BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We have no right to question the motives of a chicken who has recently crossed a street.

"I do in fact see chickens in the road on a daily basis, and I am in fact not Jewish"That sounds exactly like something a Jew would say"Profiling is wrong, and you have committed it"Profiling against PEOPLE is wrong, profiling against regular animals though is perfectly normal and morally acceptable. There's nothing wrong with saying that dogs sniff a**holes, or that cats ARE a**holes, because even though that would be profiling, its still spot on accurate. " and though the chicken involved in the terrorist attack is still at large, it is not this one, as you have so wrongly accused"And what evidence have you provided to support such a claim? We cannot disprove that the chicken crossing the road ISNT the one connected to the terrorist attack unless we investigate its motives and activity. Just saying that the chicken isnt involved in the terrorist attack isnt proof enough. We need an alibi, we should check to see if it has traveled to the middle east recently, we should check its browser history, and we should check WHY THE CHICKEN IS CROSSING THE ROAD?!?!?!In conclusion, it is right to question the motives of chickens who cross the streets due to the number of chickens that have played a role in terrorist attacks against our nation. Vote Con! After all, Pro admits to being an Isis sympathizer (Which is like being a Jets fan)
We have no right to question the motives of a chicken who has recently crossed a street.

The chicken has as much a right to cross the road as any other being. I do in fact see chickens in the road on a daily basis, and I am in fact not Jewish. I am an Isis sympathizer, but no more than a sympathize for anyone else. As for the chicken, assuming all of these things of the chicken is profiling. Profiling is wrong, and you have committed it. All these chickens want is to cross the road undisturbed, and though the chicken involved in the terrorist attack is still at large, it is not this one, as you have so wrongly accused.
We have no right to question the motives of a chicken who has recently crossed a street.

"The chicken. A noble creature majestic to an extent that we could never comprehend."They eat corn out of their own sh**."Leave the chicken be."When was the last time you actually saw a chicken just wandering around in the streets? Truth is, you haven't. You don't see chickens just roaming around outside, and if you do see one, something has gone wrong. Horribly, HORRIBLY wrong. Probably a murder. You don't see chickens crossing the streets, because you're not SUPPOSED to see them crossing the street, because its not natural, like masturbating with a shovel. Chickens dont belong out on the streets, have you ever seen a lane on the road meant for chickens? No! They are for cars, busses, high occupancy vehicles, and in some cases bicyclists, NOT CHICKENS. Chickens DONT go out on the street, they DONT have any reason to cross the street. So when you DO see a chicken crossing the street, it is your DUTY to question why, because it is not normal. Why is that chicken out in the first place? Who does it belong to? Where is it going? Why would a chicken have a need to go anywhere? What does the chicken gain by crossing the road? Why would you NOT wonder where it could be going? What are you, a communist? An ISIS sympathizer? A Jew? A Jewish ISIS sympathizer? Do those even exist? Are you just somebody who hates America? Why? Why do you hate America? Do you hate it because people have the freedom to question why a chicken is crossing the street? What if you had reason to believe the chicken is a member of ISIS? What if you thought it had weapons of mass destruction? What if you knew that chicken was connected to 9/11? Holy sh**, that chicken is connected to 9/11? How? Why? What did it contribute to 9/11? Why is it still here and not locked up? Is this chicken still a threat to society? Why is it in my hometown? Am I in danger? What is it doing now? Where is it going? Is it crossing a street over there? Why isnt it using the crosswalks? Why is it jaywalking? Doesnt it know thats not safe? Doesnt it know that jaywalking is a crime? Why is it crossing the street in the first place? WHY? WHY IS THE CHICKEN CROSSING THE STREET? WHY DID THE CHICKEN CROSS THE ROOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAD?!?!?!?!??!!?The defense rests your honor.
We have no right to question the motives of a chicken who has recently crossed a street.

The chicken. A noble creature majestic to an extent that we could never comprehend. However, after the chicken has so humbly graced us with its mere presence, we retaliate by questioning why it must travel from sidewalk to sidewalk. If you were to do this to a person, we call it profiling. If we do it to a chicken, it's a joke. A sick, twisted joke that brings out the demented side in all of us. Leave the chicken be.
Long work hours for nurses

Debate accepted. Rebuttals and Argument: Firstly, Con begins their case by stating that: 'Long work hours for nurses isn't good enough because it cause bad impact for their healthy.' Without providing any evidence on how longer work hours do actually 'impact their healthy'. 'And also nurses always asks their patients to get enough rest but they didn't do that thing, and about nurses in some country they still didn't respected for everything they did and done.'Once again, absolutely no evidence of proof provided to substantiate this claim. How exactly does Con know the patients 'didn't get their rested'? And how do they know that they 'didn't respected what the (nurses) had did and done'? Which BTW, actually means the same thing. As with the initial sentences. Con has offered nothing but pointless and seemingly delirium-induced rhetoric. With NO reference to sources and extremely improper grammar. 'Many people just know if nurses just helping doctor and everything they got it cause the doctor that take care of them.' What? Do feel free to elaborate on that one, as it makes virtually no sense what so ever. 'But the fact is nurses did many things for them.' And? It is indeed a nurses job to 'do many things' for the people whom they are taking care of.My mother spent around 18 years working as a nurse and didn't actually 'have to' do long hours. The point is that she was paid very good money for taking care of people and it was a job. Arguing that nurses cannot or should not do long hours is like stating other people in with important jobs that are *necessary* for the public, such as policemen, firelighters, etc. should also not be required to sometimes do 'long hours' in order to fulfill a population's needs. One thing I would like to point out however is that Con has not even defined what 'long hours' actually are. And once more, the fact that nurses get paid for these hours has evidently been completely overlooked. I'd additionally like to note that with an aging and increasing population, workers such as nurses having to be work longer hours is an inevitably--as is the demand for more trained nurses to do the work.
We shouldn't have fun at the expense of people with Tourettes Syndrome

"As it happens a friend of mine has a cousin who is a student nurse, and is, therefore, well-versed in medical matters and she came round and diagnosed me as having a modified form of Tourettes Syndrome by Internet Proxy. " I find this difficult to believe. Firstly, my opponent has provided no evidence. Sometimes I don't have a problem with that, but for this extraordinary claim I would like some evidence. Secondly, I Googled "Tourettes Syndrome by Internet Proxy" (. http://www.google.com...) and got no relevant results. Thirdly, before posting his arguments my opponent had the opportunity to edit his post, so he could have removed any of these outbursts. "I often felt the buckle-end of my dad's belt. .. " This entire paragraph provides no arguments, and is merely an appeal to emotion. But unfortunately for my opponent, I have no emotion. "Now to address MTGandP's first point. If you revisit the link I provided in R1 you will note that my opponent in that debate has since posted a perfectly legible contribution. This proves that, like me, she suffers from a modified form of Tourettes Syndrome by Internet Proxy, and needs sympathy and drugs, not typing lessons. " I went back and read it earlier. It is legible, but difficult to read. However, it is not profanity, nor is it a random outburst. My opponent's opponent's post is completely relevant to that debate. It is simply a case of unusual typing. In conclusion, my opponent has provided only faulty and anecdotal evidence, while supporting CON at the same time.
We shouldn't have fun at the expense of people with Tourettes Syndrome

If I may, I'd like to address my opponent's second argument first and state that the profanities in R1 were not "pseudorandom interjections" as he claimed. As it happens a friend of mine has a cousin who is a student nurse, and is, therefore, well-versed in medical matters and she came round and diagnosed me as having a modified form of Tourettes Syndrome by Internet Proxy. What happens there is that when sufferer watches a YouTube clip of someone exhibiting socially unacceptable behaviour online, they involuntarily mimic their bad language when writing. In the interests of full disclosure I should mention that, since I was a boy, I have suffered from Tourettes Syndrome and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) - the two conditions are linked (1). Today children who swear and behave boisterously are given sympathy and drugs, but when I was a kid medical science wasn't nearly as advanced as it is now and my elders didn't realise I was ill. Instead, after being "naughty", as they termed it, I often felt the buckle-end of my dad's belt or received "six of the best" courtesy of my teacher's cane. Still, it is remarkable how effective those old fashioned remedies were and, for sometime after receiving a dose, my symptoms completely disappeared. Now to address MTGandP's first point. If you revisit the link I provided in R1 you will note that my opponent in that debate has since posted a perfectly legible contribution. This proves that, like me, she suffers from a modified form of Tourettes Syndrome by Internet Proxy, and needs sympathy and drugs, not typing lessons. In conclusion, it is wrong to make fun of Tourettes sufferers, or indeed, any other type of lunatic. Thank you. (1) . http://www.nhs.uk...
We shouldn't have fun at the expense of people with Tourettes Syndrome

Make fun of someone/something: to make someone or something seem ridiculous by making jokes about them (thefreedictionary.com) My opponent has not actually made a case. He has merely stated that Tourettes Syndrome is involuntary. I do not need to make a case, since my opponent has conceded in at least two places. "Why don't you [] take a look at this ongoing debate for example? http://www.debate.org... You can clearly see that my opponent has, through no fault of her own, lapsed into a stream of obscenities." My opponent is making fun of Tourettes. His opponent in the linked debate does not necessarily have Tourettes, but is merely an incoherent typist. By falsely assuming that she has Tourettes, my opponent is making fun of those with Tourettes. Since my opponent is doing it, it is okay. "WANKERS...BUGGER OFF... BITCH...DIRTY SEX" My opponent has placed pseudorandom interjections into his text, as though he has Tourettes. But Tourettes does not apply in writing; it is verbal. So my opponent's interjections can only serve to make fun of Tourettes Syndrome. Once again, my opponent is supporting my case by ridiculing Tourettes Syndrome. I rest my (opponent's) case.
We shouldn't have fun at the expense of people with Tourettes Syndrome

First of all, viewer discretion is advised on the first embedded YouTube clip as it contains very strong language from the outset. I wasn't aware of this the first time I played it when, as it happens, I was in a rather upmarket bistro. Forgetting my laptop volume control was set to full, I pressed 'play' to view the video and, to my horror, the audio blared right round the room and everybody turned round and stared at me in absolute shock and disgust. Meanwhile, I desperately tried to find the volume control on the toolbar but I couldn't find it, so I tried to close the application but then, for some reason, the cursor froze and all the time this filth was blasting across the dining tables. It wasn't before an old lady had had a minor nervous breakdown that I managed to shut the computer down to save myself from any further embarrassment. Needless to say, it will be a while before I go back there for lunch! Anyway, now to the debate. Oh yes, it's very funny, isn't it? Look at him, spontaneously swearing and lashing out at people. He's got Tourettes. Ha-ha-ha-ha! Well, you would think it was so funny if you were a sufferer. Tourettes is not unusual. Indeed, there are several WANKERS debaters on this site with this medical condition. Why don't you BUGGER OFF take a look at this ongoing debate for example? http://www.debate.org... You can clearly see that my opponent has, through no fault of her own, lapsed into a stream of obscenities. What a BITCH shame. I, therefore, assert that we shouldn't have DIRTY SEX fun at the expense of Tourettes sufferers. Thank you. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Resolved: The Bible condemns homosexuality.

Hello. Lannan and I independently have wanted to do a debate on this issue, so this should make for a good debate! Here are the rules:1. By "The Bible," I refer to the 39 Old Testament books Genesis–Malachi (the books of the Apocrypha, for example, are excluded) and the 27 New Testament books Matthew–Revelation.2. It will be assumed that the books mentioned above cannot contradict each other in teaching.3. By "condemns," I mean that doers of the object of the proposition (homosexuality) are condemned by its subject (the Bible) and thus have violated the will of God.4. By "homosexuality," I refer to sexual activity with a person of the same sex.[1] It also will refer to the marriage of those of the same sex. Also, for the purpose of this debate, if sexual activity with a person of the same sex is condemned, it will be assumed that homosexual (gay) marriage is also condemned, and vice versa.5. Round 1 is for acceptance only.6. Round 2 is for the opening arguments. No rebuttals are permitted.7. Round 3 is for rebuttals.8. Round 4 is for rebuttals and the conclusions of the debate.9. No semantics are permitted.10. Trolling is not permitted.11. No kritiks are allowed.12. The burden of proof (BOP) is shared between Con and myself. I will be attempting to demonstrate that homosexuality is condemned by the Bible; Con will attempt to show homosexuality as being permitted by the Bible.Thank you, and may the right man win!Notes[1] Though unnecessary for this debate, definition taken from https://en.wiktionary.org...
Should the drinking age be lowered to 18

I think that the legal drinking age should not be lowered. Just because people younger than 18 drink, doesn't mean the age limit should be lowered. To lower the drinking age would encourage many more people to drink, and give much better access to alcohol than before. And with all the terrible health issues surrounding alcohol use, we should want to limit alcohol use, not encourage it. In economics, alcohol is seen as a negative externality. That is, it's social cost - all the money used on health care, lack of work productivity, family dysfunction etc. heavily outweighs the private cost (i.e the company's costs). This is incredibly bad for the economy as the social cost is not being paid for in the price of the good. As a result, non-alcoholic users will pay for the social costs, which is incredible unfair. This means that as a society we should want to reduce the consumption of alcohol as much as possible - if anything, INCREASE the drinking age, not decrease it.
Evolution occurs

It may or may not speak to morality, but again, that's not what we are arguing. Dawkins has his ideas as to why morality exists, but there are others out there. Do all animals exhibit morality? Not sure they do, so what does it say to how morality would relate to new species formation? Again, you make a large, completely untrue assumption that rape is preferred, or even possible in all species. It isn't. Drosophila malanogaster females have the ability to reject makings completely, even if 'forced'. You also make a small sexist assumption that males should be larger to rape easier? Everything is cost/benefit. What if being larger makes you more susceptible to predation? Predation would prevent mating, therefore it's beneficial to be small. Females are often larger because they need to be to support offspring, males don't have that issue. Most (if not all) of your arguments focus on the human species. When evolution is the reason for ALL species. We look at rape as a negative, and other species do too. Birds fly, we can't. Does that make they're mode of transportation better? No, it's just what best suits their species. Consensual sex best suits our species so it is possible for it to be selected for. You begin to die as soon as you are born, your death argument is still not very clear to me, or how it relates to the ability to pass on DNA to the next generation(?). Ok, things die, whatever, who cares? We are talking about evolution. If we are talking about changes in DNA only, you shouldn't call it 'death', it's simply a mutation. I cannot stress enough that you need to have the ability to separate things in your mind, and at least attempt to understand the basics of the evolutionary process. - Species have to have the ability to be selected upon, and the ability to pass on what is selected - DNA, being the material that is passed on (mostly true) is what is selected (random mutations). Make sure you see- selection, not random; mutations random. When you say 'intentional' it conjures up the idea that evolution has a purpose, or a goal. If this isn't what you mean, then I'm sorry, I misunderstood. But, if itnis what you mean (I think it is), if you look at the very Berkley Natural Selection article YOU POSTED you'll see that is not the case. The cause of the mutation doesn't matter, does it? As long as the mutation is passed on to the germline. Most mutations occur because of DNA replication errors, but if that is what you are calling 'death', then ok, whatever. It's still random. A mutation in a certain gene happens at random in DNA replication, and this happens throughout life. Or though out the begins of 'death' if you like. Ok, I have a grownup job to go to tomorrow putting human genes into bacteria so I can then express them in rats- with the hope that this can lead to a better understanding of human disease. But whatever, none of that is possible because, you know, rat data is rat data, human data is human data. Which means I'm done this round. You get the last post, and yes, I'm not going the full five rounds, because I'm tired. Go ahead and claim victory for this reason, I could really care less.
Evolution occurs

Evolution doesn't speak to morality. Evolution only answers how species arise and through what mechanism. Evolution is only focuses on the DNA a population passes on the future populations. We also aren't talking about the formation of fossils, which has no barring on evolution, it just provides examples of traits of long dead organisms. Why do we die? No one really knows. There is no good answer to that, and if you are saying evolution doesn't answer why we die, then I'll agree with you somewhat. You need to learn the difference between 'sexual selection' and 'natural selection'. You make sound like rape is an easy thing to do, like the female of a species will just let this happen. What about the fact that in a large number of species the female is larger than the male? The cost of rape would be high and not preferred. Females do have the ability to reject matings and will fight off aggressive males. But, even with that, rape still does happen, does it not? Leaving aside morality because we aren't discussing that. Remember? Changes in DNA do not happen because of death. Changes in DNA happen because the machinery to replicate DNA is error prone and can cause mutations. All of this happens while you are alive, and while the cell is alive. I never said selection was random, I said the mutation was random. I said the selection is not intentional. Selection is not done deliberately, selection is done because there was something to select for or against.
Evolution occurs

"Death has nothing to do with evolution" Death has as much to do wit Evolution as Matter and Morality does, Evolution is the explanation of why we are as we are, Death is apart of us, Evolution must therefore accept death and morality into it's ideas. heck without death there wouldn't be Fossils. Evolution has to explain this, so death is apart of every single living thing Under Evolution, so DNA is as well, Refuted. "Evolution depends on reproduction and the ability to pass on heritable material (DNA) to subsequent generations. If you die before you reproduce, it doesn't matter what happens to your DNA, it's not passed on." Thus eliminating any reason for Mating, as a rape would be a much easier solution for natural selection, there would be more changes for procreation and ability to pass on heritable material(DNA) with rape than with mating and selecting a mate, Since Factually rape would be advantageous under Evolution, as it increases the chances and prevents genes from not being passed on, under Evolution rape would be moral. rape(sex without and/or against consent) however, is Objectively Immoral, Extremely Wrong(and I stress that), thus Evolution according to what you said, ""Evolution depends on reproduction and the ability to pass on heritable material (DNA) to subsequent generations" is not true, as if what you said(""Evolution depends on reproduction and the ability to pass on heritable material (DNA) to subsequent generations) is true than evolution falls apart with the fact that Natural Selection would have chosen rape, thus making it moral, when in reality rape is Immoral and should never happen. " I still don't quite understand what you mean by 'DNA is subject to death' because that has nothing to do with evolution." Yes it does, all that means is that Unbeneficial Mutations in DNA do not have to be explained by Evolution, but can be explained by death. " Selecting is nothing intentional, if one population contains an allele in a gene that gives it a benefit over another population then that allele will be selected for." Then evolution is impossible, because if selection is random, Macro-Evolution is Improbable, Also no Scientist says Natural Selection is Random, you refute basic principles of the evolution idea. 'At the opposite end scale, natural selection is sometimes interpreted as a random process. This is also a misconception. The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random-but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't. Natural selection is NOT random!" - http://evolution.berkeley.edu... Evolution is Scientifically and Logically, Dismissed.
Evolution occurs

Death has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution depends on reproduction and the ability to pass on heritable material (DNA) to subsequent generations. If you die before you reproduce, it doesn't matter what happens to your DNA, it's not passed on. I still don't quite understand what you mean by 'DNA is subject to death' because that has nothing to do with evolution. Selecting is nothing intentional, if one population contains an allele in a gene that gives it a benefit over another population then that allele will be selected for. The change in the allele was random (DNA mutation).