BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should India go to War with Pakistan

MA MA MA DEAR FRIEND FORGET THE WORD TERRORISM. Terrorism is such a ham full virus more then HIV and may be HIVS cure could be found someday but about terrorism I am not sure. Just think about the the thing I told you about Pakistan army, their war like behaviours with India. And yes war could make many innocent life's on wage, but its better to get rid of someone at once then having them itching on you forever. If you say like that war is not the only solution, then why america attacked attacked Iraq Afgnistan, why UNS NATOS interfering and support of army in Libian and Syrian civil war. War is not the solution of every problem, but sometimes war is the only solution of some and every problems.
Should India go to War with Pakistan

MA DEAR FRIEND M EVEN TALKING ABOUT THE PAKISTAN ARMY. I m not only talking about the terrorism but the Army doings which are helding a crises of war. I accept and respect "you point you cant judge a country on what it has" but who is talking about judging man, should we keep on judging about a scrambled country who is killing our soldiers coming in our terroritry. I believe, war with such a country it could start massive war like world war 3 and all if India does that China is going to support Pakistan because Even China hates India has has some border disputes, and then India will ask for some help and will go on further and further. But the thing is that should we be sitting calmly when our soldiers are been killed on our own soil by our neighbouring countries army?
Should India go to War with Pakistan

ma dear friend YOU CANT GO TO WAR WITH TERRORISM!!! Plus the U.S is training their solders so they can fight terrorism. plus I hate to tell you this but TERRORISM WILL NEVER GO AWAY AND WORLD PEACE WILL NEVER HAPPEN. we all don't share the same views and that is why. it is like fighting some one because they have more bad things than good you cant judge a country based on what it has.
Should India go to War with Pakistan

Ma dear friend I tried to express Pakistans aggression comparing with North Korea. Its only not about the terrorism its about the army with the terrorist the whole country Pakistan with the terrorism, the public enouncement made in Pakistan that if anyone gets a beheaded head of an Indian soldier will be rewarded with 5 lakh rupees. Let me ask you what America would do if they were in Neighbouring with North Korea and North Korea infiltrating terrorism in your country what if there special forces army with some terrorist attacks ur army men and behead them which a clear violation of humanity even in the war, what if North Koreas army comes in your terrotry and attacks ambushes your post bunker kills your lots of men and humiliate their body and everyday cross fire violation which even proves terrorists are with Pakistan, even in Kargil war of 1999 Pakistan took help of mujahidins and took some part of India in a shed of winter of Himalayas to occupy some part of India but later India strongly repulsed it but never crossed the line of control even if India has the world 4th strongest military in the world they didn't cross LOC. Common man even America wont wait till that the if its was North Korea doing this in their neighbouring
Is playing the maraca a skill

Hmm I see that you have forfeited round 3, have you ran out of arguments well i have not. Even though playing the Maraca takes little skill, but it gives a hole new list of skills to preschoolers like. -Increase gross and fine motor skills and helps to develop muscle tone in the hands and arms. -Develop a sense of beat and rhythm -Reinforce hand-eye coordination -Encourage imaginative play and storytelling through sound effects -Increase listening (and hence, reading) skills -Reinforce and emphasize self-discipline and self-control -Enhance comprehension of music notation (in its simplest form), dynamics, and musical form -Develop patterning skills and learn basic mathematical concepts of sequencing, numerical order, counting forwards and backwards and addition/subtraction (for advanced students). -Develop understanding of where sound comes from and how it changes (according to instrument played) -Develop a sense of teamwork and social skills such as sharing, taking turns, etc. -Develop sense of cultural awareness Neuroscientist Professor Nina Kraus has conducted research that has proven that playing a musical instrument like Maracas enhances the brain's sensitivity to speech sounds. She states, "Playing instruments like Maracas may help youngsters better process speech in noisy classrooms and more accurately interpret the nuances of language that are conveyed by subtle changes in the human voice." And now i end my case.
Is playing the maraca a skill

Good argument, very robust but I will have to say that the skill need to play the maraca is very little compare to playing a piano or as you said a bass guitar. Playing the Maraca is not as easy as you think because one ball is pitched high and the other low. Even though Maracas are a simple instrument, but require modest skill to play in time to music. When the player changes the direction of motion to produce the sound, the seeds or dried beans must travel some distance before they hit the hard outer surface. This creates a slight delay that requires that the player anticipate the rhythm. Players also strike maracas against their hand or leg to get a different sound. Your turn.
Is playing the maraca a skill

Mr. Puffy, have you ever been to a concert where maracas have been the main instrument played? Probably not. Maracas here in Australia are sold as toys for babies. You can also buy them as "professional maracas" but that is just a phrase to get people to buy them. Maracas can be picked up by someone and in only one second the skill of shaking it is learnt. With a bass guitar you need to learn how to pull the strings properly, how to hit a fret properly, what notes there are, theory, slapping, popping, tapping but with maracas, you just need to learn a tad bit of rhythm and how to shake your wrists! This is not proper- musician ship, it's wrist twisting! Can you get maraca lessons- no, can you go to a maraca concert- no and can you be a professional maraca player- no. My friend couldn't play the sax on the night of a concert so he played maracas at only a minute's notice. He had no problems on stage and played quite well. No practice required, I await your reply.
Is playing the maraca a skill

Are you Kidding me!!! Of course it take skill to play the maraca, it maybe a skill that you don't see, but a skill none a less. saying there is no skill in playing the maraca is like saying there is no skill in playing bowling. Just because the instrument has no define notes does not mean there is no skill. You need to know when to shake it so you can be in time with the music, how to shake it so you can get the right sound. Any one can pick up a pair of Maraca and shake them, but would you consider random shaking as music , or would you consider an orderly shake as music.
The Case For the Minimum Wage

The Case Against The Minimum Wage The Minimum Wage helps some employees, but hurts many more. It discourages hiring. A minimum wage reduces or removes incentive to hire entry-level workers. It's incredibly arrogant. A wage limit is micromanaging the economy. Politicians cannot possibly know what is the best minimum wage for every business. Politicians are just that: politicians, not entrepreneurs or CEOs. If a business manager is incompetent to the point that the wages he sets do not comply with the Laws of Supply & Demand, he will lose employees and his business will fail. My opponent agrees: “Simply put: businesses cannot survive long if most employers are underpaying their workers.” Businesses which don't pay their employees enough go out of business. Since Pro and I both acknowledge that a business which doesn't comply with the laws of Supply & Demand regarding minimum wages will fail, why do we need a law in the first place? We don't, and never did. If a worker is dissatisfied with his wages, he can work somewhere where the pay is better. Or he would be able too, were it not for the minimum wage laws. Since the business is forced by law to pay him a certain amount, business often find it cheaper to avoid hiring at all. Now, instead of working for less than the minimum wage, this man isn't even working at all. There are many people in the U.S. who are desperate for a job. Were there no minimum wage, they would likely be hired. Working for less than $7.25 per hour doesn't sound appealing, but it sure beats getting payed $0 per hour, don't you think? Pro goes on to say that society demands a minimum wage, stating that the minimum level of economic achievement is at $15 per hour, but her source (#6) doesn't actually back this up. It has no mention of “economic achievement” or even the number 15! (Unless she's referring to the anonymous comments on the blog, which isn't a legitimate source) Anyways... Most of the damage caused by minimum wage laws is hard to trace back to the source. The victims are the jobless, the unemployed who could have been working, but weren't hired, because a business couldn't afford to hire them. 15% of young adults in the U.S.A. are out of school and jobless. That's 6 million people! Unfortunately, business can't afford to hire them at the rates the minimum wage laws require, so they leave them jobless.1 Pro's supposed “obvious conclusion” says that there isn't any “credible reason to think that it causes any important negative impacts such as unemployment”. However, as I'm about to demonstrate with a visually appealing graph, there is compelling reason to believe that it causes unemployment: In 1929, the unemployment rate in the USA was a mere 3.1%2. This was without the minimum wage law. Today, with the federal minimum wage law, the USA has a 7% unemployment. That's more than double the rate of unemployment! Pro's obvious conclusion doesn't seem so obvious anymore. The minimum wage is hurting our economy and needs to go. 1http://inplainsight.nbcnews.com... 2http://www.sjsu.edu... 3http://www.bls.gov...
gun rights

After reading your retort, I must say that while there is much truth in your argument, there are also many holes. You mention that drugs are illegal yet are still sold and used by criminals. However, the difference here is that drugs can easily be made or grown by someone in their own homes, which is not the case with guns. If gun manufacturing is shut down, guns cease to exist. It's a lot easier to grow a marijuana plant or whip up a batch of meth in your own home than it is to create a fully functioning fire arm, ESPECIALLY if the more dangerous needed materials to create said firearm are also prohibited to the public. As for your bear argument, I'd like to cite this article: http://www.fs.fed.us.... Bear attacks are incredibly rare and pretty much never unprovoked. Carrying a gun with you to protect against bears is not really that fair to bears, because if I had a gun with me and saw a bear, I'd probably shoot the bear out of fear as soon as it got to close (as I assume many people would), though this article states bears are just curious. There are many, many ways to protect yourself against bears without killing them. Let's be nice to bears. Instead of stomping through the forest ready to cap some grizzlies, read the article buddy, and all your hikes shall forever be safe and bear-murder free. Now, I will admit your best point was the story of the women and her children. However, I have a story to prove MY point as well. It's called the Columbine High School Massacre. Or the Virginia Tech Massacre. Or tons of other school shootings, all of which occur because an angsty teenager finds a way to get a gun and goes to town with it. There are just too many stupid/unstable people in the world to allow guns to be given out to the public. If any of the kids who performed these school shootings had come in with knives instead, they would've been stopped much more easily and quickly, causing far less destruction and death. If that lady didn't have a gun, yeah, she would've gotten some stuff stolen. But if Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold DIDN'T have a gun, 34 students and teachers would've been left unharmed! How can you argue with that? You can tell stories about guns as self defense all day, but there are just as many stories for why guns are bad. So to sum up my points: A. Guns are not drugs, having an illegal firearm market would be MUCH harder to pull off, one cannot just assume it will happen for sure (you said "the same thing will happen with guns", which you have no proof for by the way). B. Be nice to bears. C. There will always be violence in this world; we can't stop that. However, we can lower it by preventing the use of guns. Thank you, I eagerly await your response.
gun rights

I am new to this so I thought for the first thing you just put your general idea not an argument. You say guns make crime easier to commit which would be true if no one had a firearm. Just because you put restrictions on guns does not mean criminals will not have them. Drugs are illegal but criminals still get them through an illegal drug trade the same thing will happen with guns. But you just banned guns so now all of the good law abiding citizens are without guns and the criminals would still be armed. Also I have heard of many cases such as one from last month of a women whose husband had died of cancer 2 men thought that she probably had pain killers from her husband and 2 men armed with knifes were breaking through a window. She took herself and her 2 kids into a room with her 12 gauge shotgun and called 911. The police were on their way but it would take over 10 minutes for them to arrive. The men broke through the window and approached her she warned him to back off but he refused so she shoot and killed him. The other man ran away and was arrested by police arriving to the scene. If she had not had a firearm the man would have easily overpowered her and done unspeakable things to her and her family. A firearm is great equalizer. Not just with people I live in the woods and when I go on a hike I carry a pistol on me just in case I get attacked by a bear. Which also goes to your other point that having a gun makes you want to shot something I carry the pistol and occasionally forget I have it on me. If a bear started to charge me I would sure rather fight it off with a firearm that a blunt object. I you want evidence look at crime numbers put out by the DOJ and the ATF, gun ownership has went up and crime rate went down it could be that they are tied together. A robber may be less likely to rob a bank if he thinks someone inside has a concealed carry. Overall having a firearm in my home makes me feel safer that if someone was to kick through my front door I have the ability to stop them from harming myself and my family.
gun rights

Good point, thanks for all the evidence and explanation to back it up. Alright, so I have many problems with the right to bear arms, but I'll simply respond to the statement at hand to start. I'd like to first ask, how so? I simply don't see this as a valid point. Guns make crime much easier to commit. Without guns, robberies and murders would be a great deal harder to pull off. Guns are meant for shooting, its what they do. Holding a gun (which I've personally done) makes you want to shoot something. They're cool, but they simply shouldn't be allowed in the hands of the public. If you want to shoot, go to a shooting range. Otherwise, there's no reason to have a firearm (other than defense, but if guns were banned, you really wouldn't need one for defense cuz you'd be up against blunt objects mostly, which you could also wield). Point is, I don't understand the argument's basis, but I disagree with the statement. I'd love some evidence to back it up though, I'm always open to new ideas.
why eogs are dumb and not needed

Yes but they are useful in many many more ways. You see, the ability to retain information and skill use is vital to the well-being of students as well as professionals. If you or I were not well practiced in remembering information we would be unable to perform physical exercise at all! Take a push up for example. If all we ever did was the down motion without remembering the up motion previously learned we would be unable to reap any benefit at all from the entire push up motion itself! Lets take something more complex, soccer for example. Soccer has a great deal of rules and skills that require practice and discipline that all must be accounted for. If you were playing soccer and forgot that only the goalie could use their hands and you were not the goalie and you used your hands you would be penalized greatly. Retaining information is part of life and has to be practiced just like any other skill.
Is the role of USA positive in the Yemen crisis

Listen, i believe that not all actions were acceptable by the US or any side in this case, but this back up is required to keep a balance of power between Saudi Arabia and Iran, so to deny a possible suspicion of war between Yemen's backed up government by Iran and Saudi Arabia, if the original government is not backed by foreign powers. The US is trying to keep a balance between the Saudis and the Iranians, to keep to their own sphere's of influence. Saudis protecting the peninsula and Iran in the Middle East and Central Asia.
Is the role of USA positive in the Yemen crisis

Houthi rebels backed in Iran were fought by the Southi led coalition funded by the US. At least 10,000 people were killed in the conflict, and seven million are in dire need of food assistance. The US began supporting the Saudi-led coalition through a decision by then-US President Barack Obama, who cited the Authorisation for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to justify US involvement. Since taking office, President Donald Trump has done the same.
Argument for Vegetarianism

For my opponent to win this debate pro must prove all these point. first it is almost impossible to say that something like eating meat or not is morally better because morals are constantly changing from place to place and time to time. someone who lives in the desert where very little grows there main source of sustenance is live stalk, how would you possibly tell them that what they are doing is wrong. I will hold off on the health aspect till you make an argument as to why vegetarianism is healthier. How does eliminating a food source help stop world hunger. The environment is another topic I will hold off on till my next round.
Argument for Vegetarianism

I, for one, have familiarized myself with the pros and cons of vegetarianism. I am convinced vegetarianism comes off as being much more agreeable with one's morality/conscience, health, and the world in general (i.e. could help stop world hunger and the environment). I have looked up similar debates on this site recently, and am displeased with the debates other people have waged in favor of vegetarianism. So, I shall attempt to argue my viewpoints on the subject, and hopefully it'll be a good debate.
Argument for Vegetarianism

I hope I've made my points. I'm sorry that my opponent has yet to argue one of my points or perhaps make one of their own points. Still, I thank you for accepting the debate. Sorry if it wasn't much of a debate though. Regardless, I want to make it clear that I am not winning this debate simply due to a lack of contest. Perhaps I will try and start a similar debate so that there could be a more fair win. As far as I can tell, I have affirmed all of my points, and I seem to have one the debate. I'll skip a conclusion I guess because I really don't see it necessary with no contest.
Argument for Vegetarianism

I guess you were late with that round and forfeited. An uncertainty of how much of an argument you are actually going to present means I'm going to keep this alot shorter and simpler than the last one. You said you'd discuss the environment in this round I believe. "A kilogram of beef is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution than driving for 3 hours while leaving all the lights on back home....The calculations, which are based on standard industrial methods of meat production in Japan, did not include the impact of managing farm infrastructure and transporting the meat, so the total environmental load is higher than the study suggests...'Everybody is trying to come up with different ways to reduce carbon footprints,' says Su Taylor of the Vegetarian Society in the UK: 'But one of the easiest things you can do is to stop eating meat.'" ^^^taken from http://www.newscientist.com... I'd recommend Googling it if you are still doubtful, you might find yourself suprised at the strain put on the environment due to the meat industry. The supply "meats" the demand (bad pun) and if we were to stop eating meat their would be no meat industry. Even a reduction in the production of meat reduces the strain put on the environment. That...is....a relatively unelaborative way of stating my last point, but I avoided elaboration on the possibility that you aren't going to provide a counter-argument.
Victimess crimes

"Maybe these weren't the best examples but I stand by them." Voters please note. "Not really, I knew a creep back in high school who got addicted to kiddie porn online and started posting molestation videos of his little sister. So yeah, it may not be universally true but there's at least one example." There's a difference between watching and uploading. Uploading is not a victimless crime. There is no connection between watching and uploading child pornography in your example. "Not really, if it's supported by evidence." Child pornography is NOT a victimless crime. The children are the victims, therefore this argument is invalid. "Women are putting themselves in dangerous situations and are at an increased risk of being murdered." Oil rig operators are putting themselves in a dangerous situation and are at risk of being killed by an explosion. Does that mean the government takes their jobs? Sometimes prostitutes are just regular people who cannot find jobs. The amount of prostitutes is directly related to the % of unemployment. Women usually do not want to become hookers, but are forced to in desperation. "Drugs, DWI, speeding, parking in no parking zones. All are victimless crimes and all increase danger to other citizens of the public, so it would be absurd to not punish any of these." First of all, parking in no parking zones is not dangerous, you cannot be hit by a parked car. Second, drugs, DUI, and speeding ARE NOT victimless crimes, all of these are known to directly affect other people, not every time, but commonly. A drunk driver can hit another car and kill him, therefore this is not a victimless crime. "How do you know they're highly religious? A lot of non-religious people believe in punishing these crimes. But yeah it's OK if their punishments are going to decrease dangers for other people." First, I put highly religious in brackets, meaning sometimes. Second, I was trying to prove people with private agendas will try to make victimless crimes illegal, such as abortion. There is no victim in abortion, but Christian fanatics still want to outlaw it because "God told them too". My opponent has not clearly refuted any of my points and has not defended his points. The ones he did defend were with personal experience, bad logic, and false examples. Thank you and for these reasons you should: =Vote Pro=