment where milk is kept and butter or cheese is made 2 a : the department of farming or of a farm that is concerned with the production of milk, butter, and cheese b : a farm devoted to such production 3 : an establishment for the sale or distribution chiefly of milk and milk products "[2] Eggs " the egg of a bird (especially a chicken) eaten as food"[3] Ban " : to forbid people from using (something) : to say that something cannot be used or done : to forbid (someone) from doing or being part of something "[4] Some have fear of a one world government. This doesn't have to be the case. Individual nations and states could ban meat, eggs, and dairy. Similar to every state seems to have traffic ordinances. Thank you for taking the time to read this debate. Links 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 3. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 4. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Kids under 13 should not be dating for real.

I can understand your argument about how, maturity-wise, younger people may think they are playing a game and it will play an assumption that the other gender is, in your words, a jerk. Yes, there are those childhood phases we go through where it's like 'Oh, boys/girls have cooties' or whatever immature assumption that can be made, but it seems like you are focusing on just a select group of children, but not all. I also find it interesting how you are focusing on boys not being able to handle the pressure, when that can go both ways. I would see that 2 kids, who are a 'couple', may be able to handle it more maturely in the 10-12 age range than below. I think another factor could be how the kids are raised, whether it be to respect people for who they are and how to handle certain friendships as you develop, or if the parents of said couple were able to make their own decision on whether or not they feel their children are ready. I mean, parental interference is possible for any kid/teen dating, so it's not all that different.
Kids under 13 should not be dating for real.

I see what your saying but with children it is mostly and I am not making this up boys vs girls because children do not have the mature mind to relize that they are playing game a game that is just an experience and to them its the real world even though to us its not. I mostly see this through boys hitting the age of pueberty before the are teens. Boys around that age can not handle the pressure of breaking up because when one boy or girl is hurt emotionally the whole gender thinks the other one is a jerk.
Kids under 13 should not be dating for real.

'By the way I am not posting this because of jealously which I am not.' I appreciate the clarification, as if it was because of that, it would just be a obvious call for sympathy. 'But when 10 year old's say that same thing and they "Break up" they will possibly lose friends that they may have known for years' So you're basically saying that after breaking up, there is the possibility of absolutely no path for restoration or closure? If so, you need to face the fact that that is possible for any type of relationship, for any age group, not just one.
Kids under 13 should not be dating for real.

From what I understand from your 'statement', it seems to be more about confusion or just flat out jealousy, but I could be totally wrong. My argument is that as long as kids under 13 who choose to date are aware of the choices, risks, dedication, and emotions that encompass dating and feel they are mature enough to do so, they should be allowed to. I personally think it's rather cute when someone at a young age has a 'boyfriend' or 'girlfriend', and it doesn't mean that they are going to flat out have sex with one another.
Philosophy is not wisdom, but rather tedious long opinions of a man about nothing exciting

Objection One: Benefits of PhilosophyPhilosophy is the groundworks of all science(s), and the ultimate aim of humanity is not to discard philosophy, but eventually, to make philosophy another science. The opp. says that philosophy has never been adaventageous to any art. Philosophy however, is the groundwork to all scientific studies; it was philosophy that led to optics, and eyeglasses. It was the natural philosopher Isaac Newton who discovered that white was a combination of light. It was Aristotle who created logical reasoning, and henceforth, he outrightly created modern mathmatical logic. Philosophy's contribution to the world has been tremendous; the computers you are using right now make usage of propositional calculus to determine of what "it woud do" after you press a button. "ALL men by nature desire to know. An indication of this is the delight we take in our senses; for even apart from their usefulness they are loved for themselves; and above all others the sense of sight. For not only with a view to action, but even when we are not going to do anything, we prefer seeing (one might say) to everything else. The reason is that this, most of all the senses, makes us know and brings to light many differences between things. Aristotle, Metaphysics Bk. IObjection Two: FallaciesThe opposition has simply strawman'ed philosophical works with this "Alan Watts" character. Boredom is a subjective measure, and cannot be said to be objectively boring until reason has been employed with it. RESOLUTION REMAINS NEGATED
Philosophy is not wisdom, but rather tedious long opinions of a man about nothing exciting

It is an interesting argument, but it forgets the fact that philosophy has never benefited of anything. Philosophy are never the reality but the opinion of a boring man, my proofs are Alan Watts was nothing but a man writing a diary about his views on Zen Buddhism and he is called for a philosopher, I wouldn't say that. And that is a excellent evidence to support my arguments. Thank you, I look forward to your response.
Philosophy is not wisdom, but rather tedious long opinions of a man about nothing exciting

Definitions:1. Philosophy shall be defined as the study of reality, reasoning, society, morality, mind, knowledge and language. 2. Wisdom shall have the usual Aristotelian connotation; that is, wisdom is the knowledge of causes and effect3. Opinions shall be defined as the thoughts of someone BoP lies upon the oppositionArguments:Prop. 1 All studies derive from opinionsDemonstration: Let us assert the normative scientific method first; the truth is derived in a threefold process that concludes with an inferred conclusion deriving from the yielded data. The first step in the process is called the "hypothesis" This is an assertion of one quality, of one observation, from the world. Then let us assume that "philosophy" is the study of an opinion. The philosophy the opposition talks about is that of metaphysics; the opposition affirms that nihlism and the like is a "long tedious study of untestable science" However, the basis of all scientific structures derive from the need to affirm or deny a hypothesis. This is an epistemological premise that has created the modern scientific community.Prop. 2 Metaphysics is not the study of opinionDemonstration: Metaphysics is an a priori discipline. This is analytically true, for if metaphysics were a posteriori, then it would be necessary for metaphysics to be objective. However, metaphysics is the study into the perception of reality; this idealistic presumption is supported by the fact that the mind perceives a material reality, but inherently this material reality is a creation of the mind. Henceforth, this a priori study called metaphysics is not the study of the opinions of one per se, for opinions is the thoughts of one, but the study of metaphysics is the study of perception. On Philosophy being UntestableSomething being untestable is not a measure of wisdom, but of objectivity. If philosophy was not wisdom, then it would affirm that a rational basis does not exist, and would be based on faith. Since analytically, wisdom is the knowledge of causes, then philosophy is wise as it studies the causes of our wisdom, of our knowledge etc.
JFK was a Better President than Ronald Reagan

I do not doubt Margaret Thatcher's role in bringing an end to the Cold War, however it can be argued that the ensuing collapse of the Soviet Union had a larger effect on world affairs than did Kennedy's successes in either the Cuban missile crisis or Berlin crisis. Nations would be liberated and could establish free economies. This was a gigantic diplomatic achievement for both Thatcher and Reagan. By 1989, unemployment was down to 5.8%, and while, yes, Kennedy had a lower number, this can be accounted for by the sheer growth of the American workforce from the 1960s to the 1980s. Any president has limited control over the economic situations that may arise during his administration. http://reagan.procon.org... http://www.class.uh.edu...
JFK was a Better President than Ronald Reagan

Reaganomics had also significant impacts on the American economy. In his two terms in office, the National Debt nearly tripled as a result of Reaganomics. Also the top income tax rate was down 28% in his last year of office, one of the lowest points ever. Also under Reagan inflation at one point sparked over 10%, a startling number. Kennedy would inherit at 6.6% unemployment rate and drop it to 3.8%. Kennedy's tax cuts also helped stimulate the economy, as I said before, reaching heights unseen since WWII. Although Reagan receives credit for the end of the Cold War, it was United Kingdom Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher would help Ronald Reagan end the Cold War. The Iron Lady was credited for first speaking to Mikhail Gorbachev and as a result would lay the foundations for the end of the Cold War. Kennedy would need to foreign help in his successes in the Berlin Crisis or the Cuban Missile Crisis during his Presidency. http://useconomy.about.com... http://www.npr.org... http://www.heritage.org...
JFK was a Better President than Ronald Reagan

Ronald Reagan's success can be measured by his foreign policy which eventually brought the Cold War to a close and destroyed the Soviet Union, fundamentally altering foreign affairs from the decades-long power struggle between the US and USSR, as well as domestic economic growth and commitment to spreading international democracy. He increased defense spending to outpace the Soviet arms buildup, predicting that a socialist system could not match the productivity of capitalism. In 1987, Reagan's personal influence led Soviet premier Gorbachev to sign the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty which reduced both nations' nuclear weapons. Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, the "star wars" defense shield that would protect the US from a nuclear attack, may not have been realistic but was a threat that quelled Soviet aggression. When Reagan took office, he combated inflation and a stagnant economy left by the ineffective Carter administration. Over his two terms in office, the GDP increased by 3.5% each year, for a total increase of 32% from 1981 to 1988. Average household income increased by 10%, and Reagan's famous tax cuts (the Economic Recovery Tax Act in 1981) reduced marginal taxes by 25% and gave incentives to the developing technology industry, as new companies like Intel and Microsoft would require jobs and expand the economy. Over eight years, 16.1 million new jobs were created. http://www.history.com... http://www.heritage.org... http://www.forbes.com... http://www.nytimes.com...
JFK was a Better President than Ronald Reagan

President Kennedy was a better President than Ronald Reagan based on: economic success, handling of foreign affairs, and domestic advancements. During President Kennedy's tenure, he developed a tax cut that would drop corporate income taxes from 52% to 47% and marginal incomes from 90% to 71%. Kennedy would never see his tax plans go into effect until 1964, while LBJ was in office. As a result, the Kennedy Administration would cause American economic growth not seen since WWII. Kennedy is most well known for handling issues with the Soviet Union. Despite his failure in the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy masterfully handled the Berlin Crisis, and then would be victorious in The Cuban Missile Crisis, preventing a Nuclear War. As a result, Kennedy's success in the Cuban Missile Crisis would be the downfall to Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev, making Kennedy a prominent World Leader. Lastly Kennedy succeeded domestically, making the United States a better place. Kennedy pushed for Civil Rights throughout his Presidency. He would secure African Americans voting rights, and his work would lay the foundation to many of the Civil Rights bills eventually passed. http://www.econreview.com... http://www.pbs.org... http://www.pbs.org...
Obama is a failure

"1. The national debt went up by 6 trillion2. He continued with wars from bush3. The economy is still super sluggish4. He lies and breaks his promises"These are good things? You do realise that you are con which means you are opposed to the statement "Obama is a failure."I say Obama is a failure because he doesn't take an ideology and sticks with it. He made the 'red line' statement but then a year later doesn't act on it. He made it clear that if Syria uses chemical weapons then USA will get involved but then didn't. This has led to President Putin of the Russian Federation messing around with him. He said that Russia will take the burden of bombing Syria which allowed Obama to make a fool of himself, saying that Russia will bomb Syria so USA won't have to, just to have Putin say that he won't take care of Syria. Not to say that I support bombing of other countries but Obama said that there was a red line and if Syria crosses it then USA will take action; he said this firm and stern but then didn't stick to what he said. Now we have had Putin taking Crimea with Obama powerless to stop him.The Obama said some things that ensured to american citizens that the National Security Agency isn't listening to phones calls or spying through the internet on american citizens; turned out they were.http://thedailyshow.cc.com...
Porn is the perfect propaganda towards patriarchy

Can I cancel this debate? I framed this debate wrong I meant to frame it more in a way that is discussing how porn in a general basis (not all porn) is a large part of a growing sexist, objectifying and sexualized culture If you want to debate that, I can challenge you, but honestly the way I framed this debate is not really how I intended to argue this. Sorry, and thank you for your time
Porn is the perfect propaganda towards patriarchy

I will be arguing that porn is not patriarchal by nature or degrading towards women.Pro has already commited these fallacies:1- Fallacy of Composition2- Hasty Generlization Pro is also begging the question as they have not defined what they mean by patriarchal or given evidence that pornography is patriarchal. I encourage pro to do this.Problems with pornography being degrading or patriarchal by nature to women.Not all pornography even includes man on woman or any woman at all.Not all pornography is degrading towards woman.Not all pornography is subjugates woman and even the opposite exist.Not all pornography viewers are men watching women.So the pro's position is already contradictory because the argument is pornography is "degrading towards women on the terms that it treats them like sex objects" and yet there are pornography where this is not the case.It is like saying the internet is a tool for pornography, but this is contradictory because it is used for other things.There are simply to many variables for pornography to deem it the "perfect propaganda towards patriarchy". It is cleary very imperfect as it does not hold water when one considers the variables.Closehttp://en.wikipedia.org...;
Porn is the perfect propaganda towards patriarchy

Gail Dines said, "'[p]ornography is the perfect propaganda piece for patriarchy. In nothing else is their hatred of us quite as clear.' http://en.wikipedia.org... I will be arguing that porn is degrading towards women on the terms that it treats them like sex objects, it is violent to women during production, and it promotes hatred toward women. I will be arguing that porn is a reflection of a predominately sexist society and promotes a patriarchy in every way possible Con will be arguing that porn is not degrading or patriarchal by nature and will provide their reasons for it
flappy bird sucks

Flappy Bird is a game which literally grasped the attention of a huge majority of people. There is a reason behind this. The fact that this game offers a challenge is what makes it a game satisfactory for entertainment and friendly challenges between friends, whether on the bus to school or waiting at the airport for your delayed flight. The game takes on the traditional, simple, yet fun and challenging style of arcade gameplay which has become rare in today's society of high quality graphics on high definition televisions and desktops. Arcade games with more attention to the challenge of gameplay rather than the detail in graphics are indeed a sight for sore eyes. Your argument is ambiguous. Are you criticising the fact that it is "unsuccessful" (Regardless of the fact that there were a reported 50 million downloads- thus raking in over $50,000 a day for the developer of the game, Nguyen)? Or are you criticising the game for the fact that it's a "rip off" due to the pipes? You then raise the argument that it is not even a bird. As aforementioned the graphics are that of an arcade game, the specific genre which this game was set at; you cannot expect them to be 3D high quality graphics for a simple arcade game which is set to make a challenge and entertain people as they try to beat their high score. To continue, you state "How is it a bird when it CAN'T FLY" followed by "You need to TAP TO FLY" - This is what is called the objective and challenge of the game, in order to keep the bird elevated you must tap the screen. Each tap counts as one flap by the birds wings, which is how a bird actually flies in real life. Flappy Bird has proven that even the most simplistically designed games can become successful and world-renown with a notoriety for being entertainingly addictive.
flappy bird sucks

The game is unsuccesfulIt has been closed down and is unsuccsfulThe game is a rip off from mario The pipes are a rip offTHE game makes no senseThe game makes no sense at all it is just simple tap and when you click and you dont go hitting the pipe you dieIt is not even a birdHow is it a bird when it cant fly you need to tap to fly and also it doesnt even look like a bird more like a fish
The unification of humanity/world peace.

Humanity may refer to: The human species. The total world population. http://en.wikipedia.org... When you say humanity, you actually say everybody in the world. But the question is: Is peace possible? I say no. Why do I say this? It is because peace is never possible because there is always evil in the world. Even 'evil' in itself is relative since what we may see as evil may not be so to others. What we say as 'good' may not be good to other people of different nationality and culture. But let me point out that the term used is 'humanity'. It means that the total world population can attain peace. This is absolutely false. There may have some instances that peace may seem present. Such as during an Olympic game for example. But is that true all over the world? If it is true then we don't need laws since all is expected to do what is right. If you can give me an instance that there is peace all over the world at the same time, them i concede. but until then, peace is impossible for men. For when there is light, darkness is also there. The 'yin' and 'yang' of the Asian philosophy can prove this. But I do not say that we stop dreaming or continue to attain peace. There are many great women and men who sought peace. their greatness will always be remembered since they fought to make possible the impossible. But the truth still remains. Until all humanity has greed and selfishness in their hearts, the peace that we all want to attain will forever be an impossible dream.