BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Lawns

The American home for over a century have been capped off with a lawn. A beautiful, well maintained lawn is like putting a bow on a gift to someone special, they both give that added extra special touch that shows a person cares. Lawns are a source of pride for many, and are often a reflection of those who maintain them. Lawns are a vehicle to prevent erosion and rapid storm water rain run off into America's sewer system. Without the greenery of a lawn, rainwater that falls rapidly would wash quickly into our streets and ditches causing flooding on roads or even possibly basements (causing much financial harm to many). Lawns can be developed in many styles and can reflect the tastes of its owners. Whether lawns are a traditional green blanket of growth, or one full of wild flowers. Of course those who do not care how their lawns look may be full of weeds and crabgrass. Either of the above would encourage insect growth beneficial to our ecosystem. Lawns continue to be beneficial to homeowners.
Lawns

(1-3 sentences) The second round is where both sides will put up their main argument (at least 2 paragraphs) You may not rebut what your opponent said in rounds 1 and 2 during the second round. Round 3 will be the rebuttals and closing arguments. Round 4 will give a chance to both sides to rebut the rebuttals and to state their closing arguments. Swearing is not allowed. Sources must be cited. Best of luck to my opponent. ***********************I am against lawns because they waste resources, space, and time that could be better used.
Torture is sometimes morally permissible.

Just to make a few things clear, the inevitability of something does not make it morally permissible. I recognize that killing an innocent person is always wrong. However, it is sometimes inevitable when in war. Not all wars are justified, but I believe that some are, and collateral damage happens to be a horrible side-effect of them. The fact that it is committed in war does not make it morally permissible. I do not agree with my opponent that collateral damage is ever morally permissible. It does not contradict my original statement, as the inevitability of something, again, does not make it morally permissible. It violates the right to life. My opponent hasn't offered any evidence in regards to how many people believe collateral damage is morally permissible. This would seem instrumental in his reasoning since it's largely based on whether we accept collateral damage. I have shown why it's not a very good analogy. Collateral damage is accidental, while torture is deliberate. I have previously shown the faults in my opponent's premises. They were not refuted. As for the claim that I committed the slippery slope fallacy, that's not necessarily true. In this debate, we have recognized that torture violates human rights. Now, if one effectively uses the ends to justify something that violates rights we both view as inherent in our existence, that endangers those rights. Those rights are no longer as inherent as we think they are if we attempt to violate them from a moral standpoint. My opponent's third situation only offers two choices when there is at least one more. The school and hospital nearby can be evacuated before the air strike. The second choice assumes that torture is the only viable option, which is not the case, as I have proven before. To close this debate, I think not only my side has affirmed the resolution, but my opponent has affirmed the resolution as well. He has not only admitted that torture violates human rights, but he has also implied that it's ethically wrong. Even in Round 3, he recognizes that it's an evil. Being more morally permissible does not make something morally permissible. Weighing morality does not, in effect, change something from being morally impermissible to being morally permissible. Again, the ends do not justify the means. We both have recognized the evil in torture. The resolution does not say ,"Torture is more morally permissible than killing many people. " Rather it states, "Torture is sometimes morally permissible. " Weighing the morality of actions against one another does not make one action morally permissible if it's morally impermissible otherwise.
should the word "god" be in the pledge of allegiants

Sir, you've said the same thing over and over, but I'm not seeing your reasoning. Yes, there are different beliefs among the citizens of America and the citizens of all the nations, but your argument is just not valid w/o a solid defense, which you lack. Is saying one word worth changing the standard for an entire nation, all because some people aren't happy with the freedom of speech granted to them by the first amendment? Not everyone in the world agrees with the freedom of speech that we as Americans have got. Should we take that away too? I'm sure you'd disagree with that.
should the word "god" be in the pledge of allegiants

I know that not everyone believes in a god or entity, and that's their choice. Like Idiosyncratic (nice name, by the way) said in the comments, we can't appease everyone. That's not our job. It's like our creed, a motto of the U. S. The pledge represents us. Everything else in the world is changing, can't we have one constant thing?
Pascal's Wager Fails to Support Theism

Since my opponent didn't give an opening, just stating how the debate is, I'll wait for an opening and I'll simply state I accept. I'll be defending it not being a viable means of rhetoric and why atheism is better than both Pascal's Wager and the related notions.DefinitionsAtheism: The lack of belief in a God or Gods.Theism: My opponent can clarify if he wants, otherwise the opposing view of atheism on deities.Pascal's Wager: The notion it's better to believe than to not believe. If you believe and there is no God, nothing happens. If you don't believe and there is no God. Nothing happens. If there is a God and you don't believe, you suffer for eternity. If you do believe and there is a God, you get eternal peace in heaven and salvation.My Goal: To prove through successful rhetoric that notions like Pascal's Wager (P.W/PW) are fallacious and that it is better to believe in no deity.My Opponent: He/She can clarify themselves, but I'll assume to do the opposite of my goal.
Pascal's Wager Fails to Support Theism

Thank you for your interest! The purpose of this debate is to discuss topics so as to better understand my own faith by understanding the criticisms of atheists and other through the use of defending my Catholic faith. The purpose is also to be able to debate more effectively while being more courteous, in addition to being more aware about saying things that the other person might not agree with. For this particular debate, I would like to debate Pascal"s Wager as to whether it supports the Catholic notion of theism (or theism in general). Lastly, if you have a topic you would like to challenge me on (vs. my Catholic faith), just post a comment or invite me to a debate. Now, for those who accept the debate, I would like to hear what the other side says before I respond. There are two objections to this argument I would like to give to the other side. Just remind me and I can post them. I don"t want to post them now in case the other side has a different objection than the two. I am not picky about definitions, as long as the other side can understand what the first person is saying. Each side is free to define a definition in order to make the point they want to make. For example, one person can define belief to include knowledge, and the other can define belief as only having no reason. In addition, one can ask for clarification concerning that definition. I prefer this way because it is easier to talk about things one is more familiar with than otherwise.
What is the Best Color!?!

Dear OTL Students... Please use this template as a "guide" to help you formulate your position. In my opinion, the best color is... It is the best color because... One reason why it is the best color is... Another reasons why it is the best color is... While you can argue that (choose another color) is a good color... Here is the weakness... Therefore, (your color choice) is the best color because...
The Internet brings more harm than good.

The Internet brings more harm than good as people get bullied almost everyday. Bullying shouldn't affect anyone but some minds are weaker than others. The Internet can also be the cause of rape, suicide and murder. Cyber-bullying has a lower chance of the victim committing suicide, getting raped or murdered because it's not as direct as the murder or rapists talking to them online and then finding their address to kill or rape them. Although the Internet has the ability to make your essays sound better than usual, it is still a dangerous place as anyone and everyone can find out information about you without you even knowing.
The Internet brings more harm than good.

That's the good side of it but in reality, bad things happen way more often and it's inevitable. You may think that you're having a conversation with your relative or friend but actually you're conversing with a serial killer or rapist. It may sound exaggerating but things like these do happen in real life. Most of the time people would say "Be positive, these things wont happen to you" but really, deep inside you know it might. Thus, one should never feel ultimately safe one the Internet.
No one has the right to own guns except memberes of the police and military

My opponent has closed her account, so I will not be posting an argument in round three. That would be an opinionated rant, not a debate. Instead, I will give a simple closing argument in this round. It would very likely be different if this debate had continued as planned, but based on what has been said to this point, this is the best possible conclusion (without me adding unanswerable, undefendable points). Based on the points made by my opponent (which are the only ones we can take into account at this point), there is no good reason for people outside of the police or military to own guns, or at least no reason that is not a contradiction on some level. Thank you.
Muay thai is better than tae kwon doe

I'm disappointed to see that PRO has chosen not to make arguments this round; especially since he has so many assertions left to defend and support. I stand by my claim that TKD is superior due to the fact that governing organizations look out for the health and welfare of the practitioners. Unfortunately, as I pointed out numerous times throughout the debate, PRO's arguments rely on mostly unsourced claims, and where it is sourced, over generalization.
Muay thai is better than tae kwon doe

Unfortunately, he has still not provided any evidence or explanations for the assertions I mentioned in the previous round. PRO has not demonstrated why having tougher fighters makes MT a better martial art, nor has he shown how the use of protective gear makes one less tough. Also, we are still sitting here waiting for an explanation of why self defense should be considered the only purpose of martial arts training, an assumption I challenged in the second round. TaekwondoPRO also continues to generalize TKD based on his obviously limited knowledge of the style. He did not address the video I liked to that shows a number of knockouts. Simply asserting that TKD is not powerful is not enough, especially when the opposite is common knowledge. [1][2][3]. PRO has also misrepresented my arguments in favor of TKD. I did not say TKD was safer; I said that TKD is superior because the governing organizations care enough about their competitors to require protective gear. Putting it TogetherPRO has yet to make anything other than bare assertions, while I have backed up my claims with evidence. I am still waiting for explanations from the second round, and for my own arguments to be actually addressed. [1] . http://ymaa.com...[2] . http://bleacherreport.com...[3] . http://healthyliving.azcentral.com...
Muay thai is better than tae kwon doe

Con claims that tae kwon doe is superior to muay thai since it is more safe. Which is true but no martial arts are safe, many people died from it. While safety comes first, tae kwon doe will fail if it is for self defence, which is the main point of martial arts.Tae kwon doe likes to do this fancy kicks which looked awesome. But it is not really going to work in real life as the enemy will dodge it easily, not to mention power is much.
Muay thai is better than tae kwon doe

Thank you for your comments this round.ToughnessOnce again, PRO has resorted to the suggestion that the style with the toughest fighters is the superior style. However, he has not demonstrated this point; it is just an assertion. I request that PRO justify his claim that tougher fighters equate to a better style. GearPRO has also asserted that since TKD fighters wear protective gear, they are less tough. This ignores any other reason they might wear gear, and simply asserts that it is weakness. I again request that PRO provide some evidence for his assertion. Another GeneralizationOnce again, PRO has over generalized an entire martial art based on a three minute clip showing practice in a single aspect of TKD. I have attached a short video of another aspect of TKD training [1]. Keep in mind that these are not elite level competitors; the videos are mostly from local tournaments held in local school gymnasiums.My ClaimI have avoided taking on any burden thus far in the debate because I didn't need to, but in order to spice things up, I'll throw something out there.TKD is better than MT because TKD associations require the use of protective gear to protect competitors engaged in sparring matches [2]. This requirement demonstrates a dedication to the safety of the practitioners, and therefore, to the art. For this reason, TKD is superior.Wrapping Up the RoundPRO has once again relied on bald assertions and generalizations in his arguments. I have addressed all of his points, and requested evidence from PRO. I have also demonstrated how TKD is superior to MT. I look forward to PRO's comments in the fourth round.Source[1] Video[2] http://www.kma-sportsacademy.com...
Muay thai is better than tae kwon doe

Ok , when tae kwok doe fighters wear guards(protective gear), it means that they are less tougher as they do not actually know how to endure real pain. Muay thai fighters never wear guards (except for mouth) unless the person is training for someone(who will be attacking him). Muay thai competitions can have blood too. The toughness thing is like endurance points, so muay thai fighters are more harder to be knocked down. I started muay thai in 2006 and trains with my father who was a personal trainer and also agrees takwondo sucks and once in a while i have to fight each other without guards but boxing gloves. Takwondo training is not exactly mainly for power. As you know you just need one powerful punch to knock out someone. This videos also shows the aggresion in training of both arts. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... as you see the training in takwondo is less powerful and less consistently aggressive unlike muay thai. While takwondo also haves a few punches, they are mainly kicks. In muay thai it is mixed.
Muay thai is better than tae kwon doe

In Defense of Taekwondo (TKD) PRO has demonstrated that he knows little to nothing about TKD. Most TKD schools and competitions require competitors to wear protective gear; this is to protect them [1]. TKD is well known to have devastatingly powerful kicks, and as many sparing matches, even ones in the studio on Tuesday nights, are full contact[1][2], such gear is necessary. There are also other types of Taekwondo sparring that utilize less gear, such as ITF style sparring [2]. There is also the point about kicking the air. I have been practicing Taekwondo since 2000, and have taken part in teaching since 2002. Yes, there are drills where students kick nothing. There are also drills where they kick paddles, heavy bags, kicking shields, and even each other. These drills range from precision drills that focus on the student’s control, to power drills. Toughness Much of PRO’s argument stems from his claim that Muay Thai (MT) fighters are “tougher. ” So what? The simple fact that fighters are tougher does not make a style superior. Unless PRO would like to demonstrate what it is about the toughness of MT practitioners that make the style superior, this is a dropped point. Cherry Picking PRO is basing much of his argument on two encounters: an anecdote about sparring with his friend, and a video from YouTube. In neither of these situations do we know the skill level of any of the practitioners, the rules (if any), or any number of other variables. Perhaps they were both evenly matched fighters in which the MT fighter won; perhaps not. We do not know. Even if they were perfectly matched bouts, two data points cannot demonstrate the superiority of one martial style over another. Martial Arts PRO has made one more error I feel I need to address. PRO has made the assertion that, “Martial arts are ment for self defence. ” While it is true that most, if not all, martial arts have their roots in self-preservation, there is no reason that this needs to be the only thing they are good for. PRO needs to support assertions like this or they need not be taken seriously. Wrapping Up PRO’s whole argument has been an over-generalization based on a small amount of experience with a tiny subset of the TKD world, combined with ill-defined definitions regarding what constitutes a “better” martial art. He has also relied greatly on bald assertions; perhaps he is saving his sources for future rounds. I look forward to PRO’s next round of comments. Sources [1] . http://www.fullcontactmartialarts.org... [2] . http://www.olympictaekwondo.org...
Muay thai is better than tae kwon doe

Ok so firstly muay thai fighters are much more tougher than takwondo ones as muay thai competitions are much more violent. Taekwondo competitions have people wearing guards and only have to kick *this much* to win. I remembered i fought my friend that claimed to have a black belt, he managed to kick my stomach which left a dent but not pain(he was using shoe). Then one time he kicked, i grabbed his leg and went into a ground n pound position. When ground and pound, you will be easily defeated and should be doing MMA. Secondly, the training is not that good, in takwondo you kick the air or kick something using little strength but in muay thai its hardcore that it's obvious you sweated. You punch something with power. Now lets look at this video http://www.youtube.com... and see that this fool is foolish enough not to block! Martial arts are ment for self defence but takwondo cant be it, takwondo should not be used as self defence but as competition. Overall muay thai fighters are much tougher and stronger. Takwondo always falls to muay thai... Because they aren't as tough as them.
Biohistory, or digging up the body of dead people for science

Biohistory isn't against the fourth amendment because it states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Houses, papers and effects are hardly what biohistorians are looking for. Also, since biohistory is a legal practice, they have affirmation, and it is this affirmation that allows them to search bodies. It could also be argued that the biohistorians have probable cause. Biohistorians don't just dig up anybody, the find specimen that are related to their current research program. They provide a hypothesis before digging anybody or anything up. In regards to the fifth amendment, when it states, "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation," it is talking about property, such as ones house or land. The amendment does not pertain to a bone shard or a chin hair. It is also arguable that neither of these two amendments apply at all because the people it pertains to in this matter are dead. The Constitution was written for all American citizens. According to the dictionary, a citizen is: 1: an inhabitant of a city or town; especially : one entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman. It means you have to live in the country not be dead in it. Also, after death, doctors do not have to keep your medical records private. They publish autopsy results in medical journals all the time, and this is perfectly legal.
Biohistory, or digging up the body of dead people for science

"it is unconstitutional may fly in the U. S but you can't write off bio history in other countries. " I never wrote off "other countries. " I use OUR Constitution for my argument. Also, if the US were to do something on a new issue like this, many countries would follow our lead. Not every country will follow our lead, but we will have an impact on what we do. "Denying the biohistorians the right to investigate these people is denying the world of valuable information" HOw do you know that the person will hold "valuable information. " Look at our graves now, they have the RIP (rest in peace) sign on them. DOn't you think if we dig them up without anyone's consent, they aren't getting their "rest in peace. " Also, what if they didn't want to be tested on? What gives modern man the right to the body of Abe Lincoln who lived 140 years ago? When I talk about the 4th Amendment, I'm saying that digging these bodies up is a violation of the 4th Amendment. It is a unreasonable search. once again I will say that how do you know that the person "holds information? " If he doesn't, you have just did all these test on a dead body, took a lot of criticism and now what? You will hear everyone say, "told you so. " PLease argue that it isn't against both amendments.
Biohistory, or digging up the body of dead people for science

First off, you have to understand that biohistory is an issue not only pertaining to dead humans, but plant life as well. Secondly, biohistory isn't only an issue in the United States. Saying it is bad because it is unconstitutional may fly in the U.S but you can't write off biohistory in other countries. You have to think about the people who died in America before the constitution was written, and those who died in other countries. They were never citizens of the United States, so why should American laws determine their fate? Next I would like to talk about your 2/3 rule. You said that if a person doesn't have any living relatives their body shouldn't be searched. This excludes the majority of the people that biohistorians want to investigate. Denying the biohistorians the right to investigate these people is denying the world of valuable information to can be used for the greater good of the world. Humans have evolved, and keeping the treasures of past evolution locked up because the bones of a human who lived 500 years ago doesn't have any relatives is absurd. When you talk about the fourth amendment in your argument, you said, "There will not be a dramatic effect on what we find, if we find anything." How can you know that for certain? Biohistory is a very new field of study, and turning your back on it before giving it a chance won't do any good. Already biohistorians have discovered enzymes that replicate DNA, and astrocytes, a glial cell that supports adaptable brain functions. These are only a few of the scientific and historical breakthroughs made by biohistorians. All in all, humans and plants have evolved tremendously over time. To ignore their evolutionary patters is to ignore the past. We cannot write off and forget about this huge chunk of science and history.