BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Technology hurts society more than it helps it.

In a survey of its membership, the Society for Advancement of Consulting (SAC) found that businesses vary widely in net gain or loss from the use of technology. Member Wayne McKinnon, a technology consultant from Ottawa, states that, "Businesses often have it backwards. They look at technology and then try to figure out a use for it. Instead, they should first look at business outcomes. After that, technology can help in just two areas: new opportunity and increased efficiency." Many organizations spend more money "wrangling" technology than they gain in commensurate savings. Examples include: endless phone menu choices that cause customers to hang up; reduced staffs, which produce inefficient lines and waiting time; incorrect automated responses, which cause "failure work" and live intervention; email that generates meaningless and never-ending threads of messages; and cell phones that constantly interrupt discussions, meetings, and even creative processes. Ron Montgomery, SAC member from Overland Park, KS, observed, "Organizations neglect to establish criteria for success. How they can use technology to help their customers and suppliers succeed is seldom a priority. If you ask your customers and providers how you can best help them, that process in itself will provide competitive advantage, almost irrespective of the ensuing technology change," Montgomery said. SAC CEO Alan Weiss, Ph.D., adds that technology is often a crutch to avoid dealing with both employees and customers on an interactive basis. "My personal survey," Weiss says, "turned up an inordinate amount of customers who know that by punching phone buttons indiscriminately, they will eventually reach a live person. No one is winning from technology in those situations. Technology must begin with legitimate business goals, or it's probably going to cost more than it saves." Obviously, for all the above reasons and more, technology hurts society more than it helps it.
it doesn't make sense for most conservatives to like trump economically

You are using Bush conservative standards, not Trump conservative. This is not Mitt Romney's, John McCain, or the Bushes party any more its, Donald Trumps. Here is the link for competitively priced medicaid (http://money.cnn.com...) What it comes down to for conservatives is that the last 16 years we have been taken for a ride by the GOP, but the GOP was still a better alternative than the Left, most conservatives do not and have not agreed with the parties economic plans the last 16 years, but went along with it anyways because it was better for them than the lefts. Donald Trump comes along and says everything that the majority of the voters in this election cycle so far have been thinking for years. It makes sense because his plan puts Americans first.
it doesn't make sense for most conservatives to like trump economically

even those links about growth v tax cuts admit that revenue would not be neutral or go up for the government... it would go down to the tune of a trillion a year. again, that's a short term solution even if it provides growth it has to be made up for later. i might be able to agree that illegal immigrants cost too much, but if you use onservative standards agains themselves, they should on the other hand boosst hte economy like free trade does. it's a trade off with no clear plus for conservatives. i dont count trade to conservatives, cause they are for pure free trade, again. im using their standard. i dont know hwere you get wed have competitively priced medicaid. ive never heard trump say anything about it and i see no source.
it doesn't make sense for most conservatives to like trump economically

when you talk about things like immigration, you are talking about things incidental to economics. it's not a main point. but onto your points. simplifying the tax code he's just going to lower taxes, that doesn't change the tiered structure or really simply anything over how it is now securing our border if you are for free trade you should be for open borders. most conservativses are inconsistent here. you can pay a Mexican a dollar an hour to make pillows in san diego with open borders, or you can pay a Mexican a dollar an hour to make pillows actually in mexico. it's the same thing essentially. ,ending awful trade agreements, he wants protectionism, which again most conservatives don't like so again this does't count for something they should back him for. putting manufacturing back to work this is vague and doesn't say how he would. he's given no plans except if you think tax cuts will put people back to work. putting ethnic minorities back to work he has no plan on this it's just random of you to say reforming our government and getting rid of costly bureaucrats and pushing a lot of programs back to the states will save trillions over 10 years. where do you come up with that number? he has no plan to get rid of costly programs. anything he says he wants to cut is a drop in the bucket. most people including you probably don't realize how big our deficit is and how hard it is to cut thigns. he doesn't even make a significant effort. "On top of the added job growth by his 15% corporate tax will spur job growth and investment in the US alleviating tax burdens on large corporations and small business's. " there might be some job growth from tax cuts as I admitted some economic boom. but this is assuming there's more that you get than from cutting. if bob gets his taxes cut in half, then hires someone and pockets the rest, that's necessarily less revenue the government will get cause he kept a lot of the money. it's overall bad for the economy. "When has tickle down economics been proven wrong? It worked in the 1980's and 1990's which saw massive economic growth" trickle down and growth are two different things. trickle down didn't work cause poor people's wages didn't increase and number of jobs just went up and down over that time. as per growth of course there will be some but that's at the cost of going into debt massively as Reagan and bush and to some extent Clinton did. the conservatives are the ones that did it at the cost of debt. that's not good overall for the economy. it's a short term solution. it shows weak leadership of Reagan and bush. wages just decreased since the 80s. http://www.tradingeconomics.com...
it doesn't make sense for most conservatives to like trump economically

It makes complete sense, economically and along the lines ideology wise. Some branches of conservatives support free trade, they are called, establishment or neocons. They support free trade, open borders, endless wars on this, that or the other. Trump is an outsider, who has outsider support non traditional conservatives, this includes a wider base than people think, from isolationists, to main street conservatives he has a healthy mix of them all. His tax plan is the beginning of a slew of changes he will make, simplifying the tax code, securing our border, ending awful trade agreements, deporting all illegal aliens, putting manufacturing back to work, putting ethnic minorities back to work, reforming our government and getting rid of costly bureaucrats and pushing a lot of programs back to the states will save trillions over 10 years. On top of the added job growth by his 15% corporate tax will spur job growth and investment in the US alleviating tax burdens on large corporations and small business's. When has tickle down economics been proven wrong? It worked in the 1980's and 1990's which saw massive economic growth.
it doesn't make sense for most conservatives to like trump economically

it doesn't make sense for most conservatives to like trump economically he supports some protectionism per free trade, but most conservativs like pure free trade. so this can't be a reason they support him economically. he wants to cut taxes by a trillion dollars a year. he has no serious plans to make any signicant cuts in spending. this will send the national debt into a spiral especially with the current and future deficit without the cuts not even being included w that trillion. there are next to no liberals who want to spend so much that it'd cost a trillion dollars, so all those small government conserativs have no excuse.... big debt is worse than small government, but trump woiuld make big debt and keep governemnt big. the only way you could support him economically is if you believe in trickle down economics or think tax cuts would cause more revenue than taken in the long run. this has been proven wrong over and over.
Metal Lyrics Competition II: The Gods' Wrath

This round is the introduction of your Gods. My verse order (you don't have to do this, as long as we know who you're talking about. Just drop heavy hints) for the first 3 lines (so you get to know them better before I do he rest) is: (Murmaider) (Izanami-no-Mikoto) (Valtiel) Forsaken by the profits of the Council of the Sea, He has poison, jagged claws; said to be a deity From the recesses of the deep, come forth he Bringeth man's destruction as they roam the water aimlessly She who invites creation and death, Her blackest ruled boundaries have limitless breadth Once a ruler in the sky, now forsaken underneath; She lives by her rules in the brutal tract of heath The monster of the chapel, the valet of destruction The attendant of the goddess, awaiting her consumption Of the body she possesses, feeding from its life force, Funneling his anger, yet staying along course The Gods have awakened, their bloody claws drawn, They will show their supremacy by the end of dawn, They have sacrificed their Lives, People, And all they once believed, And have given into what they wanted see, The power of a God, The force of a demon, A force field of smog And a reason therefore to say "I will win." He's got his knives, ropes, sword, and chain, Prepared to inflict massive pain He's got his shiv, pipe, maul, and axe Prepare yourself for his attacks He's brutal, and cold, malicious, and vicious His eyes are beady black-lit and incapricicious His desire for vengeance, as hot as the sun, Burning revenge ripping through; his rage has just begun Her eyes are instead hollow, deathly as her corpse When looked in the face, her victim's mind warps Decaying, and rotten, and ridden with maggots Cold, and lifeless, and overgrown with agates Stalagtite on her skin, barnacles all around, Her once beautiful form gone, her lively spirit now bound She's got her claws, and her minions, and her dangerous gaze Ready to unleash, from the underworld she will be raised Slave of Xuchilbara and lead by pledged devotion Captive of orders and worship, and driven by emotion He's got his fangs, his seal, and his motive to kill For the goddess only, and only for her he will kneel Never relenting, fixed on one thing: To seek out and find a way for Her rebirth to forthbring He's got his anger, and his emotionally fear striking form A preying field of rust and blood; he come forth with the storm The Gods have awakened, their bloody claws drawn, They will show their supremacy by the end of dawn, They have sacrificed their Lives, People, And all they once believed, And have given into what they wanted see, The power of a God, The force of a demon, A force field of smog And a reason therefore to say "I will win."
Metal Lyrics Competition II: The Gods' Wrath

This will be a competition for writing about Gods, be them Norse or Greek, or from entertainment media, and their terrible power and ultimate supremacy, and their unrelenting wrath. You can have 3 Gods. First round will be choosing. Next three rounds will be said Gods battling each other. I choose: 1.) The Murmaider 2.) Valtiel 3.) Izanami-no-Mikoto
Eish HaMilchama

I know what Kabbalah means, it's received wisdom, that's the literal definition. No one book makes up the Kabbalah. Though it is mystical oriented, beware of commercialized Kabbalah. I wrote that the Torah taught some history, especially the Exodus, and you claim now that it isn't true? Wow. . . your the first non-Reform Jew claiming that! Did the flood happen, did Joshua enter the promised land? If none of it ever happened, what are we doing trusting in G-d and following His laws? How do we know any of its true! You say that the NT never happened, even though people believe it. Cannot the same standard be applied to Torah? What makes Torah more truer than the NT? This is a philosophical question. How do you know there were witnesses to the giving of the Torah anymore than Paul's beliefs? You then go on to write a lot about Paul, but I don't see how it means anything to our conversation. By the way, Paul was never a student of Gamaliel. You're getting this from the Christians. You write that I claimed the name of HaShem is not found throughout Torah, but I never said that. You then write that the Name isn't anywhere in the other sacred writings of the nations. They are in there, they just didn't write in Hebrew. It's a joke to say Allah was a moon god, He was HaShem, the name of G-d to their beliefs, though I'm not advocating for the Koran. I don't think you understand either the Brit ha'batarim or milah. You say, correctly, that the former was given before milah. Okay, let's go with that, all scholars and rabbis know there isn't a hint of Olam HaBa nor the resurrection in Torah. Not a hint. I'm not saying it isn't true/going to happen, as I believe in the prophets too, but the concept isn't in Torah. You lastly state that I brought up garbage "theology," meaning, the Documentary Hypothesis. Firstly, get rid of this Lutheran/Protestant theory, it never happened. Those people were atheists, they weren't Christian. You brought up Paul, what does that have to do with our conversation? Secondly, the link below explains your views, and where they came from. I can't type it all up here: https://www.haaretz.com...... In conclusion, I hope we had a fair debate, and I'll let the viewers (if anyone cares for Jewish theology!) decide who's right.
Eish HaMilchama

Why did HaShem send Moshe to Egypt? HaShem did not send Moshe to Egypt carrying only the cloths on his back and a staff. What did the plagues serve? To whom did the plagues attack? HaShem being an Eish Milchama as stated in the song of Moshe following the destruction of Par'o and his army in the Sea of Reeds. Clearly the Gods whom Par'o and the Egyptians worshipped, these Gods live distinct and separate from the God of Moshe who sent Moshe to Egypt to make war upon what? Answer: the Gods of Egypt. Not just that Par'o considered himself a God. Torah teaches spirituality NOT history lessons. People living 3000 years after the death of Par'o, they have no place to define the reality of the Gods whom Par'o worshipped. To do so, expressess both arrogance and utter stupidity. The Mishna teaches: that a person who contemplates that which is above him, behind him, or beneath him, such a person its better that he was never born! A false witness claims to have personally witness that which he did not see. Its haughty puffed up pride for Jews to say that no Gods actually lived, not in the days of Moshe, nor in the days of Yehoshua, nor in the days of all the prophets of the NaCH literature wherein our people struggled with a strong conflict within our Yatzir to worship other Gods. Belief in the tenets of Monotheism represents the avoda zara expressed by both Islam and Reform Judaism. For modern Jews to poo poo the life of other Gods, these fools compare to self righteous false witnesses. How did the slaves of Egypt stand before Par'o and thumb their noses in contempt before Par'o? Obviously the previous sentence requires qualification, due to the different language of the Torah text itself. How did Jews request silver, gold, spices, garments, ect from the Egyptians and the Egyptian taskmasters consent to give their wealth unto slaves? Does this make any sense what so ever? No. The mitzva of tefillen centers upon swearing Torah oaths. The Rashi tefillen bases itself upon the oath sworn by Yehoshua and klall Yisroel at Gilgal. What defined that oath brit? A brit requires swearing a Torah oath. Therefore what oath did Israel bind upon their souls ie their future born children currently living in O'lam Haba?!! The oath brit of Gilgal, to which our Rashi tefillen testifies to this very day, HaShem would war upon the Gods of Canaan just as did HaShem (Eish HaMilchama) did war in the days of Moshe upon the Gods worshipped by Par'o and Mitzraim. The concept of faith that if we keep the commandments - better than did king Shaul - that HaShem shall war against the Gods worshipped by our enemies. Consequently, assuming the pre-conditions of this brit of Gilgal, and Israel upholds our obligations of the brit faith, then HaShem too shall War against the Gods worshipped by our Goyim enemies. HaShem Eish HaMilchama prevails over these Gods whorshipped by the Goyim. As a consequence, the slaves of Egypt thumbed our noses at Par'o and his Egyptian people. Israel walked out of Egypt and the Egyptians mourned their losses. This mussar applies to both then and today.
Democracy

Well... Con challenged me. Con hasn't really explained what the resolution is, but I'm guessing it's something like "Democracy vs. Dictatorship". Con hasn't done anything to establish that a dictatorship is beneficial " non-conformity and new ideas are both good things (they make for a diverse and innovative society), and the constant challenges that citizens present to their governments in a democracy ensure equality and freedom. I don't see why dictatorships are more economically stable.
Democracy

Democracy is a huge threat to a nation since the freedom of speach and expression are a key to opening a country's door to non-conformity and new ideas. I believe in totalitarianism and think it is crucial for a nation to be dictated by the ruling party in a one party system. The best thing about dictatorship is no citizens have any since of entitlement as people in democracy's are never satisfied and always fluctuating with law and economic instability.
The Denver Broncos will wn the AFC West.

My opponent is attempting to argue that the Denver Broncos will win the AFC West. I will be providing evidence and show the reasons why i say they will not win their division. Why broncos will not win division: 1. Broncos upcoming schedule is, Chicago bears, New England Patriots, Buffalo Bills and Kansas city chiefs. I shall explain reasoning on each. First Chicago bears. Chicago gets 2 injured starters back and Devin Hester may also return. Broncos are ranked 1 in rushing yards per game. Now the bears combination of Brian urlacher and Julius peppers are more than enough to stop rushes. If the rushing game is stopped then they are gonna have a hard time in the passing game. Tim Tebow has throw 1 interception so far. Because he barely throws the ball and even when he does he has a low completion percentage. Tim Tebow has won several games by rushing. Again Julius peppers has shown he is a good contain. New England patriots are the top team in passing yards per game. Broncos have a bad pass defense and have beat teams that have had little success this year in passing. Kyle arrington may still lead NFL in interceptions he might be tied with nick Burnett. But he is a key factor along with vince wilfork in the running game. These two games are obvious possible losses s but are more than likely gonna be that way. Buffalo Bills Have had a rough season yes. but they are 4-2 at home. Look for bills Ryan Fitzpatrick to pick apart Broncos defense. I will be fair though this is a game that might be won by the Broncos if they establish the run. Kansas city chiefs Despite their record are a very well organized team. Almost beating my favorite team Pittsburgh which is a big dill considering Pittsburgh has one of the top passing defenses. Broncos are very poor on pass defense. Dwayne bowe should have an easy game along with Kansas city chiefs getting a win. i see the Broncos finishing at most 9-7, Reasons 1. Broncos are winning in overtime and by very little points against low record teams. 2. Tebow is effective at running but faces teams with good defensive linemen and linebacker 3.Again the rushing game is their best weapon and they cant rely solely on running the ball. 4. They need to pass without making mistakes and a loss can easily ruin a teams confidence. Raiders are as well 7-5 and face Green bay and i see that as a definite loss Then they face Lions who are on a big losing streak and will more than likely not win at the raiders home field. Then they face Kansas city who could be a very easy win as Carson Palmer is having one of his best seasons. Then to wrap the season up they play the chargers who just cant seem to get jump started so expect to see cahrgers lose in the Oakland home town at least they will finish 10-6 possibly making them on top
Jackson's kids should be auctioned off to help pay his debts

I think we all realise that michael jackson had some SERIOUS problems, even more than most celelbrities face at one stage or another. I mean comeon the guy looked ghoulish to say the least and was not a fan of being black. Id also like to add that I hate it when people say that he did so much for black people when he tried so hard to look like a white woman. Whats up with everyone loving him so much after his death. The guy was a psycho, he constantly did crazy stuff and overdosed on drugs. Its funny how your a saint after you die. I feel sorry for his kids who were probobly abused by Jackson and scarred by the odd life he sturctured for them which involved wearing masks and dangling from windows. I hope these kids are confidentially adopted by a loving family so they have a chance at a normal life. To sum up 1. Selling children is morally wrong and inhumane 2. You say the children deserve a better life since Jackson has passed away, yet you are argueing for selling them to the highest bidder who could be even worse then Michael Jackson, could you contradict yourself any more? 3. My opponent has agreed that the Auction is unnecesary as Jacksons assets are greater than his liabilities. Therefore no one would be better off if michael Jacksons kids were sold except maybe the guy who buys and then rapes them. 4. It has been reported that michael Jackson ate puppies. 5. My opponent claims put in the kids situation he would put himself up for sale. I put it to my opponent that he must really enjoyed getting raped by Saudi princes and other nefarious acts because people who buy children dont have good deeds in mind.