BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Smoking law-it's just a tax grab

I have given up trying to get a half competent response to this. It's the usual 'You smoke, so you wear it" type answer. I strongly believe the government is using this as a cash cow, tax, forget the basics of offering rehab. Smokers don't qualify for some reason. Government argues that smokers are responsible for all the costs associated with nicotine addiction. I think I would be better off getting high from illegal narcs. I would get help with rehab then no problem. Smokers cannot. Before you all start quoting government health stats, and I do hope you all respond to this, let me start by letting you know that I, and many like me, have private health insurance. I, we, pay triple premiums for being a smoker. It's more than a miner pays. Now, very important, the insurance is based on how long you had smoked before. My insurer puts triple premiums on a smoker that has smoked for more than 6 years. At ANY time in your life, and most of them do that. Of course you could be tempted to lie to them, but anyhow, in the event of an illness of any kind it's easy for them to point at your smoking history, it's an easy get-out clause. So don't bother lying about it. You're paying already. What really bugs me is that I'm spending more on tobacco than I"m spending on living costs. And there's nothing I can do about it. As a result of all this, I have spat the dummy, and now I refuse to quit. Even if government were thoughtful enough to offer rehab, I will refuse. Because what they have done is bullying, whether smokers are right or wrong, Big Brother is putting the boot in and getting paid. It's not for me thanks. I will quit on my own terms, when I'm ready and when I know it's final.
Smoking law-it's just a tax grab

Yes, well, I am an American, but I also live in Korea. So it was a bit difficult to choose which perspective to choose and I didn't figure out you were Australian until you mentioned that growing your own tobacco was illegal. In Korea there is also national healthcare so the health risks caused by smokers IS directly paid for by tax dollars. In Korea they have some of the lowest taxes on cigarettes in the world which in turn leads people and law makers to consider raising the taxes to cover the costs for health expenses and the maintenance of public smoking areas. In regard to your information regarding the tax discouraging smokers. It's a shame the info can't be found. People should be trying to analyze the anti-smoking methods accurately to ensure we can approach the problem most effectively. But as it stands raising the prices has at least some marginal desired effect and it doesn't cost the government anything to implement it. As for experience with the kids reacting to anti-smoking ads. Everyone has their own experiences. I can go on about how most kids in my school growing up took the warnings to heart and scoffed at the kids who insisted on smoking and how the kids who smoked were in the minority. How do you put a blanket ban on one drug and keep it legal? It isn't really a ban if you think about it. I don't know how much you know about American history, but there was a time that Alcohol was outright illegal. It was a mess that created a network of organized crime that cost the government too much money to fight. By making substances like alcohol, cigarettes and weed legal and tax them is an attempt to take the revenue away from organized crime and to cover any potential costs that may come with it's legalization. It's a compromise to give the people who want the stuff what they want but also ease the minds of the people who are opposed to it's legalization. It's part of the acceptance process for the masses. You have to pay because society decided your habit was bad. Trust me having a tax is better than being thrown in jail only to be released with a criminal record. All the arguments I've given you were to show the rationalization people present to justify their vilification of smoking. The health concerns, the fire damages, the reduction to property value. You've tried to minimize these and naturally so since you are a smoker, but it doesn't change the fact that these serious concerns still exist and in the eyes of most people. People want to do something to make themselves feel better, to ease their conscience, about the fact that smoking is legal. The tax is one of those ways. You are upset your cigarettes cost so much, but I don't think you have done enough to convince others that the smoking law is just a tax grab. The damages smoking causes are very real and the government has to pay for many of those damages one way or another. Even if the tax is only capable of paying for some those costs, in the eyes of most, it justifies the law.
Smoking law-it's just a tax grab

Righto, seems you're a yank. Explains a lot of the difficulty with this. That is, for me not you, we tend to speak plainly here in Oz. Legal stuff here is not the same. But I think it is fruit from the seed taken from the U.S. First point I need to make as concerns your argument re- smoking deterrent for young people or new starters. I am totally in agreement about preventing this. If this tax was working I wouldn't be here shouting about it. It isn't! There was a 2%-5% reduction in smokers the first 2 years the law was made real. 10 yrs later it appears it has not gotten less but is now increasing. Of course this data is relevant only to people like me and I was lucky to hear it, try find it now, it's gone. One night scoop for some news newbie. It's not the kind of news the government wants on it's election podium. When it first came into affect with all the negative ads and strange photos,(kids can't be fooled with CGI) well, I remember all these teenagers crowding the kiosks shouting about who had the pack of smokes with the worst pics. Later it becomes like a birthmark, you forget it's there. Somebody still has to pay for it tho, the tobacco co's sure don't, nor do the governments.. My argument is perhaps too ambitious, I really need to know how do you put a blanket ban on one drug yet keep it legal? Things seem to be going in reverse here, we just legalized medicinal weed but now pressure's on to legalize all weed. Well there you go, MORE TAXES. I'm not going to go into how "bad" that is,. See, if we had to go into comparisons as I think we should, in order to cover this topic realistically, then we need more than 5 rebuttals apiece. I am 100% sure that this whole thing is a bleeding bear. like the Chinese do.. Or a chained dog that you can whip, like we do. To provide release for the chained, for a smoker it needs rehab no less. No whip.. That investment will start to see dividends if it's done right. Ban tobacco completely WITH MAJOR PENALTY, but offer these long time addicted smokers the chance to REHAB, it's a one-off cost to government and (the economy). I cannot understand how a lot of what you have said in context with this debate makes sense, to me anyway, mate. It seems to me you have avoided the crux of the issue. I have tried to get something out in the open to do with the smoking problem and yet you have not appeared to be in any way... conducive ? Thanks for the effort tho.
Schools should have online assaignments only

It's a shame that you had forfeited in the last round, I wanted to write more. Since you said that if the student forgot to bring his laptop, he could access his work through the school computer, than what is the point of having laptops apart from the fact that it is a waste of money if it is not used properly. Clearly, you have ran out of arguments and forfeited the round. To the voters: In order to be fair, please do not vote just because you support a side but instead vote the better person
Schools should have online assaignments only

It is unfortunate that I am only allowed 500 characters, because I can write more, but nonetheless I shall continue in my argument. Computers can be monitored during school hours, what about the period when students are off the school? Secondly, if everyone has a laptop for school, do you think it is easy to monitor what they are doing, what they have done, and what will they be doing? Last of all, even with subsidies, not all students can afford to have a laptop to school, because of finance.
Schools should have online assaignments only

If the computers were monitored during school hours students wouldn't be tempted to do non-schoolwork on their laptops. If you forget the laptop, you could just log on to one of the school computers instead, unlike if you forgot your notebook at home, you wouldn't be able to just re-write all the notes, or go back in time and listen to the lecture again. It would save money- if you paid $500 for the laptop, or paid $100 year after year after year.
Schools should have online assaignments only

Rubbish, look at what the internet has done to kids nowadays. All they do is computer games and adult content. At least the ability to carry school resources helps increase one's moral values, such as responsibility. What if you forget to bring the flipping laptop? Then might as well not go to school in the first place! And I can tell you having a laptop is much more expensive for both students and the school, as well as the government. The average laptop costs $500, compared to $100 in books.
Schools should have online assaignments only

It would be so much simpler if schools had all assignments online! Students wouldn't have to carry around notebooks, folders, binders, pencils, lead, erasers, ex... If everybody had all assignments online, the classrooms could have computers in them, or students (middle school and up) could carry laptops around and bring them home at the end of each day for homework. It would save both schools and families money, not having to go school-supply shopping once or even more a year!
A Unknown is a true creator

As there has been no further argument, I'm just going to keep this simple. Don't claim that there is no God simply because you believe in science, or don't believe in the Bible. Do some soul searching. Go walking in the woods and find a nice place to sit down. Come into harmony with nature. Look inside yourself, and find your purpose. Open your mind to the possibility of God, and you may find more that you expected to find.
A Unknown is a true creator

Following religious texts, such as the Bible, often raises questions about such text when science is proving otherwise. However, we must realize that humans created religion, not God. Who, or what God is, we won't know until our time has run out on Earth. But to claim He doesn't exist, simply in terms of lack of evidence isn't a proper statement as someone else can say that God does exist as there is no evidence to disprove Him. Too many people are out to prove, or disprove God. However, we must realize there is no such way of ever doing so. No scientific equation will ever equal 'No God.' Instead of trying to prove/disprove God, we should be trying to discover ourselves. Through self-discovery we usually find the answers that we are looking for. Whether we believe in God, or not, it's still a belief, based on one's own perception of the universe. We must respect everyone's belief, as no one will truly know until we are dead.
A Unknown is a true creator

You say, "If you truly think about life itself and how it all came to be you are clueless." Yet, to come to the opinion which you have stated here, you had to "think about" the issues that make us "clueless." To claim there is a creator, but it wasn't God, is fallacy. The definition of creator, is a person or thing that brings something into existence. To claim that there is a creator, yet no God, is contradictory. There is no evidence to prove or disprove God. Who is God? What is God? If God created us, who created God? If the universe created us, who created the universe? The universe can be traced back to its origins roughly 13.8 years ago. Before this, there was nothing. Yet, the universe came from "nothing." Well, if God is nothing, can we not come from Him?
A Unknown is a true creator

If you truly think about life itself and how it all came to be you are clueless. You may say you can to be dinosaurs and mysterious items to be discovered. Where does that prove we came from them or it. We had been created one way or another but life itself is unexplainable because if you were created, who created you, who created them, and it continues till your lost to universe yourself. The creator not God because a God must be created and creator is the only definition to are mind that explains a unknown power of birth and death. Most of this is opinion but if you can have a fact on how everything started prove it. The planets crashed a formed a earth like world, well how did those two planets come to be. This logic is beyond are minds and the only explaination I can come with is this. You be saying well this logic of thinking who made this creator that is the mystery that doesn't answer on its own.
George Bush was a Genocidal Maniac

Sorry if i respond to these in a different order than the ones presented. I may not answer all of them since i don't have lots of time on me at the moment. I might end up forfeiting this if I can't get back in time. "This assertion is flawed. In this Democratic Republic, responses to crises like this are to be dealt with at the Local and State Level first. If the Local and State Officials feel that they are incapable of dealing with the crisis they then yield control to the Federal Government." I don't think the local or state governments could respond to this crises seeing how lots of the cities in the south Louisiana were flooded and the state government could have been busy with other cities in the same state. They should have given control of the situation to the federal government. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I would at this point demand that the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) or the Rules of Engagement (ROE) of US Forces in Iraq include the active and willful targeting of innocent people, or in the event that my opponent cannot produce such documentation, I would ask for definitive examples where US Forces have wantonly engaged innocent civilians." For this we have to go back to Vietnam where America was paranoid at the time that if Vietnam was taken over by the communist that they would start to spread to more of South-East Asia. Bob Kerry, a so called "Hero" was responsible for carrying out a role in which US forces massacred twenty un-armed and innocent women and children. http://www.independent.co.uk... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Bush was a Genocidal Maniac

I can understand how my opponent feels about most accusations made against the latter president George W. Bush. These accusations however are true. Besides having his highest disapproval rating after both presidents Truman and Nixon, Bush has also invaded a developing nation (Iraq) on the basis that they are producing nuclear weapons. I mean Iraq is only using nuclear weapons as a way of protection. Israel gets to have nuclear weapons so Iraq and Iran should get a right as well. They even went in thinking they were liberators, no you just made soldiers kill innocent people for no gain whatsoever. Besides his mistakes in Iraq, Bush messed up with his tax cuts. Too deep, especially for top earners, resulting in chronic budget deficits that have only added to the current economic crisis and weakened the dollar. Then there was Katrina-- Feds should have stepped in immediately with financial help to the insurance industry while they forced them to pay homeowners claims immediately to start the rebuilding faster. Most of the damage was caused by the failure of a federal levee. Bush paid a huge price for letting damage fester in New Orleans. He also ran up the national debt, which some people blame on the Clinton administration. $750,000,000 a day on Iraq can hurt... I mean just look at the uses that are beneficial to the country with $750,000,000. Besides body bags and bullets... Many people could be getting the medical coverage they need. Many schools could be built for the nations youth and their educational needs. While Bush may have been nothing more than a puppet to vice president the only assumption that is true about him is that through out his presidency America has never encountered any terrorist attacks after the events that occurred on 9/11. I just hope you have taken my statements up as the real deal and not the biased liberal bull you might think it is.
George Bush was a Genocidal Maniac

My opponent in a different thread made some extremely wild accusations and assertions about President George W Bush. They range from: Gross Human Rights Atrocities and singular responsibility for the outsourcing of work overseas, to being incapable of doing anything other than what Vice President Cheney ordered be done. While, I do not believe GW Bush to have been the best president, he certainly wasn't anywhere near as bad as my opponent (or the left wing talking heads in the media) make him out to be. I present this debate in the hopes that he will validate these wild assertions with facts, and reason and not rely on the second hand material provided by the Anti-Bush crowd.
People should be able to donate blood based on how mush they weigh

A 5 year-old should not be able to donate simply because they cannot give medical consent. This would be the same as permitting 5 year-olds to consent to surgery. It is a simple fact that young children can give nothing close to informed consent. Skinny persons can, however, give medical consent, and therefore, should be permitted to donate once given adequate information. Thank you.
This House would ban religious symbols in public buildings

Con will allow pro's comment to be recognised. While we understand that pro did not INTEND to ban people, ultimately, con believes that that is what the wording of the resolution requires. Furthermore, the government of the United States, while a strict proponent of the separation of church and state, is not secular in their proceedings. Each meeting of Congress is started with a prayer. Now that body has found a way not to offend anyone whilst using such a major religious practice. Why is it impossible then, for them to do the same thing with religious symbols? As these religions have tremendous impact on our society, banning their symbols without giving the chance to find a compromise is not only unfair, but in some ways it can be a violation of basic human rights..
This House would ban religious symbols in public buildings

Under pro's definition of religious symbols a ban becomes close to impossible. You now start to ban objects under the wording of the resolution. You ban some Christians from carrying rosaries, you ban Jewish men from wearing Kippas in public building, and Muslim women from wearing headscarves. This creates two problems. Firstly you practically ban the latter two groups from public buildings and secondly you violate the freedom of religion clause in the Canadian constitution and the first amendment in the American counterpart. Furthermore, secularism can exist in the government without existing in the buildings. Ending religious discriminations would be allowing each religion to be able to decorate an area of the building as they want. The resolution does not end religious discrimination. Instead it mearly discriminates against all religions equally.
This House would ban religious symbols in public buildings

Pro would define religious symbols as objects, artwork, statues and paraphernalia or anything of that sort that represents any religion. Pro would also like to admit that con makes a valid point that religion and culture are separated by a blurred line. However, there is more to culture than religion. For example Canada's history is full of colonialism, imperialism and great Canadian innovation. Con states: "Finally, the fact that we are a modern society, as pro suggests, should mean that we are able to respect other religions." In an perfect world this would be plausible, but we do not live in a perfect world and people do not respect each other like they should and there is also my original point of secularism. Let me use Canada as an example again, if you look next to religion in the Canadian constitution it says "Freedom of religion", not "Christianity and freedom of religion" or "Islam and freedom of religion". Therefore no religion should be favoured in government, and all public buildings should ban religious symbols.
This House would ban religious symbols in public buildings

Con would like to apologize, first and foremost, for missing the first argument. My busy schedule did not allow for time to reply. Con believes that pro has the burden of proof in this case. How do you define religious symbols and public buildings? Furthermore pro neglects to acknowledge that religious symbols not only describe a religion, but a culture. Would a picture of the Greek pantheon of gods not be a religious symbol representing the Ancient Greek religion? This would mean that you ban much of the Greek and roman art. Finally, the fact that we are a modern society, as pro suggests, should mean that we are able to respect other religions. This does not mean banning the symbols that represent how many people define their lives.
IVF Debate

But what about the problems that can occur with multiple births? Women who go through with IVF procedures are at a higher risk of having multiple births, having more than one egg implant and end up with two unidentical twins. These types of births lead to pre mature babies and other diseases such as Twin-Twin Transfusion Syndrome (TTTS). This is when two babies share the same placenta and fuse blood vessels, causing one baby to have more blood flow than the other. These are more likely to happen when having an IVF procedure done, resulting in unhealthy babies.
IVF Debate

Although some embryos can be discarded, couples also have the opportunity to donate their unused embryos to other couples who are unable to produce healthy embryos, or can donate the embryos for use in science to make advancements in IVF that can benefit all couples that turn to the procedure to start a family. Embryos only consist of a few cells, and the earliest a baby has survived on record is 24 weeks, so in many circles these embryos are not considered to be living, So, if couples are morally against donating the embryos or terminating them, they have the opportunity to give another couple the gift of a baby.
IVF Debate

(2nd Response) IVF results in "designer babies". Now that our technology is advancing, scientists can now alter the genes in these embryos and select traits for these babies to have. These traits can be changed to reduce risk of disease and such, but it is completely unethical. Couples have their in vitro embryos screened for specific diseases and discard the ones that have or may carry that disease. Although this is great for making sure a couples child doesn't have some diseases, such as sex-linked diseases, but how is this fair. Having a child is a gamble. You don't know what you're going to get. But how is it ethical at all that some people can choose how healthy their child is going to come out and some have to deal with their sick children? It's cheating.
IVF Debate

Genetic screening in IVF embryos can be extremely beneficial. Unlike traditional pregnancies, IVF embryos can be screened for many genetic diseases. In many traditional pregnancies, fetuses have to be aborted or they die before they are born due to issues out of the parent's control. With IVF, there is an exponentially higher chance the woman will give birth to healthy baby. Screening does not harm the embryo, it simply tests it for genetic disease.