BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
smoking cigarettes is stupid

1 second equals 120 years? no, but instead of getting into that premise, let me address the conclusion you drew from it by asking you, would you rather have most of your life filled with unhappiness that comes from bad health, or most of your life filled with joy from health?"for all the pointless fuss over health, attractiveness, money, etc., isn't a person's happiness the only thing that truly matters? Since death is only moments away, shouldn't a person spend whatever time he/she has in his/her life doing what makes him/her happy?"-peoples overall happiness is generally negatively impacted by not attaining those things."If smoking makes a person happy, then its a good choice."-there are obvious alternative choices that would lead to much more happiness, so smoking is a poor choice."Why should we seek to become or remain attractive? What is attractive?"-when i say smoking hurts peoples attractiveness, i mean things like their tooth color and youthful appearance, which most people dont want damaged. we would be happier if we were attractive."Why seek to be healthy?"-people are happier when they are healthy. health helps happiness while cigarettes hurt health."What is wrong with happiness being temporary?"-i didnt mean to imply that temporary highs are bad, that's why i listed temporary highs as a benefit."it doesn't matter if there are better alternatives"if there are better alternatives, then arent they smarter choices? what would you choose?1. "Benefits A" plus "Benefits B"-or-2. "Benefits A" plus "Benefits B" plus "negative effects""If someone REALLY wants to smoke, wouldn't that be considered a strong desire?.....Since smoking makes us happy, we should all smoke"-CON has not proven that we would have more overall happiness if we smoked, and seems to concede that there are obvious better alternatives. therefore, smoking is a stupid choice
smoking cigarettes is stupid

My position: smoking cigarettes is a stupid choice for the average person to make.CONs position: smoking cigarettes is a good choice for the average person.burden of proof: im sick of people talking about burden of proof. just make your best arguments.opening argument:1. the average person wants to be healthy, attractive, not get frequently agitated, and not waste money.2. smoking is known to cause people to waste money, be unhealthy, be less attractive, and be more frequently agitated.3. smoking doesnt cause any major benefit. the benefits are a mild temporary high, and easing nerves. 4. there are better ways to be calm, or high. marijuana is a much better alternative. even things like breathing deeply, stretching, exercising, meditation, and eating right, are equally or more effective at helping oneself be calm. also, if you werent dependent on smoking, you wouldnt have as hard of a time being calm.5. it would be stupid to go against your strong desires in order to fulfill weaker desires, especially if there are better alternative ways to allow you to fulfill both these sets of desires. conclusion: basically, smoking is stupid. the negative results far outweigh the benefits.
Prevention of anonymous comments or posting online

People who wish to conceal their identity while contributing their opinion to the world doesn"t accomplish anything but to rant. People do like sharing their opinions online, in fact people like sharing their opinions in general, but what are their intentions of posting them to the Internet? Most of the comments online don"t count for much of anything as far as making a difference, but lets say in this instance they do. Even if someone anonymously posted a comment or a stance, would it really mean anything or count for anything since no one claimed his or her words? Not really. Yes the words are there in writing, but we don"t know who wrote it and if they actually meant what they wrote. Are all of these people really just wanting to rant or are they actually trying to make a difference? My conclusion is if you are really trying to share your opinion, most likely you want to make a difference, therefore in order for your words to count, you must claim them. What would be necessary for you to agree with me on this point? Could there be a compromise? What if the users were anonymous to each other, but not to the website? This could give people privacy but at the same time hold them accountable for their "actions".
Prevention of anonymous comments or posting online

That is a great point in general, but in specific situations preventing anonymous comments actually could change the conversations being made. Cyber bullying is a great example. There are many cases all over the Internet that both teens and adults become a victim of bullying. These users that become anonymous are impossible to find making cyber bullying very easy to do. These cyber bullies attack people relentlessly without consequences causing major self-confidence/self-worth issues to their victims. The First Amendment does allow freedom of speech but there is a line between stating your opinion and just being mean. Being able to trace a name to a face would not only discourage these users but they might even face consequences for their actions (police would be able to help the victim).
Prevention of anonymous comments or posting online

I will be arguing the topic of anonymous commenting on the Internet. In today"s society, the Internet is very much a part of everyone"s lives even in the aspect of communicating. Not only can you research about a topic but you can also leave your opinion about it as well. Although not all of us, but many choose to become anonymous with what they choose to put out for the world to see, especially if the comment could be seen as controversial. There are many examples of situations that show how making users accountable for their words could create positive effects including more pleasant conversations instead of attacking one another. It might even allow us to learn different things, change our minds or possibly compromise a bit. It could change the way we see the Internet because we could possibly look at those comments as actual people (and their opinions) instead of just evil words on the page that we feel an incredible urge to bash and break down. If a user has and is going to share their opinion, they should own up to their words by attaching their name to it, just like you do when you talk to people face to face.
American Cheese

I accept my opponents debate after noticing that unlike him I hate american cheese. To vent these feelings of living in america and hating this nation's cheese, I entered this debate as my soon as possible.The following in this round is an introduction and not a complete argument.I ask my opponent to do an experiment. Cook a bagel, insert lunchmeat if you will, and melt muenster, parmesan or any european cheese and notice the taste difference. I even suggest using my large supply of nameless french cheeses which are unnameably delicious. If you concurr with the view that american cheese you are might wish to look at ones thighs as the main taste sensation is from the fat reserves. that is the equivalent of going to your local french cuisinier (mine being called Mi Ami) and shouting like a barbarian that you want " KFC KFC KFC KFC!"http://s1.static.gotsmile.net...And as you will see american cheese is not even cheese.
American Cheese

My argument is pro-American cheese. My opponent is anti-American cheese. I'm motivated to post this because I am sick and tired of people bad-mouthing American cheese, whether seriously or in jest. American cheese doesn't deserve to be bad-mouthed because it tastes great, it complements many different foods, it melts well, it's affordable, it is durable, it is produced using cutting-edge modern technology, and it is associated with America, the greatest nation in the known universe. Thus I believe that American cheese is among the best cheeses, right up there with extra-extra-oude Gouda kaas. However, for the purposes of this debate, I'm just saying that American cheese is good enough that it doesn't deserve all the negative attitudes directed against it. My opponent in this debate will ideally be one of those anti-American cheese snobs who takes every opportunity to badmouth American cheese. The opponent will have to justify his culinary bigotry. My goal will be to persuade the audience that such bigotry is unjustified. The rules of this debate are: 1. No semantics*; 2. whatever other rules I toss out as the debate rounds progress. Let the standard of legitimacy and fairness of my rules be a factor in people's votes and comments. *stick to substantive issues.
Recreational Marijuana Legalization

I'm new here, so I decided to start a debate and leave the position of Contender open. I'm arguing in support of the legalization of the Cannabis sativa plant for any purpose the user wishes, medical or recreational. Marijuana was made illegal in the 1930's due to propaganda by Harry J. Anslinger [1]. It was seen as something only minorities used, but its use was spreading to America's youth. Because of his very conservative beliefs, he desired to eradicate it from America. The hemp industry was also a heated competitor with textile, paper, and oil industries [2]. For these reasons, its possession and use was made criminal. It has still not been proven that one single death in history has been caused by the direct or indirect effects of smoking this herb. It has many uses, and is perceived as harmless by many. I invite any contender to argue in support of the position that it should not be decriminalized and/or made legal. Sources: [1] http://www.suite101.com... [2] http://relegalize.info...
Columbus Day Should Not be Celebrated.

I wish to debate whether or not Columbus Day should be celebrated. It is in my opinion that Columbus's legacy is grossly misrepresented and that his "accomplishments" was nothing more but a failed journey riddled with genocide and imperialism. Thus, Columbus shouldn't be honored with a national holiday. Before going into detail, I await an opponent to accept my debate and agree to only ONE term.... 1. If you accept this debate, as con you must make the argument why Columbus Day SHOULD/REMAIN celebrated. (THAT SIMPLE)
9/11 never actually happened

If I can show you otherwise? Do you believe a youtube commercial is more reliable than an official interview from the National Geographic site? Not only have you given me no facts whatsoever, you also haven't told me why the government would want to do this anyway. And the reason is simple- you have no evidence. In conclusion, 9/11 could not have been faked. More than 3,000 lives could not of been faked by 'government documents'. Tell this to anyone who has lost a family member in 9/11 and I would like to see how they would respond. There is no special effects great enough to fake the crashings of planes into the buildings, with the actual buildings collapsed and debris spreading over the entire city. Your entire argument is your complete opinion. It is hard to take this debate seriously when you offer no factual evidence. You say 9/11 has no evidence when you have no facts/statistics proving your side. And this is because 9/11 really did happen.
9/11 never actually happened

There are not special effects great enough to produce the same effects of two planes crashing into giant buildings, with rubble flying everywhere and flames engulfing the buildings. There is no purpose for the government to spend millions of dollars to fake this either. The fact you can turn an American tragedy into a conspiracy theory is, in my opinion, horrible to even think about. You say the 9/11 websites need evidence, when you haven't given me a single fact to support you claim. By the way, Broadway does plays! They don't even need special effects like you find in movies. You think the families interviewed would just play along with the whole thing? The families have gone through pain you can't even begin to imagine. Using your logic, everybody except you could be fake just because of some 'government documents'. I'm sure the firefighters running into the burning buildings to save lives weren't real either, huh?
9/11 never actually happened

The families of the "deceased" can easily see this argument, and they too will know that 9/11 never actually happened. Their "relatives" who "died" never actually existed in the first place. Their entire lives just consisted of some documents that were faked by the government. Saw it with their own eyes? New York is known for its real life special effects in Broadway, etc. They could have easily faked it with a hologram building, or even a prop building that could easily be decimated for dramatic effect. Yes, I believe the fake 9/11 was orchestrated for the sole purpose of dramatic effect. I don't need any hard evidence to prove that it never happened, what those articles you posted NEED is evidence that they aren't just making the whole thing up.
9/11 never actually happened

I would like you to say this to the families of the deceased who died in the World Trade towers. Your assumption is plainly illogical and groundless. Do you think the World Trade towers burst into flames and collapsed by themselves? You think about 3,000 people vanished off the face of the Earth? People in New York at the time saw this happen with their own eyes. Special effects cannot do that. You have given me absolutely no facts to support your claim. If you need proof this happened, this website is linked to interviews and many articles explaining the incident: http://www.history.com...
9/11 never actually happened

I had stated why I believe so in my previous statement. THERE IS NO PROOF! Sure there are pictures and videos, but haven't you seen Star Wars, or Shrek 3D? You can achieve pretty much anything with special effects these days, and the attacks on September 11th, 2001 are no different. Some people say it was Al Qaeda, some say it was an inside job, but what proof do they have? Their argument is unfalsifiable... FALLACIOUS!!
9/11 never actually happened

As we all know, on September 11th, 2001, terrorists hijacked commercial planes in the United States and crashed into the pentagon, as well as the World Trade Center buildings. 2,996 people were killed in these attacks... or were they? I believe there is no sufficient evidence to suggest that these attacks ever occurred at all. I also believe there is no sufficient evidence that the World Trade Center ever even existed in the first place.
Anything from the list

"I find pet's a real pain but they may seem cute and cuddly or if it's sweet and rough looking cause they are stilla royal pain." Therefore the new resolution should be: "Pets" "Where I live there's lot's of pigeon's and they are the worst things you can come across cause they carry diseases." Therefore the new resolution should be: "Disease carrying pigeons that inhabit my town""Back to pets, So they take alot of responsibility of looking after and I think it's total waste of time.............. Putting pets down doesn't apply to animals. "If there would be a world without adults but with animals and children alone they would wish they never had or met animals forever." How so?My case for animals:1. Humans are animals.2. Denying rights and freedom to animals also negates any freedoms humans should have because we are animals.3. Animals need rights.4. Either, no rights to all animals (including humans)5. Or rights to all animals.
Anything from the list

Ok im not sure where to begin so.... I'm against animals. Reason's why Let's start with pets first... I find pet's a real pain but they may seem cute and cuddly or if it's sweet and rough looking cause they are still a royal pain. Yes I hate animals and I have no respect for them. Where I live there's lot's of pigeon's and they are the worst things you can come across cause they carry diseases. Back to pets, So they take alot of responsibility of looking after and I think it's total waste of time. Small children start noticing animals when they go on trip's or read books by the pictures which is unacceptable. But few years later they are wanting a pet by begging their parent's which they are forced to agree cause they do not want to upset their son/daughter. I think that's terrible that's why animals should not exist because of young children. If there would be a world without adults but with animals and children alone they would wish they never had or met animals forever.
To put Stephen Hawking in a mental hospital quarantine will curb spread of Poverty&Mad Alien Disease

Maybe the authorities should consider your permanent placement within a mental hospital. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, claiming that Mr Hawking should be placed in a mental hospital. Other than being unable to walk, in what way is Mr Hawking unable to live to the same extent as the next person? He has made quite possibly the largest contribution to humanity of any single person, you on the other hand are most probably a benefits claimant who does little more than visit your local job-centre plus and shoplifts a Nisa. The decision to fund research into disabilities is a governmental decision, not being disabled myself I still am in full support of this. However, you should consider your thoughts if you were placed in a life of disability, you would not be so quick to make your insane judgements if you were in the position. Before you call on the capital investments of medical research which could be invested in the poor, I believe that you should consider the other ways in which capital may be re-distributed to the poor, I list two ideas below. The people subject to poverty could possibly stop reproducing at the current rate. Our entire human population is already growing at an unsustainable rate, if the situation for these people is so dire, why exactly do they continue to reproduce? Granted, many of the people put in dire situations now did not get there through any fault of their own, I am however of the school of thought in favour of reducing foreign aid, due to the fact that the aid promotes population growth, thus returning the area to a state of poverty. Benefits could be more rigorously monitored. Benefits are required for those who are completely unable to find or take part in work, however people are being supplied to those who squander the money or who are not concerned with morals. Certainly within Britain, NHS expenditure is wasted on nonsensical items such as sun-cream and yogurt. I can not recall the exact figure, however at least several million pounds have been wasted on these perfectly non-medically obtainable items. The above courses of action would be far more logical, the first is, of course, peoples' individual choice. You may not be concerned with the greatest of human endeavours, discovery, however many people are, many of which would be willing to have money invested in research that may extend the life of a great scientist. I have many lengthy arguments which I may use, I await your attempted rebuttal.
To put Stephen Hawking in a mental hospital quarantine will curb spread of Poverty&Mad Alien Disease

Thanks to people like Stephen Hawking, billions of dollars have been flushed into MAD (mad alien disease), and now, once again, 100 million dollars have been set aside for further research into this good for nothing project which is based on psycho-logic illusion...? Although, millions of people are dying of hunger and poverty or people who are under severe dept, uncertain future and bankruptcy specially the young & elderly. Is this the definition of Humanity? All of this time wasting research is being done thanks to the pressure of proving a useless Illuminati Theory. It is high time now, that we realize the fine line (that differentiates a genius and an insane) that makes even a super genius insane, to the level that all that person sees is a dream world made of all the predictions he has prophesized but, completely lost and unaware of reality and the the suffering of others.
To put Stephen Hawking in a mental hospital quarantine will curb spread of Poverty&Mad Alien Disease

This is somewhat hilarious. You have been out-witted by a fourteen year old who does not attend private schooling, more over on a topic you were so quickly to deal judgement upon. Any onlookers must understand, I am unable to further an argument due to lack of resistance. There is no more to say, both debates I have entered in have involved myself putting forward valid, logical arguments, only to find the instigator forfeiting. My disgust, Lavaguava.
To put Stephen Hawking in a mental hospital quarantine will curb spread of Poverty&Mad Alien Disease

Why, exactly, have you chosen to forfeit? A lack of confidence in your initial argument, perhaps? A little discriminatory, maybe? I require a counter-argument in order to present further case. This course of debate has also occurred my other debate participation, on the matter "Should the 2017 Ford GT cost $400,000?", possibly my logic prowess is too great to overcome. Please further your argument.
Marijuana is [Fill in Adjective here]

Okay so this is what happened:In Round 1 I said: "If you accept then you finish the resolution by adding an adjective or adjective-phrase. "And then I said:"I will defend your finished resolution. "You chose for the resolution to be Marijuana is "(bad all around. )"As I am Pro, and as I clarified in Round 1, it is my obligation to now defend that resolution. In your openning argument you gave a compelling case as to why marijuana is bad all around. Subsequently you conceded your position--being CON. I crossapply your points, as I agree with them(for the sake of this debate. )Thus we are both in agreement for the PRO side of this debate. I am PRO.
Marijuana is [Fill in Adjective here]

Con has decided that the resolution is: Marijuana is bad all around*lame* As such it is now my obligation as Pro to defend that resolution, as I mentioned in Round 1. I'm kind of disappointed that CON did not read the rules correctly. You've been tricked. .. I guess. Crossapply my opponents points, as he obviously agrees with Pro. He has conceded the CON ground.
Marijuana is [Fill in Adjective here]

(bad all around) A Cop pulls over a car full of stoners. The cop goes up to the car and the driver rolls down the window and the cop said '"Congratulations! You have won two thousand dollars for wearing your seat belt!" The driver says, "Oh, I thought you pulled me over for not having a license!" Then the driver's girlfriend says, "Don't mind him, he's just stoned." Then a friend in the back seat says, "I thought you pulled us over for this pound or weed over here!" Then another friend from the back says, "I thought you pulled us for this stolen car!" Then the cop hears someone in the trunk say, "Are we over the border yet man?" There are many different things that are horrible with pot and if it's legalized then we'll actually see the dirty side of Pot. First Pot causes mental illness to make a dumber America just like the people in the introduction. Don't buy into what the Pro is saying that we'd make a profit off of it. According to CNBC, they state pot would be cost counterproductive. Alcohol related accidents cost a total over $185 Billion while it only collected 14.5 billion from tax revenue. Tobacco cost 200 billion while only collecting $20 billion. The same would be with pot except there would be more health problems. But we can't ignore the math $4.50 to every $ collected from it this isn't good for business. According to the New York Times the American unemployment has reached a high at 12.3 million and this number will easily multiply. Why you may ask? The fact that people see they can live off of their unemployment check. Soon the U.S. economy will be wailing' that the U.S. gov. would have to spend money to save its economy and the world economy. Just look at the Netherlands when they on November, 27 of 2003, their economy dropped 23 billion Euros. Government spending will lead to a larger American debt. Soon we'll default on our debt loose our Superpower title and the world economy will also go.