BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Unemployed teenagers must accept any legitimate job offer or lose their entitlement to welfare

Everyone should be entitled to have a job which they are at least competent at, if not very good at. The reason for this that if they are not good at it they will instead have taken up a job space which an extremely competent adult could instead have taken and thus the company's efficiency in that sector/department will inevitably go down overall. There is no sense forcing the teen to do a job she is bad at and would never enjoy because as we know, humans are both emotional and rational creatures and if she absolutely hates the job she'll never do it as well as a lover of it. In essence, unemployed teenagers should instead be forced to accept the first job for which they would be the best option for not the first job for which they are offered but would be total crap at (and know it).While the issue regarding the fairness on taxpayer's money is well-founded it's not as well founded as the fact that taxpayers will also want to know that their money went to funding efficient workers. It's far worse to go to an understaffed brothel than a brothel with receptionists who are rude as hell and barely even do their job, meaning there are essentially zero efficient staff.Teenagers who are clearly refusing to accept a job would actually accept it just to get fired. This would then be the perfect excuse for claiming unemployment benefits yet again. And whilst they were doing the job they both hated and were crap at, they actually could have been searching for a job they wouldn't have reacted so volatile too and inevitably have furthered the economy far better with their time and effort than with the system proposed.It is now time for me to conclude that whilst taxpayers don't want to fund laziness they also don't want to fund inefficient job vacancy theft which will inevitably begin occurring on a large scale if accepting the first job offer is compulsory.
Unemployed teenagers must accept any legitimate job offer or lose their entitlement to welfare

When jobless Christine Hirmer (name changed), 19, from Augsburg, near Munich in Germany, received a letter from the government department of employment offering her the chance of a full-time job she "was horrified" and said she would "need a few days to recover from the shock". [1] Being German, the problem was not so much that she was too lazy to take the job, but rather that she thought that working as a receptionist for the prospective employer concerned would be beneath her. However, I contend that she should be in no position to take this elitist attitute while hard-working German taxpayers are funding her living expenses. Furthermore, the brothel which had the job vacancy: the Colosseum Privater FKK Sauna Club; is one of the largest establishments of its kind in Augsburg and, if Christine had worked hard and was reliable, she might one day have been welcoming sweating fat clients to one of the up-market whorehouses in Bavaria's capital city of Munich, or even greeting international punters to one of the world-famous knocking-shops on Hamburg's Reeperbahn. And who know's where she could have gone from there? This is a missed opportunity for which the German taxpayer is expected to pay, which is patently unfair. Of course, being a receptionist is not as well-paid or as glamorous as being an actual prostitute, but everybody has to start their career somewhere, and someone has to answer the door and show clients through to the madam, so why not her? In conclusion, I believe that young jobless people receiving government handouts should not be allowed to turn down perfectly good job offers just so that they can continue to doss about at the taxpayers' expense, and that's why I assert that unemployed teenagers must accept any legitimate job offer or lose their welfare entitlement. Thank you. [1] http://www.augsburger-allgemeine.de...
Models of Climate Change and weather forcasts are equally wrong, most often.

What does subways have to do with climate change? Even though the idea of subways was to allow freedom of movement at all times, it is still a idea or vision for the subway and that does not mean it works in practice. Putting the subways aside; no it is not always that the weather forecasts are exact, but they are very often right. When we see a weather forecast, you are right that they are not 100% right, but there is a good reason for that. When you have to forecast the weather, you look at the different pressures in the different areas and thereby predicting e.g. a storms movement a behaviour. So when you see a weather forecast, it is 100% right if nothing in the pressure changed since it was made. Climate change and weather forecast are scientifically proved. Since we can measure the amount of carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere which is 0.06%, while it was 0.05% 50 years ago. That's an increase on 20% which is obvious with the boom in the oil industry.
Models of Climate Change and weather forcasts are equally wrong, most often.

In ancient times, like when subways were invented, the idea was to allow freedom of movement even when there was a big snowstorm. Why did the subways get closed, and the streets and sidewalks have marshal law imposed for a small snow storm? Keep trusting the climatologists, as they are much smarter then the meteorologists that fail regularly with no repercussions. The ability to predict the weather beyond 12 hours only depends on the size of the storm.
Models of Climate Change and weather forcasts are equally wrong, most often.

Enviomentalism is a religion not climate change. We do not have to live eternally to see the effects of global warming. Of course we can not predict the outcome of the global warming other than we know it has happened frequently in the past. The climate has a cycle where ice age is the last stage (or the first depending on how you put it). Global warming follows the average temperature of the earth. This does not mean that all over the world it will get hotter. Global warming does not only result in warmer temperatures, but also in more violent storms, more violent earthquakes etc. We can prove climate change by just looking at pictures of glaciers now and 50 years ago (http://nsidc.org...).
Models of Climate Change and weather forcasts are equally wrong, most often.

Climate change is a religion, as we will not be alive to see the truth of the predictions. Weather forecasts are often wrong, and the science of the immediate future of a local climate should be more easily predictable. Climate change will happen, the direction, warming or cooling, is unpredictable. The true path of a storm is unpredictable. Diblasio is a fear monger along the lines of his political god, Gore.
The Trade Embargo With Cuba Should Be Lifted

The 100 year old investment-banking firm of Warburg, Dillon Read (on Park Ave. N.Y.) (now UBS Warburg) has offices in 39 foreign countries - including the Bahamas, the tiny Cayman Islands, Hong Kong and the Channel Islands. Makes you wonder why, doesn't it? Non-resident foreign companies, trusts, banks and individuals can trade stocks, bonds, commodity contracts and options 100% free from U.S. capital gains taxes. Under the U.S. Tax Code, only when a foreign company, foreign trust or nonresident alien individual takes up permanent residence within the United States will he be subject to U.S. capital gains taxes in the same way as domestic taxpayers. For a corporation permanent residence would be a U.S. office or warehouse. Capital gains realized by foreign corporations and other nonresidents "not engaged in a trade or business within the United States" are exempted from tax under IRC Section 871 and IRC Section 881 & IRC Section 897(c)(3). Moreover, U.S. Treasury Regulations Section 864-2(C)(1) & (2) provides an exception for what embodies being "engaged in a trade or business within the United States". Under U.S. regulations, a nonresident's Stock Market transactions carried-out through a U.S. stock broker, independent agent, or an employee are not considered to cause the nonresident to be "engaging in a trade or business within the United States". What you fail to realize that the Cuban people WILL be subject to more oppression and taking advantage of. Cuba will now turn into a garbage industrial giant of cheap hotels and business. And then the money earned goes right back to whatever foreign nation has developed these, leaving the Cuban economy penniless. So, the Cuban people are in the same spot they are with the open market. As long as the dictatorship stands they will suffer. The embargo lift will only make money to profit a repressive regime. Iraq is fair to use because it is a factual comparison of success that you fail to provide yourself. I have concrete evidence where you rely on many "what-ifs". You agree that the reigns of Cuba run deep with Comms so what makes you think that lifting the embargo will change the way they rule? I am not sure. I didn't know giving Communist money and power will make them want to change their nation for the betterment of their citizens. Yes it has been very long since we have enacted the embargo, however if it was necessary and beneficial for the US to lift it, wouldn't it have been done already? Perhaps after the 25 year mark? This is because of the facts I presented along with the unpredictability of Cuba's cooperation at the international markets through free trade, human rights, etc. As for China I never said that the rights of these workers or Cubans workers should be ignored. I merely made a point that we benefit from the exploitation of the Communist free market approach in China. I do not support human rights violations either, but hey that's why we aren't the ones making cash and decisions in D.C. right?
The Trade Embargo With Cuba Should Be Lifted

Note: I am going on vacation tomorrow morning, so if we don't finish and I forfeit a round, I'm sorry in advance. The trade embargo with Cuba is not justified. Many people claim that we cannot trade with a Communist nation. But think about where we get most of our exports: China. China is a Communist nation and is more dangerous than Cuba. China is a well-known violator of human rights and will one day pass America as the only world power. Why are we helping them with our trade? But before I get too off topic, let's go back to Cuba. An economic partnership with Cuba would greatly benefit both countries, especially if Cuba agreed to allow tourism. Americans are led to believe that Cuba is the enemy because they once were a nuclear threat. Well, WWII was started by Germany, but now Germany is one of our largest trading partners. I guess the real question is, why not lift the embargo?
Rap Battle *ANYONE EVERYONE STEP RIGHT UP!!*

Ima beast whoever steps up gon be roastedBut at least don't be shy, ya raps should be postedFor all DDO to see I need yo help for me to be boasted! You should be shy cuz iz by me dat dis battle be hosted!! Rules: ~maximum 40 lines; no minimum but voters must judge according to how many lines are presented by each rapper (so, if you wanna win, don't post 12 lines for each round and be done, but it's still optional). ~LAST ROUND is complimentary. ~If a rapper forfeits or does not apply these rules his opponent automatically wins. Voters look for: 1) Bar length - In my opinion, every line should be the same length. Were each rappers too short or too long to your distaste? 2) Aggression - If you favor aggression, Was it aggressive? How aggressive? What was aggressive about either rapper's lyrics (ex. death threats, boasting, etc.) 3) Originality - Were their verses original? What did you like? What was original about it? 4) Rhyme schemes - What kinds of rhymes did you like (ex. multis, slant, internal, etc.)? 5) Personals - What bars did you find devastating on each rapper's reputation or character? 6) Disses - What jokes (ex. yo momma jokes, appearance jokes, personality jokes, etc.) did you like? 7) Rebuttals - Rebuttals are when a rapper addresses a bar, flips it, and disses you back. How effective were they? Why? 8) Imagery - How detailed is the imagery presented? What's unique? What did you like? What metaphors and similes as well as other literary devices stood out to you? 9) Word-play - What word puns did you find most clever? What did you like about them? 10) Complexity - How creative were their lyrics? What stood out to you? What ideas and/or thoughts did you find most appealing and entertaining? *courtesy Truth_seeker* LET THE RAPPING BEGIN!
Rap Battle *ANYONE EVERYONE STEP RIGHT UP!!*

Yea my opponent right here don't know what he got into He's laughable, I'm inconceivable, Ima rip apart his tutu My pants didn't sh*t, dey jist look so darn dominant! Your bailiwick is gone and my rappin' comes fluent! Dude stop tryna act like your powerful Yo so stuck up you can't feel the gravity pull! I'm more strapping than Vladimir Putin hisself [1] Look at yo body, compared to me you're an elf! So go buy your neigbor's armor, use his sword and shield But nuthins stoppin me, I got my own private force field My army is invisible, it attacks like the Death Angel in Exodus [2] You won't get a word out before I swipe you down, you won't even cuss What's the deal with your ears and face? Yo expression tells me you don't know this place The eyes are gauged and you got no nose You aint got a mouth! I suppose ya don't even have clothes! Ya asss was kicked out the universe by Superman [3] Shiva fought you, he left you without a life or plan! [4] You lost against Clayface, he's my 5th generation grandpa! [5] Now your facing me an' I don't expect a good rhyme or nah! But you might not get a chance to rap, Im already beatin ya up like crap I'm on my 100 and second and still doin it, you workin on yo first lap! There is a big difference between our levels of maturity Ima send you to boot camp but chop off ya feet, it won't be pretty! [1] http://www.businessinsider.com... [2] http://biblehub.com... [3] http://i.kinja-img.com... [4] http://i.kinja-img.com... [5] http://i.kinja-img.com...
College athletes should be allowed to make money related to playing

This debate comes from the following Opinion. http://www.debate.org... The terms "make money" and "paid" refer to monetary or any highly liquidable asset (meaning something that can be turned into cash pretty easily and quickly) for compensation, beyond just scholarships that cover the cost of the schooling and housing. I will be arguing for a structured compensation with limits and regulations, but it will allow players to be paid and collect cash. My opponent will be arguing that players not be paid in anything highly liquidable. He does not have to argue that they need to abolish scholarships or anything of the sort. The intent of this debate should be clear. Any attempt to use semantics to corrupt or argue something outside the spirit of the debate shall not count towards arguments and count against conduct. My opponent may start their arguments their R1, or accept and pass for me to start R2. Thank you,
College athletes should be allowed to make money related to playing

Thank you for challenging me to this debate and letting me extend my turn. My apologies for forfeiting the previous round; I have been extremely busy. Let me start by arguing your points, which will be followed by how payment will give advantages and disadvantages to different colleges depending on the wealth of the college. Then I will argue with a counter to your alternative, so I"ll get started. ========Problems that would occur upon the changing of the system==== I understand the challenges that some college athletes face from lack of pay, but there are reasons for not being able to sell their own merchandise. Imagine how players could go out of control by selling autographs, jerseys, etc. to make a living. That would make every other business in that trade fold completely until there"s a complete control of the market from the players themselves. I believe that that is a necessary evil to protect other businesses. Next: If how much money you get paid had an impact on which school you went to, imagine how that could completely undermine the choice of school from other factors. The wealthier schools would be able to essentially bribe a player into going to their school. That gives a tremendous disadvantage to less wealthy schools. If athletes were to get paid, schools working to build upon their athletics program wouldn"t stand a chance. I believe that it would completely creates a class system of college athletics program. ===========My Solution:=========== Athletes can be allowed to receive money to help them get by financially in college. It would not be illegal for coaches, family members, teammates, friends, etc. to give or lend money or give gifts (i.e. food). If we allow players to sell their own merchandise, we would be making people in that business commit suicide. That is why my solution is a better option then the one previously stated before. Since I am completely on a time crunch, I will state my sources in my next argument (I"m really sorry I keep having to delay like this).
Quote Wars

This si it. the ultimate quote battle. 1-3 quotes each round. can use video games, songs, books, poems, movies, tv shows, or people famous in their field (i.e. famous actors, well known philosophers, etc). as long as it fits in the 8,000 characters its good. points to be distributed based on the epicness of quotes round-by-round, as in if i win first, they win second and third, then i get fourth then each 2 points. if a sweep in your view grant 7.
Legalizing marijuana

Marijuana should not be legalized. Marijuana is the most commonly abused illegal drug in the U.S. and around the world. Those who support its legalization, for medical or for general use, fail to recognize that the greatest costs of marijuana are not related to its prohibition; they are the costs resulting from marijuana use itself. The effects of marijuana are harmful and often lead to other drugs. If we legalize marijuana we will be opening up the gateway of drugs to impressionable teens. The legalization will increase the chances of the drugs falling into teens hands. Why would we want to make it easier to obtain such harmful drugs? Legalizing marijuana is not going to stop the illegal selling of the drug. For example Gambling was made legal and is now taxed, but that has not stopped illegal gambling. Legalization of marijuana is just going to set us up for illegal marijuana trafficing to avoid taxes. Also the legalization of marijuana will increase the number of people using the drug in the united states. The numbers may not increase quickly but like tobacco and alcohol, the numbers of people with addiction to marijuana will increase. How in the world could people think that legalizing a harmful drug is a good idea, lets risk everyones health and lives to make a few extra bucks. Why dont we stop paying some people like stock brockers so much if we are in such dire need for money. Also After doing some research about the effects of marijuana i found that there are over 10,000 scientific studies that prove marijuana is a harmful addictive drug. There is not one reliable study that demonstrates marijuana has any medical value. Marijuana is an unstable mixture of more than 425 chemicals that convert to thousands when smoked. Many of these chemicals are toxic, psychoactive chemicals which are largely unstudied and appear in uncontrolled strengths. The harmful consequences of smoking marijuana include, but are not limited to the following: premature cancer, addiction, coordination and perception impairment, a number of mental disorders including depression, hostility and increased aggresiveness, general apathy, memory loss, reproductive disabilities, and impairment to the immune system. Another point is if marijuana is legalized, whos to say people wont get bored of it and start experimenting with other drugs once the marijuana stops giving them a high. When everyones tolerance is up because getting pot is so easy, the gateway is open. Now someone tell me why in the world legalizing marijuana is the smartest decision for the U.S cause frankly I don't see much benefits to killing our own people.
We should decrease cash handouts.

Before you all grab your pitchforks and prepare to burn me at a stake, let me explain this argument. 1) This is talking about giving cash to groups of all sizes (people, groups, countries, continents) and all classes (low income, mid income, high income) 2) This does not mean to stop cash handouts completely just decrease. 3) This is not a country specific topic, it is a worldwide issue. 1st round for acceptance only. 2nd round opening statements 3rd rebuttals and summary only (No new points)
Should schools bring back hitting kids for a punishment

First thing is first think back to your grandparents, then think of yourself. who is more responsible. grand parents right? that because they were punished the right way. you did something wrong they got hit. now a days kids just get yelled at, newsflash people kids don't care, I would know I am one, however I get hit and people around my town actually compliment my dad on how well I behave and how good he raised me.
Should schools bring back hitting kids for a punishment

true but with todays high speed internet teachers could send mass emails to the childrens parents and nottify them of any homewok or paperwork that is to be done or signed. and then if the child doesnt do its homework that is a home problem. hitting kids at school would benifit society by teaching them responsibility. also the teachers could check the students work. Then if it is not done the teacher has the right to spank
Should schools bring back hitting kids for a punishment

Spanking teaches children to lie to avoid detection or to avoid you. When you think about punishment, it generally does not deter behavior unless the punisher is present. Most people do what they want to do, unless the risk of detection is high. Punishment teaches children to avoid detection by avoiding his or her parents. from http://psychcentral.com... Anyway Like the text above said it just increases fear which kids would lie to get out of. If this is legalized, if the child is injured they will be obligated and can take this to court which won't be good for the school.
Terrorism

The leaders of the Islamic State are Ba'athists and they have cultivated an extremist Sunni ideology to recruit young and impressionable youth from war torn regions of Iraq. Western involvement in Iraq (based on the false pretense of WMDs) has resulted in insurgency by a sizeable Sunni faction that has branched and is embraced by civilians due to its relative efficacy over the puppet Shia regime endorsed by USA. The best course of action is to close all borders to Syria and Iraq and cease drones
Legalizing Euthanasia

I believe you misunderstood my point and whereabouts I stand in this issue. Whether or not you legalise euthanasia people are still going to find ways in order to end their sufferings. I have not ignored your argument about doctors because I clearly stated that it just isn't only about the doctors decision. When people are well enough to read they make the decision for themselves it's nobody else's call but theirs. The examples you have given are valid right up to a certain point. Legalising euthanasia won't be like we picture it. Life will still go on as per normal. Everyday in hospitals around the world people are taken off life support because there is no other treatment that can possibly be given to help treat the patient. How long will painkillers last, it obviously won't last for the rest of their lives without harming them back. I see how you talked about family members suffering after their relative pass due to aided suicide, but how long will you stand and watch someone suffer to a point were they are numb with pain. Anyway, your points are very interesting and sorry i will not be finishing this debate because obviously the real winner is in our presence.