BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should America try to overthrow Kim Jong Un

It is incredibly unlikely that Kim Jong Un will become a threat to the United States, for four reasons: 1. It is a poor nation with little money to research weaponry. 2. It struggles to recruit the best minds to help develop weaponry due to the poor Quality of Life in the country and the international sanctions on the country. 3. South Korean surveillance means that the US and most of its allies will be notified if a strike looks likely. 4. KJU is an intelligent, privately schooled man who knows that his country and everyone in it- himself included- would be obliterated if he were to strike the US or any of its allies. Because of this, the priority in this debate should be the well-being of the North Korean people. It is my contention that North Korea is likely to fall into a secondary dictatorship. There are two ways this could happen: 1. With US presence for some time after the deposition. If KJU is deposed, and USA troops stay to moderate elections, it is likely that the US becomes known as a colonialist force, as it already was after the Korean war. This, combined with the fact that most North Koreans have been brainwashed into idolic worship of KJU means that the deposition would pave the way for an authoritarian wanting to continue KJUs policies winning the election and becoming a functional dictator. 2. Without US presence. In this case you have a simple vacuum, where KJUs closest adviser or relative steps in claiming to be a continuation of the line that many North Koreans believe to be literally divine in nature.
Transgenderism

Why is Transgenderism impossible? And why is their suicide rate so high? Why should I as a person conform to a trans persons standards and call them something they aren't? Well, I am gonna answer all of those questions. Transgenderism is not biologically possible on many standards. All you can truly do is chance your external appearance. Your chromosomes may be the same, you may have boobs, you may have the opposite genders parts, but that doesn't make you the opposite gender of what you were at birth. You are born with genetics and chromosomes dedicated to making you your own gender. You can't change those chromosomes that identify your gender. It simply cannot be done. It is a mental disorder, and I wish people with that disorder the best of luck to get the mental assistance they need to fix it. Next question. They suicide rate in the trans community is a shocking 40%. That's insane. Why is it so high? It isn't because they get bullied by society, it's not because people don't conform to their standards. That's been proven by multiple studies. Their suicide rate is so high because they have a mental disorder and they aren't receiving the proper help. Going back to when I stated that we aren't to blame for their suicide because some people call them what they really are instead of their trans form. I am not going to change my thinking so someone feels good about them self. Get over it. Get some help. :)
Theism is fundamentally a danger to human society.

As he started the debate and is issuing an attack on Theism, he bears the burden of proof in this debate. I will make a brief opening argument describing how Theism, specifically Christianity (there are many Theistic philosophies and religions, but that is the one that I ascribe to) is not fundamentally more dangerous than it is beneficial to society. In order to win the debate, my opponent must show that Theism (the belief in a God or gods) does more harm than good. Christianity is, at its heart, a religion of peace. Constantly through the Bible, we see that we are to love God, love our neighbor, and even love our enemies (Matthew 22:37-39, Matthew 5:43-44, et al). The Bible teaches that we are not to repay evil for evil (Romans 12:17). We are to live in peace with each other (2 Corinthians 13:11). There have been bad people throughout history who have abused the Bible, which they supposedly believe. However, the belief system cannot be faulted if someone fails to follow it. One may call themselves a Christian or do evils in the name of God, but they are not following the tenets as laid out in the faith. Theism is not at fault for those who fail to live up to its ideals. I look forward to Pro's response.
Theism is fundamentally a danger to human society.

By engaging in this debate Con agrees to the following conditions: 1. theism = a literal belief in a creator god with some physical, tangible reality not necessarily expressible spacially. 2. the debate is not only that theism presents A danger, but that it is fundamentally more dangerous than it is beneficial - a bit more for con to work with. 3. no arguments on semantics. 4. established logical fallacies will be called and arguments containing them must be restated or dismissed.
Did duke university do 9/11

What the f*ck did you just f*cking say about me, you little b*tch? I"ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I"ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I"m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the f*ck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my f*cking words. You think you can get away with saying that sh*t to me over the Internet? Think again, f*cker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You"re f*cking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that"s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable a*s off the face of the continent, you little sh*t. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your f*cking tongue. But you couldn"t, you didn"t, and now you"re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will sh*t fury all over you and you will drown in it. You"re f*cking dead, kiddo.
Did duke university do 9/11

Nature"s first green is gold, Her hardest hue to hold. Her early leaf"s a flower; But only so an hour. Then leaf subsides to leaf. So Eden sank to grief, So dawn goes down to day. Nothing gold can stay. Using this as nuclear wepons means words defeat the purpose of the distance to the radioctivve spiders grandmas factory. Go frick your frickity frack
Did duke university do 9/11

Duke recently posted on its website - "The Duke University community will recognize the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks with several campus events that explore the issues and emotions behind one of the most profound days in American history. Some events draw on faculty expertise to analyze terrorism and national security issues, or the impact of 9/11 on Muslim Americans, global relations and religion. Other events focus on the grief and sadness surrounding the tragedy through photographs, music and film." This is conclusive evidence that Duke is tightly related to the terror attacks committed on September 11 2001. Furthermore it could also be concluded that Grayson Allen is Osama Bin Laden reincarnated.
Singing Contest

I like your music selection n.n I can tell you're good at singing but truthfully it's difficult to tell how good because your sound system gets in the way a little bit. The ends is much clearer than the beginning and sounds good. If you have smule sing thats pretty good and some computers actually have pretty good recorders if you know how to get rid of the static. Also I found a pretty good recording website but you might have to fiddle with your mic settings in order to get rid of the static. http://online-voice-recorder.com... is a pretty good website but you have to turn it into a youtube video or something in order to upload it I recorded this one on my computer using video maker http://www.youtube.com...
This site is better than Sodahead

OK, here's a problem with Sodahead, which you also find on Yahoo Answers. This admittedly will be a more difficult debate since this is more based on negative experiences rather than objective facts. Overview: Sodahead, Yahoo, and Funadvice have some really abusive policies. And no, I'm not saying that oh the rules are harsh. If a group makes rules you have to follow them. I don't argue against that. What I am suggesting is that Sodahead has a tendency to show favortism and ban anyone who dares to fight the views of the majority of the people on the site. Being on the site, let's face it, was like being around the segregationists who made Jim Crow legal in America. It's like you disagree with their view, they censor you. One time I made an argument about tomboys and autistic people, saying that they are very much persecuted and mistreated in America, and some people got me banned from the site. I sent the moderator an email asking why I got banned, but they didn't return any email. There is a difference between Yahoo Answers (which I absolutely ahbor as well) and Sodahead. On Yahoo Answers, users, if they don't allow you to email them, tell you that they don't like you. On Sodahead, it's more subtle: "We'll pretend to welcome you, but if you go against our views, we'll censor and ban you." It's a shame because there were a lot more accepting people on Sodahead that would befriend you and whatnot, but when it came to the big guns, persecution began. Favoritism runs amonk in all three of those sites.
Liberalism seeks to absolve people of personal responsibility

First ill go down your points Increased welfare benefits: -So were holding children and people unable to work, responsible for their own being if we dont have increased welfare? Welfare, no matter how much it increases, is not exactly a glamorous lifestyle and you can make way more doing anytihng from working at mcDs to picking trash. Besides that, it mainly goes to families with children and to the edlerly who cant work. Increased social security benefits: -Saving money isnt an option for many. If we dont give social security benefits, most people will be either working until the day they die, or, if they cant work before that day, live on the streets. Universal health care: -Stunt car driving? what in gods name are you talking about. Government sponsered health care is for the UNINSURED not the evil kennivels. Refer to the other two points above Universal education: -Of course, less education = smarter kids. Im sure the family that works 40 hours a week for minimum wage has plenty of time to come home and teach their children how to read write and do math. What world are you living in? Pro-abortion: -First of all, what the hell is "pro-abortion"? Do you think liberals go out, get pregnant and have an abortion, jsut for fun? I tihnk you mean "pro-choice" which only says abortion isnt legally impeedable by the federal government. Im not personally a fan of the act and if i were ever involved in a situation where abortion was an issue with a girlfriend/wife/sister/friend ect., i would definatley be opposed, but i cant push that opinion of federal law. No body has that right, (in my opinion). Anti-death penalty: -So instead of making the legal system take charge and try and rehabilitate and isolate, its more "responsible" to just kill the guy and move on? Liberal positions makeing accountability: Corperate Morality -Keeps Corperations accountable for the wages of their employees, thier effect of the enviornment and monopolization of the market. Anti-War -Makes govt responsible rather than our brave soldiers. Your argument is completely ridiculous
Liberalism seeks to absolve people of personal responsibility

All key Liberal positions on issues seek to absolve people of personal responsibility, with a powerful central government being the key tool by which this is accomplished. The Liberal stance on the following issues is as such: * Increased welfare benefits: less responsibility in the areas of hard work, career decisions, ethical work behavior, etc. * Increased social security benefits: less responsibility to save and manage your money for retirement. * Universal health care: less responsibility to save and manage your money or abstain from potentially harmful activities such as smoking or stunt-car driving. * Universal education: less responsibility to raise your children or take an active role in their education * Pro-abortion: less responsibility to manage your sexual activities, take the appropriate contraceptives, give birth, raise children, and potentially everything else that comes with being a parent. * Anti-death penalty: less responsibility for committing murder, rape or other vile offenses. Note: in addition to being predominately against the death penalty, liberals also tend to favor lighter sentences for the whole gamut of criminal offenses, including increasing the age limit where you can prosecute someone as an adult. I challenge anyone to bring up a key Liberal position that does NOT decrease personal responsibility in that respective area. In contrast, key conservative positions place increased personal responsibility on the individual.
school sports benefit students

Well then that has nothing to do with the sport or physical activity itself, it has to do with that particular school. For the school to say "if you have good grades, you can join this sport" is a good reason to keep your grades up, I agree, but that isn't the same as saying "if you participate in this sport, you're more likely to try and get better grades." Those are two completely different ideas; one is a mandatory requirement implicated by your particular school, and the other is a choice or changed work ethic made by the student. And this argument is regarding (as it appears) whether or not a student will work harder to get better grades if he/she is part of a sport team - it has nothing to do with whether it's mandatory or not to have good grades to join the team. Because if it's mandatory to have good grades to do something you want to do, of course you will strive to get good grades. But that isn't the argument.In schools that don't make good grades mandatory to join school sports teams, the kids who do join the teams will more likely not see a difference in their academic grades. Because when most people find something they enjoy, they will excel in that, but won't change anything else, and in fact, if they find something they enjoy more than something else, they will most likely start falling behind in the things they don't enjoy as much.If the reason the students' grades are up is because their school says it's mandatory to join a sports team, then your original argument isn't necessarily the right one to be making. So in that sense, you're right, if schools make it mandatory to have good grades in order to join school sport teams, then yes, that school's students who want to be on the teams will try to get better grades. But that has to do with the school, because the ones without that in place, the students don't have any reason to have better grades due to the sport they're in.
school sports benefit students

my school for example , lets you obviously do p.e . but you can join sports outside of school. to try out and be on the team with "good" grades. i agree with you in the sense that students in just physical eduction dont neccisarily keep their grades up. but what im trying to say is the kids on the school sports team do, and once the sport season theyre in is over , most students will hopefully continue to keep their grades up . and the students who didnt make the team will probably try more in school in hope that their grades can help them get into the team next time the season starts .
school sports benefit students

You make sense, but... I guess my main question would be what do you consider "keeping your grades up" means? Above a C, I'm assuming? In the schools here in Canada, we can join sports no matter what our grades are, as it gives the kids something to look forward to when they go to school, so in that sense, I agree with you. However, the point I'm arguing is that sports does not necessarily help us keep our grades up. Of course in the schools you refer to, if you could consider "keeping our grades up" to be 64% , then you would be right. However, I would not consider "keeping our grades up" to be anything lower than at least 80%. Joining sports programs in school is primarily a way to get us all to want to be at school. it doesn't necessarily mean we are going to want to do better in classes, unless it is required that we have a certain letter grade to participate in the sport program. And not failing school is enough of an incentive to "keep our grades up," as that could also simply mean not failing in general. In some cases, yes, sports that require the kids to have a "C" letter grade do encourage them to keep their grades at a C or more. But also, in probably more cases, the school does not require a certain letter grade to participate in sports. Physical activity is very important, and to not allow someone to participate in physical activity because they struggle in an academic subject is both unfair to the kid's learning, and physical fitness. Wanting to go to school to participate in sports in most cases will not have an affect the person's academic level. And if I haven't been clear before, I do want sports in schools, I just disagree that it benefits our academic skills, or gives us incentive to to better in classes such as math or science or English.
school sports benefit students

If you wish to provide definition or rules, please do so, but I would like to just point out a few things. 1. I have had personal experiences, where most students enrolled in school sports have lost most interest in strictly the academic aspect of school. 2. I, myself, have enrolled in school sports, and while I was, I also lost interest in academics. Speaking from personal experience, being on the football team, as well as TaeKwon Do outside of school, my main focus was on those two sports. The flow of oxygen helped me think better, although I enjoyed what I did so much that school academics became less important to me. 3. In general, most kids would say they don't like school to begin with. To have an opportunity to do something other than "school," (other than striclty the academics, math, scientc, etc.) would deter them from continuing their education. Sports are usually more fun than academics, and kids these days are much more easily pushed into one direction, which in this case, or most cases for that matter, would be the thing they want to do: sports. Once again, the flow of oxygen to the brain does help dramatically in thought processes and actually comitting to academics, but the individual has to want to do so, something most people, if given the option, would not.
Gold is Money

I agree with your position that gold is not a good investment, as I stated before: " its viability as an investment is dubious" Indeed, a significant portion of my argument is geared towards refuting gold as an investment, and framing future discussions on gold as if it was money, instead of treating it as some sort of investment or security. The argument is that Gold is Money, not whether or not gold would make a good investment. P.S. you are welcome to bring in any additional proof for your argument if you like. Thanks for joining.
Gold is Money

There will not be much refutation in my argument because you didn't give any real arguments other than gold is money. Most of your speech was copy and paste stuff. I will continue anyways Gold is not necessarily a good investment. Yes it is on an all time high, but that means buying it will cost more money. You will have to wait years before you actually make a profit off of your gold. Companies are aware it is worth lots of money so they have raised the prices on it making it more difficult to buy. Therefore making it less that a good investment. Yes it will be worth more later, but you will be waiting years for it to actually help you financially. I don't know if you are this informed but Fredrick Delanore Rosevelt was aware of the value of gold. When he was president during the depression he had everyone hand over their gold to give the government money to fix the economy. With our 16 trillion dollar debt this could easily happen today. Gold is not a good investment and I thank you for your time!
Gold is Money

Hello, this is my first attempt at starting a debate on this website, so apologies in advance if I do not conform to whatever format or rules that exist on this website. Argument Many people consider gold to be a relic, nothing more than a novelty item worn on ring fingers and necklaces. There is some minor industrial usage, but industrial demand pales in comparison to jewelry demand [1]. If this was the entire story, then gold indeed would be aptly classified as a relic, however, investment demand (i. e. , bar and coin and ETF demand) for the yellow metal is at a decade high [1] in terms of both tonnage and dollar value. Gold is not a productive asset, it does not produce a yield, and has little to no industrial purpose, therefore its viability as an investment is dubious. However, the dollar also shares these same characteristics - the dollar is not a productive asset, it does not produce a yield unless deposited at a bank, and has absolutely no industrial purpose. The dollar is also generally accepted as a means of exchange and not an investment. Gold thus shares many characteristics synonymous with money, and should thus be defined as such. In summary: Gold is not an useless relic because it has significant investment demand. However, gold is not an investment, because it shares many traits with money and not investments. Thus, gold is money. Appendix Operating definitions of key terms: Investment - in"vest"ment [in-vest-muh nt] noun 1. the investing of money or capital in order to gain profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value. 2. a particular instance or mode of investing. 3. a thing invested in, as a business, a quantity of shares of stock, etc. 4. something that is invested; sum invested. 5. the act or fact of investing or state of being invested, as with a garment. [2] Money mon"ey noun, often attributive \ˈmə-nēplural moneys or mon"ies Definition of MONEY 1 : something generally accepted as a medium of exchange, a measure of value, or a means of payment: as a : officially coined or stamped metal currency b : money of account c : paper money 2 a : wealth reckoned in terms of money b : an amount of money c plural : sums of money : funds 3 : a form or denomination of coin or paper money 4 a : the first, second, and third place winners (as in a horse or dog race) "usually used in the phrases in the money or out of the money b : prize money 5 a : persons or interests possessing or controlling great wealth b : a position of wealth [3] Productive Asset Assets used to operate the business. May also be called long-term assets. [4] References [1] - . http://www.gold.org... - World Gold Council, Gold Demand Trends Q3 2012, Table 12 on page 25. [2] - . http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] - . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [4] - . http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com...
Drugs that are now illegal to own, use, or sell, should be legalized.

Most people believe that the use of chemical concoctions or prescription drugs for recreational purposes is a terrible practice. Some, however, believe that drug use should be legalized. This attitude spans those who believe that drug use is terrible and they would never use it themselves; and those who want to freely use drugs. Jake's position is for legalization. But it is not apparent to which camp he belongs. I am vehemently opposed to the legalization of recreational drugs. My curiosity has overcome my fear. Let's have at it, Jake. Accept my challenge.