BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A man should be a god's best friend

A dog is a man's best friend. That's true, and not surprising if you think about it. After all, you provide him with food, shelter and entertainment in the form of toys and walkies - you even stroke him! In short, you give him everything he needs to make his life happy and complete. In return for your munificence, your pet is only too happy to show his gratitude by barking at intruders, bringing your slippers and fetching the newspapers. Of course, your dog doesn't know that it takes money to buy his food, to pay the mortgage on the house and to put fuel in the car. Neither does he understand that you are actually driving the car to the park rather than, say, the funny little metal house on wheels being blown there by some divine wind. In short, he can't make full sense of his world: all he knows is that it is a bountiful one and that you are his all-providing master. In light of this, he is astute enough to realise that it is in his own best interest to obey your commands without question and to devote his full loyalty to you. In short, to your dog, you are a god and he worships you. It was similar with primitive man. He didn't know anything about astrophysics, plate tectonics or biochemistry, all he knew was that he was born into a world abundant with fruit to gather and animals to hunt; the sun kept him warm and the rivers and lakes provided him with water to drink. But where did these gifts come from? And what had man done to deserve them? Having no knowledge of science, he couldn't explain. Therefore, in order to reconcile himself with his existence on Earth, he worshipped those things that provided the bounty: the sun; the mother earth; the rivers and lakes; certain animals and so on. Indeed, such proto-religions still exist today in such places as Brazil, sub-Saharan Africa and Borneo. As man developed and became more sophisticated so did these archaic religions, evolving into the faiths we are familiar with today. However, today, man's understanding of the world around him, although far from complete, is now advanced enough to make a mockery of these religions. Even the Catholic Church, with it's hundreds of millions of followers, conceded this week that Darwin was right with his theory of evolution and the Bible was wrong with it's cock and bull story about Adam's spare rib* - just as they admitted Galileo was right when he proved that the Earth revolved around the sun, rather than the other way round as the Church had previously taught. As the teachings of all the major world religions are now being exposed as having no more validity than myths and fairy tales and man continues to develop his understanding of the world around him, it is becoming increasingly clear that faith in religious deities is as haplessly misguided as a dog's absolute faith in its owner as an all-powerful, all-providing being. Thank you. * http://www.timesonline.co.uk...
hey i need help just wrote a schoalship speech on leadership id like some people to comment and help

You repeatedly state that a leader is one who pushes people to make decisions, "getting someone to do what they don't want to do. .. " What you are describing seems like forced will more than free will, to be forced to be free, the idea of the general will. A leader should represent the people he leads, otherwise, he is no more than a hypocrite, a loud cry in the night. If our elected leaders do what they think is right, and what they think is right and what we think is right are two different things, they're not our leader anymore. Very well, inspire and lead, but do not manipulate. But what about a torn leader. If an entire nation is asking him to go to war, to commit genocide, what does that leader do? Where do a leader's priorities lie, in what he thinks/knows is right, or in what the people think/know is right? A leader must have a group he is leading, I repeat. You never really define leader, and perhaps should note that people may have conflicting views over who or what a leader is. In Hitler and Mussolini, some found a leader. They led, they inspired. Many tyrants, and infamous war-starters, simply did what every leader does: they followed their people's will. Does that make them bad people? Bad leaders? Try and touch upon that.
Veganism Is Less Healthy Than Non-Veganism

dude, as far as i'm concerned you're a robot. you took everything i said so seriously like jesus christ man when i say "get laid" where i come from it usually you means you're really uptight and boring and you should loosen up but i guess i didn't make that clear. my bad mr Spock (that's a joke.) aAnd as far a the ironic part i joined this to troll with my friend like we'd go on stupid debates and just take the piss but come clean at the end while i've only competed in like 2-3 debates you've competed in like 223 or something (btw congrats on the 73% win ratio means nothing irl though again proving you're just wasting your time by doing this) about the baby thing i've explained just before what i mean t by "getting laid again my apologies i didn't explain what that meant in my town. about sales position for your big company, good for you i'm rally proud of you however i find it quite funny how i called you boring and you just so happened to work as a full time sales person. as for the fiance again everything i said was a joke but good for you since you've got a 1-up on me (joke i'm 15) as for busking and going out for the boys that's nothing special to brag about. humans are social creatures and there's a ton of people who get paid to play music, hell i could perform if i had the balls to perform in front of crowds. as for "i eat meat" i think any sane person does lol (that was a joke) and because you took this "troll" i guess like a true robot here's a link that could really help you out: https://en.wikipedia.org...
Veganism Is Less Healthy Than Non-Veganism

Yes, meat can be bad for you raw... That is why you cook it. Additionally, I find it ironic that you claim I have no life because I debate online with anonymous people, considering you joined a debating website in which the sole purpose is debating with anonymous people (which is exactly what you are doing here). As far as me getting laid is concerned, the baby in my profile pic is mine and I can assure you she wasn't delivered by a stork. My life is great, I have a full time sales position for a big company, my own place with my fiance and daghter, I get paid to perform music, go out with the boys, oh, and let's not forget; I eat meat.
Veganism Is Less Healthy Than Non-Veganism

dude listen, you're WAYY to professional for me. i'm a 15 BOY and did this because i was looking for topics with a friend and this one seemed easy clearly my judgment was misplaced. you were linking sources? dude points from an onision video XDD. anyway to be honest yeah i mi read the title in excitement since i though this would be an easy topic to win. so alright my dude i guess you win by forfeit lol. but i still think that veganism is still healthier for common sense since meat has like many more chances to be bad for you like idk raw, tapeworms etc Anyway my dude you seem like you have no life (since you're arguing website with anonymous people) you should get out and possibly get laid (might be too late though i heard 64 year old getting children)
Veganism Is Less Healthy Than Non-Veganism

OK so first up it's a pleasure to be able to argue with you today however i'm afraid you'll struggle to walk after i'm done with this debate (friendly joke) ok so where to start right we could start with generally why veganism is better than non-veganism veganism is better because: less animals are harmed it's unnecessary to eat any products from animals as there are plenty of substitutes meat causes havoc on you digestive system as it take a lot longer to digest meat than it does to digest vegetables meat can also make your farts smell really bad since humans are more evolved than other animals why should we resort to instincts the rely on and finally veganism is better as it can help with lowering cholesterol thank you for granting me your time i anxiously await your repsponse. btw sorry for grammar cba going back to sort it.
Veganism Is Less Healthy Than Non-Veganism

I am going to argue that including animal products in one's diet is generally healthier than the alternative, and my opponent must argue that excluding animal products from one's diet is generally more healthy than the alternative. The first round is not for acceptance on my opponents behalf, but for my opponent to present arguments. In order to ensure we have the same amount of rounds to argue, in the last round my opponent will simply put: "..." Good luck.
Should more or less money be put towards funding for schools

Closing: Well. Here we are at the grand finale. Now, to tie up a few loose ends. -When I was talking about the police, it was a choice. And in recent years law enforcement has not been popular. Most would not want to hire more. -When did this debate a debate on standardized testing? I'd prefer to leave that for another day. I see your point, but, when all is fair, I have to say that Congress and the President have caused this a long with school boards. When new people work here, (hint. hint. the people we educate today) this may not still be a thing. -In this debate, I am not helping everyone in the country. There are still going to be drop-outs. Still going to be kids unexcited to learn, there are still going to be boring teachers. -Now, with your debate about disadvantaging learning tactics, many teachers use differnet tactics, and we cannot judge them if that is how they roll. Trust me, my 6th grade math teacher could have used better styles. -Also, even if some teachers can have a boring style (we have ALL been there), there are still good teachers, and with a higher amount of funding, we can get past all this standardized badness. There is so much clamor and outcry over ending this reign of terror, and with a new president coming into office next year, we may have a change rolling around in the wind. -The big issue, less funding means no money for art and music classes, which are desperately needed. My school gets a good amount of funding, we have Photography, 3-D Art, 2-D Art, Marine Biology, Gifted, Yearbook, along with much more. A higher funding provides more oppurtunities for students to find what they love. We even pay for a site for researching careers, and schools. In all conclusion, we need to spend more on education to give children a better enviroment in. Standardized testing is a HUGE downside towards the education of our kids, I feel we'll get passed it. Reduced crime, a brighter future, less poverty, and fewer drop-outs, and ways to find what to grasp for. All of this together is an easy incentive to want more money for our schools. Thank you for taking your time to read this, and zi'll leave you with a final thought; "Children are like wet cement, whatever falls on them today, leaves an impression." ~Dr. Haim Ginott
Should more or less money be put towards funding for schools

Now, reading through your claim, I am inmpressed. Until I did some research of my own. Research that hits a heavy blow. As one article says... "It’s become almost conventional wisdom that throwing more money at public education doesn’t produce results. But what if conventional wisdom is wrong?" ~ Noah Smith. As stated in Smith's article, your example about New Jersey, isn't all that accurate. Since, to live in New Jersey, you are most likely an upper-income resident, since the taxes and price to live there is terrible. The authors of a 1955-1985 study have found one exception. Many people ing in the New England area of the U.S do not really have an beneficial outcome of more spending. Poor children and schools in rural communities receive very high benefits from this though. "Here’s the hitch: The authors find that the benefits of increased spending are much stronger for poor kids than for wealthier ones." ~Again Noah Smith. I hope you agree this shows your New Jersey example, a bit innaccurate. Now, there are some benefits to the upper-income families for this though. The poor people that are being educated, are, statistically speaking, more likely to get better jobs. 7.25% likely in fact. It doesn't sound like much, but what I mean is that this is how much their wages increasewhen we spend more money on them. Then, with better jobs, you investors have better workers. People have better houseworkers. Better mechanics! All-in-all, a better society! You're probably saying "A better society just because we get better gardeners and investors are happy. Pssh. please!" Well, in unsafe towns and cities. Detroit. Chicago. Even some parts of Atlanta. Do you really enjoy walking though the dirty neighborhoods, possible getting mugged? Well, we could just put more money into a police force tohandle it. Or we could stop it before it happens. Lance Lochner and Enrico Morreti found in their study, which is nt the one I was talking about earlier, that a well-educated population, is a wll-socialized population. With those 7.25% higher wages, the incentive for crime is reduced, not abolished, but definitely reduced. Now, needing to a correct a minor mistake arlier, are you ready for that BIG study? Well here it is. A few economists and other folk took a look at students in 1955-1985, when courts ordered more education spending. then they monitored their progress through 2011. The results? A long-term valuable study, that shows spending works.Statistics-10% education spending increase7.25% Higher Wages.27 more years of schoolExtremely low chance of falling into poverty.Back to when I said, .27 more years of chol. Yes, high school dropouts exist. I don't think we can ever get rid of that unless we abolish dropping out, which I do not support. But this is still more time they spend in school! Still more learning! So in conclusion of my second argument, we should make it rain for schools."Education is our passport to the future, for tommorow belongs to people who prepare for it today" ~Malcom X
Should more or less money be put towards funding for schools

(I guess...) First Argument: In a growing society, new technological advances are being released, along with these new technologies, comes people who control them. The people who invent them. the people who solve the problems they create. Later On, who will be the people to take over these roles? Today's children of course! This is why we need to put forward money towards their education. And as Plato stated: "The direction in which education starts a man will determine his future in life." If we do not put money in today's education, then schools don't have the resources to make schools enjoyable. What happens when a kid doesn't want to go to his school? The child will not pay attention as much as they should. Schools need to be a more positive environment for children to learn about what they need to. Consider it lucky that children don't get beat with paddles anymore! How are our children supposed to grow in a negative environment. Global Warming is a long-lasting problem. How is the future supposed to fix that? How about terrorism, will we continue to be struck down, or will tomorrow's people create brighter future. All of these questions remain unanswered until we can finally decide once and for all, will we give the soil to plant the seeds.
Should more or less money be put towards funding for schools

Topic: Should the government spend more or less on education? My Stance: Should spend MORE In today's world, there is much debate over how much should be put towards the children of America. Politics has covered many bases with this issue, and have implanted more and less funding in many places. However, in this debate, let's add another to the mix about whether school's should get more or less for the lives of tomorrow.
That we should immediately legalise all drugs.

To be precise, I'd like to follow the Portuguese model of drug reform; legalising the possession of a small quantity (up to ten days worth) of any currently illegal substance, and offering targeted rehabilitation to drug users, as well as clean needles etc. Following from the style I've seen around this website, I must show that the outcomes of legalising all drugs would be beneficial to society as a whole. Round one will be for acceptance, round two for arguments, round three for arguments/rebuttal and round four for summarising arguments.
Drivers convicted of a DUI should be required to ....full desc inside.

It's still wrong to give it to the whole family. You should only give the plate to the actual offender. It would be humiliating enough to have to wear the plate yourself (which is a good idea), but making the whole family wear one is just cruel. It could damage the lives of that particular wife/husband by making the boss see that they were convicted of a DUI, even if it wasn't them to do it. Assume that your father had a few drinks too many one night, and got convicted of a DUI. YOU would have to go around then all the time while people look at you and think "He/she got convicted of a DUI. How horrible." People would silently judge you and you may even be refused a VISA if you ever want to travel, as this is considered a criminal offence.
Drivers convicted of a DUI should be required to ....full desc inside.

Sorry about that...real life happened...nieces b-day party and...well anyway. I forfeited the last round so I only have this shot right? If a husband drinks and drives...his wife and children( if they could drive) should have to have those plates. Not the husband's parents and brothers. If the son...then the rest of his immediate (parents n siblings...not uncles n cousins.) Reason- you drink and drive...you are criminally negligent. I have a cdl class A...I have 1/2 the legal limit as anyone else so I can't have a full beer without being termed legally drunk...so I never drink unless my wife is there to drive. Furthermore, I have a CHCL and can't drink an carry a weapon...so...I just drink at home with the gun in it's gunsafe and my car parked. If someone drinks and drives...then gets pulled over and gets a DUI...my first thought is charge them with criminal negligence with a deadly weapon...but most would drop a brick if I suggested that. So...embarrass the whole family if they disregard the lives of everyone else on the road for a term of 1 year...bet that driver won't drink and drive again if they bring that down on themselves. How many more lives have to be lost before we nail drunk drivers to the wall? In Arkansas you can be arrested for DUI 3 times before your license is permanently revoked. If that is how the country views it...it is like saying a drunk can fire a gun at a mall 3 times before they can't own/use a gun anymore. I know most think that is extreme...but how many MORE people die via drunk driver than handguns? 2012 drunk drivers killed over 10k people where handguns killed 6k. Now...we regulate guns out the teeth but no one talks about drunk driver legislation. So...cause public shame and humiliation and folks will think of others before being drunk drivers. http://www.gunpolicy.org... (used handgun deaths in this segment due to handguns being of a higher restriction than long guns and more easily hidden...giving a higher probability of use due to concealability.) http://responsibility.org...
Drivers convicted of a DUI should be required to ....full desc inside.

While I do think that the idea of a special license plate is quite good, you are being a bit harsh about the other parts. Random stops by the police is a bad idea, especially since you are saying that all of their immediate family would receive the same treatment. That is just wasting the officer's time and that family member's time. Imagine you had a brother who murdered someone. The police found out and made you wear a special badge indicating that YOU were the one to do it, as there is no difference in the badges. So from now on, the police can stop you at any time and say, "Sorry sir, I'm afraid I have to check your internet history and any items you have on you, just in case you murder someone again". Do you understand?
The Boston Bruins are the cheapest team in hockey as of their series against the Montreal Canadiens.

The flyers are not a very dirty team. The 74-75 team is not a part of the nhl right now, and even if they were, they at least had the skills to scire goals and win a stanley cup. Something the bruins do not. Explain to me how this is not a clean hit (http://m.youtube.com...) (first fifteen seconds) stepan had the puck then passed it. He only took to strides and prust hit him with his shoulder. He got two game because it was constituded as interference. Plus stepan ended up being fine because he returned to game 5 and scored two goals. While crosby took 13 games to come back from his broken jaw which was much worse. The bruins will drop the gloves. Another reason why they are an extremely cheap team. The canadiens wont drop the gloves because theyre a skilled team and dont have a need to drop the gloves. Unless somebody else challenges them and only then do they defend their honor. They dont pick fights because they have more skill which they would rather use. Again. The 74-75 flyers arent a part of the nhl right now. So what you have told me was that the canadiens are the cheapest team in the nhl because they injured one guy.
The Boston Bruins are the cheapest team in hockey as of their series against the Montreal Canadiens.

I didn't know high hits that break peoples jaw's were considered "clean" hits. Also at least the Bruins have enough respect that they will drop the gloves if a player from the other team doesn't like there rough style of play. Last the cheapest team in hockey was the 1974-1975 Flyers. Thanks to them rules like the third man in penalty came into existence. What they would do was they would have there star player Bobby Clarke do anything to get under a players skin. Then when the player reacted they would have every player get over to the fight and knock the snot out of the player who hit Bobby. Now that right there is messed up, and on top of that they ended up winning the cup because they beat the crap out of every team they played.
The Boston Bruins are the cheapest team in hockey as of their series against the Montreal Canadiens.

The Boston bruins in their final postseason appearance this season against the Montreal Canadians was the cheapest team in hockey. They even turned normally good natured, hard working people like Jerome Iginla into cheap shotting pigs. But there is other people who big to differ and say that that's just how they play. As Boston may be the biggest team in the league, but that does not give them any excuse to cheap shot anybody. Just because you get mad you do not have the right to hurt other player and potentially end their hockey careers. The Boston bruins players were squirting water bottles and starting fights. If your a thirteen year old then that's fine to do harmless things like that. But when its your job to keep your cool and to show respect to your opponents. I would also like to add that they cannot take what they're giving. Ever time that they would get hit. They'd act like every time that a hit happened on them, it was the dirtiest thing ever, but if the equivalent was to happen to the Canadians, its a clean hit everytime. And to put the cherry on top, Milan lucic cant even say good series to his opponents. He has to make threats to their life and get them worried about their life. I mean cmon. Thats a new low i haven't seen before. But what are you goanna do if your dealing with the cheapest team in hockey.