BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Books are better than Television

television rots your mind.when you are watching television you are not utilizing your mind . you are just absorbing things fed to you. not only that but you kill creativity , vocabulary , and problem solving skills by not encouraging reading , almost all the movies are made from books and in all cases the books are much better than the movies . the joy of reading a book has no bounds , you will only understand it when you read a book willingly with your whole mind concentrating into it i say books are better than television! who agrees with me are probably most educated people alive .. thank you
Books are better than Television

Again, you didn't respond to any of my arguments.1. Your argument is also your rebuttal, while TV and movies give you a whole picture with all the details, books often leave readers in uncertainty. When you look at a movie like Forrest Gump and compare it to the book, the book tries too hard to be funny and comes across over-the-top and unamusing while the movie strikes a perfect balance through the humor and the uplifting message, just one example of the movie being more unique than the book.2. This argument was baseless and meaningless. You don't need a laptop to pause a TV show; you can leave it paused for however long you want, and it will still be there in the morning just like a book. All you have to do is get Netflix and pay $7.99 a month; that's nothing to you! You buy six books a day! Since the average book costs $27, you pay around $162 a day!3. Another absurd argument, I can't count the times that I have lost my bookmark, having to search for the page I was on for such a long time. But when I'm on Netflix, I don't have to search, I just press "resume," and I'm right where I left off.4. This argument is purposeless; you don't have to wear 3D glasses to watch a movie. "Guess what doesn"t require 3D glasses for an all-encompassing experience? A book, y"all." Are you implying that you need 3D glasses to watch every movie? Because that is flat-out incorrect, even if a movie is in 3D, (which is incredibly rare nowadays, you can see the movies that are 3D are steadily dying out), you can choose to watch it in 2D, no one is making you watch movies in 3D.5. You've struck up countless conversations with strangers about books; this is your word against mine, the person who said she reads six books a day. But let's just assume you're telling the truth this time! Facebook analyzed the most common conversation topics -- and there was not one book on there -- but there were many TV shows on there bringing people together such as The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones.6. This was nonsensical; I honestly have no idea what she was trying to achieve with this argument. 7. This argument was meaningless and fallacious. Are you implying that TV shows don't end or don't have good endings? Because it is incredibly more common for a book series to get canceled rather than a TV series -- only .2% of authors get published today, while more than 80% of new shows get a second season. TV shows not having good endings is another extremely subjective topic, but I can state countless TV shows with fantastic endings including Justified, Friday Night Lights, Breaking Bad, Battlestar Galactica, and Six Feet Under. Please don't take what I wrote out of context, by leaving out "Based on your response" on "Based on your response, reading books vastly decreases your ability to put a coherent sentence together with correct grammar and spelling." You make it sound like I actually believe that instead of me just making a joke.
Books are better than Television

Since you didn't respond to any of my arguments and babbled on incoherently about how stupid I am, I'll respond to what you wrote. Based on your response, reading books vastly decreases your ability to put a coherent sentence together with correct grammar and spelling. "As you speak it looks like you talk with no proper education and self support from books." Very hypocritical and grammatically incorrect, you forgot to add the comment after "speak" and the hyphen after "self." The only point you made was that I was not educated, which is incorrect. Please point out any grammatical or spelling error that I made; because I can show you dozens of spelling and grammatical errors that you made. I will ask my opponent to respond to my previous arguments.
Books are better than Television

In television you watch a movie and you have it in your mind by looking at the screen and observing what others do or act but through books you create your own world where you imagine and make your own library in you. You said that television is better? Well have you ever read books? As you speak it looks like you talk with no proper education and self support from books. I have a friend who watches television for 3 hours everyday and she has no good vocabulary plus she watches only educational movies and fun facts but has she gone high in her vocabulary? She hasnt but i read 6 books a day and comparing me and her guess who has the most educated vocabulary? Obviosly its the one who reads the books.i have seen many complains on children watching too much television. I see them in a serious illness and i have seen many parents report against television and i see you are a person who loves watching movies.well its not bad..without books there would be no movies!and u said that the movie is more better than the book.i agree but you think , one author wrote a book( which is intresting) but the movie is better.have you thought about how many people it took to cast the movie ? A lot if people got together and did it but the author wrote it ALONE. I have ask all the adults and they have agreed against television.books: you see words and you take a good look at it and you read it plus you imagine what happens . I have been selected to debating tournaments and every person i see there has been reading books but non of them have been watching so much movies like you said probably you are a t.v. Lover and as i see you dont enjoy reading plus i dont care what you say.. No adults do agree with your oppinion! I ask everyone what is more educating and every single person has my answer ! You havnt enjoyed reading and thats nothing to blame me or anyone else about.. thank you!
Books are better than Television

Television sharpens your critical thinking skills according to many psychologists. Thus television does not "rot" your brain, it depends on how many hours you watch it and how old you are. If you watch more than 8 hours of TV a day and you are a child, then TV can have an adverse effect on your brain. But there have been no reported cases of children watching more than 8 hours of TV every day. Television is a form of "passive learning" which is where students receive information often through some form of memorization or rote learning. Many teachers and psychologists claim that passive learning is the most efficient way of teaching since it reduces the time and mental effort and it can equip people with a better task representation, making them more effective active learners in the process. Meaning that watching television is more effective than reading in some ways when you want to learn.There are no reported cases that television kills creativity, vocabulary, and problem-solving skills by not encouraging reading. Movie releases actually encourage children to read the books they're based on; just by looking at The Hunger Games, The Lorax, and The Maze Runner, you can see a huge spike in readership the month the movie was released. The joy of television has no bounds; television can cure or aid in curing Situational Depression according to many psychologists. In Holistic Sleep: Beating Insomnia With Commonsense, Medical, and New Age Techniques, a lady was mourning the death of her husband and couldn't sleep until the doctors moved a TV into her room, which comforted her and helped in curing her long-term depression. It is also important to note that based on the votes of 500,917 people, 68% would rather watch a movie rather than read a book. Books are better than the movies they are based on? That seems like a very subjective topic, but I can name numerous movies that are better than the books they are based on including Dr. Strangelove, Children of Men, Fight Club, The Godfather, No Country for Old Men, and that's just to name a few.
Should America Ban Political Parties

I will reiterate my overarching ideas, in a short, summed up paragraph. To remove political parties would involve some type of government body, to take action. It would cause unnecessary conflict. Any type of conflict right now is bad conflict. It's also simply unjust to tell people that their thoughts and ideals have to be limited. It's ignorant, and somewhat communistic. Also, just because something is broken, doesn't mean we should buy a new object, we can still fix it. While lately political parties have not been doing so well, it is a extremely possible that a new political party, one free of corruption, could become popular. Thanks, I am finished
Should America Ban Political Parties

I will just open up with rebuttals, seeing to how you already know my argument inside and out. "Your argument is agreeable, government does not have the right to take away our choice to have an opinion- yes. But then it should be the people's choice to realize that political parties do harm for our government." If it is the peoples choice, then it would never be banned. The only way to 'ban' something is to get some form of government to disagree with something enough to get rid of it. If the people are the only bodies acting in this situation, it's not really banned, moreover just frowned upon. "Due to this money wins votes not candidates. If you take a look at political corruption you can see that money is the issue. Once someone gets money, they'll become greedy and want more. Candidates running for office should be able to raise money themselves through donations or other needs to win an election- not the money of a corporation." Funds are payed by people to a candidate for advertisement and things of that nature. Money does not go to a political party. In other cases, it goes to the organization, still not necessarily the party. The organization then uses that money to get their candidate in office. And of course, in a sense, money is the root of most problems. Getting rid of political parties will not get rid of corruption. Rather just move it somewhere else. "You are correct, but with political parties people fear the government due to the party's numbers." Not really. If I belong to a party, and that party controls a body of government, then I would not be scared of the government. "Currently, republicans control congress and so practically controls the government- do I hear single-party system? Soon democrats will control and then they'll switch again." Being close minded will not solve an issue. Just because something is broken doesn't mean we should remove it entirely. We should fix it. Political parties provide a safe place of belonging, where people of similar ideology can talk. I am going to say that your biggest flaw is where you say that the people will get rid of political parties themselves. People will never want to do this because of the sense of community. And even if there was some type of nation-wide change, it still would technically no be banned. Just like how it's not illegal to wear white after labor day. While it's not something that the government can say no to, and of course people have had an issue with it for centuries, I will where white whenever I feel like it. Thank you,
Should America Ban Political Parties

Your argument is agreeable, government does not have the right to take away our choice to have an opinion- yes. But then it should be the people's choice to realize that political parties do harm for our government. Political parties have only one thing in common- money. Due to this money wins votes not candidates. If you take a look at political corruption you can see that money is the issue. Once someone gets money, they'll become greedy and want more. Candidates running for office should be able to raise money themselves through donations or other needs to win an election- not the money of a corporation. I also agree with your other statement, "The government is suppose to fear the people, not the other way around". You are correct, but with political parties people fear the government due to the party's numbers. Currently, republicans control congress and so practically controls the government- do I hear single-party system? Soon democrats will control and then they'll switch again.
Should America Ban Political Parties

Alright, thanks for opening up! Now let's begin. The constitution of the United States of America. A brave doctrine that establishes a line between the federal government, and the state government. Later, with the introduction to the 14th amendment, the state governments could no longer infringe on you human rights. Therefore, I feel compelled to give a definition: Human Rights: "fundamental rights, esp. those believed to belong to an individual and in whose exercise a government may not interfere, as the rights to speak, associate, and work." The constitution says no where that the government can do anything to hurt our ability to choose. Choice. Ultimately, isn't that all a political party is? A choice? Theoretically we choose who we belong with, therefore we choose our political party is. If the government was to come and take away out Human Rights, then why are we here at all? I would like to know if you agree with the following statement: The government is suppose to fear the people, not the other way around. The government does not have the right to take away our choice to have an opinion. Thanks, I am now finished.
Should America Ban Political Parties

Let's get this debate started... In America there are way too many political parties- Democrats, Republican, Green, Libertarian, and Constitution Party (those are just the major ones). Though I won't dwell deep into the numbers of parties we also have: the Communist Party of America, Justice Party, United States Pirate Party, and even a nazi party- National Socialist Movement. Like I said earlier, political parties have split this nation into two. Conservatives bash liberals to the extreme and even go as far as to claim the President of the United States to be an illegal of this nation- I understand he's not the greatest president but he's also not the worst, even if he was he is still the president- your leader. Many small governments have a non-partisan democracy and thrive off of it. None of these governments have to worry about people fighting over which political party rules. Speaking of ruling political parties, congress is a prime example. For a president to pass a law or an order, it must go through congress and well congress usually/always has a majority of a political party- either 60% is republican and 40% is democratic or vice versa. Due to political parties, congress can make a president look bad by not passing a law due to him being on the opposite party.
Contender chooses topic

Video Game Rap Battle Use Video Games to burn your adversary. BOP is shared as it relies on the judges. The topic in essence encompasses all video games and uses creativity to write bars and lyrics about the person you are facing. This is not trolling and is basically a lyrical competition. I am taking the Pro side via the rules. ________________________________________________________________________ I just forced this guy to battle me so i can beatem in a blink Call upon the tri force and stab him until he calls me link Sword and Shield tougher than zinc when they in sync IF he thinks he can beat me, he just doesn't need to think I'ma hit you in the face with a pokeball and turn your body into ash Go back to the ns64 then deliver you back with a super smash HM04 your azz and then take every bit of your cash Then turn the lights off and hit you with that dark slash I'm literally gastly and some people think i'm a fiend because of what I do When I put that thunder to you you going to be calling me pikachu We are on different levels, if this was wow we would not even be able to que This is a lopsided battle, it's like Goku fighting the first form of boo
Contender chooses topic

I want to debate something, but I can't find a good topic. You MUST obey the rules, failure to do so will result in an automatic loss 72 hours to argue 10,000 character max 10 days voting period BoP can be decided by opponent RULES: 1. You must explain your topic in round 1 2. You must also argue in round 1 3. You cannot argue in round 5 (forfeit in round 5 is acceptable, however I would rather you just to post something.) 4. The topic MUST BE ABOUT VIDEO GAMES (all caps because that rule is almost always overlooked) 5. The topic MUST be debatable 6. Be polite. No trolling/spamming 7. You MUST take the Pro side of the topic 8. Have Fun! Good luck to my opponent!!
Why 0 to the power of 0 is 1 or anything to the power of 0 is 1

That's not the point, though. If we are to find the answer, we will have to work through the pattern. If X to the power of 1 is X and to go back in the sequence we divide by X and X divided by X is 1, then it follows logically that any number to the power of 0 is 1. To deny the conclusion, you would have to deny one of the following facts:1) X to the power of 1 = X2) To go backwards in the sequence, we divide by X.3) X divided by X is 1 Again, here is the formulation of the logic behind the fact that anything to the power of 0 is 1 is here:P1) X^1=XP2) (X^Y)/X=(X^Y-1)P3) (X^1)/X=(X^0) (from 2)P4) X/X=1 C) (X^0)=1 (from 1,3,4)For my argument to actually be disproved by Con, he will need to either deny the fact that it's a sound syllogism, or that one of the premises is false. So far, he has failed to do this.
Why 0 to the power of 0 is 1 or anything to the power of 0 is 1

Though here I am not talking about the minus rule when a divide is applied on a indice. I am generalising the fact that without any number and I am giving you only one number 0. I hereby ask you now directly why is 0 to the power of 0 one without dividing it. 0 to the power of 0 is 0*0 and 0*0 =0 Another example: 5*0*0(this can go on forever) =0 Hereby I have answered you flaw in argument And I am sorry to say but you have not answered my question you have given an example on Exponentiationlisation and thus hereby have you not given nor answered my debate.
Why 0 to the power of 0 is 1 or anything to the power of 0 is 1

Con's argument about nothing being multiplied by nothing is irrelevant. Let's take 2 to the power of 2, for example. We know that this is 4 as 2*2=4. Now let's try to work out 2 to the power of 1. We knw this to be 2. What is the difference between 2 to the power of 1 and 2 to the power of 2? Well, to go up in the sequence we multiply by two, and to go down in the sequence, we divide by two. So now, we need to go down in the sequence from 2 to the power of 1 to 2 to the power of zero. 2 divided by 2 equals 1 and so we come to the conclusion that two to the power of zero is one. X to the power of 1 = XX to the power of 0 = X to the power of 1 divided by XX divided by X = 1Therefore, X to the power of 0 = 1 I hope that answered your question.
Why 0 to the power of 0 is 1 or anything to the power of 0 is 1

Well as we all know maths anything Times 0 gives us 0. Ever come to think of it that 0 stands for nothing and nor can we also divide anything by zero as it gives us an undefined number which can be anything from -x to +infinite. When we power any number by 0 as we know that zero times any number gives us zero so shouldn't nothing to the power of nothing give us nothing and what is the explanation that it gives us one. Is there a formula because i have looked and questioned every single good mathematician but he dose not know. Hope you can answer this..
Why 0 to the power of 0 is 1 or anything to the power of 0 is 1

Here is Con's argument:(P1) X^Y = X*Y(P2) X^0 = X*0 (from 1)(P3) X*0=0(C) Therefore, X^0=0 (from 2,3)The problem lies in the first premise, as it's not true that X^Y = X*Y. For example, 2^-2= 1/4, as it follows logically when we just divide by two when going back in the sequence. 2^4=162^3=82^2=42^1=22^0=12^-1=1/22^-2=1/4Am I wrong?Con says: Here there are no direct equations nor theory, I will not say that this sounds sylloigism or that either of the premises is false though i can say that in maths there are a few questions in which there are more than one answer for example my other debate which I will post shortly will show it 6"2(1 2) = 9 OR 1Actually, there is only one answer to every maths equation. The equation that Con presents is the following:6÷2(1+2)So how do we work this one out? Well, Bidmas states the order in which we work out equations, which states that brackets go first, then indices, then division, then multiplication, then addition, and finally subtraction. So we work it out as follows:6÷2(1+2)6÷2*33*3=9Therefore, the answer to the equation that Con presented can only be 9. To say that the answer is one would be a violation of bidmas.
Why 0 to the power of 0 is 1 or anything to the power of 0 is 1

Here we go again. I do not want any equations, it is either you are not looking at the question correctly or you are repeating what you said. As I said 0^0=0*0 =0 just as 5^1=5*1 =5 Here there are no direct equations nor theory, I will not say that this sounds sylloigism or that either of the premises is false though i can say that in maths there are a few questions in which there are more than one answer for example my other debate which I will post shortly will show it 6"2(1 2) = 9 OR 1
The Mechanics of Reality and the Numinous (God/spirituality/supernatural)

I concede to your point, my claim (humans' superior evolution) was indeed subjective. Well here I am. Beat down by your stone cold logic. I totally see the rationale for every numinous related activity being relaxation just as meaningless as that monkey raping a frog to death. Here's my last question: why does it bother me that the monkey raped that frog to death. Why does it bother me that Youtubers found the frog's death absolutely hilarious in the comments. If there's no numinous why am I bothered by that which doesn't concern me?
The Mechanics of Reality and the Numinous (God/spirituality/supernatural)

Nothing can be called numinous. How's that for ya. That bit towards the end was an elephant sized heap of emotional bs. Your four categories of existence: breeding, resting, sustaining, maintaining... And the "willingness" to seek more than the monotonous cycle of life. File that desire under the "resting" category. Hobbies, contemplation, etc, all this is part of relaxation. Every single animal seeks relaxation. Whether through resting or entertainment. That youtube video you showed me, the one with a monkey raping a frog to death, that was the monkey's way of relaxing. He was entertaining himself. Not breeding, sustaining, maintaining. Your transformers quote (really dude) "the more than meets the eye mentality", that was what that monkey was doing. Relaxation, in all its various forms, (reading, art, music, even thinking of the numinous) is not the numinous. There is no numinous. You can't call the good parts of life the numinous. Call it what it is, relaxation. Your implication that the evolution of man suggests the numinous, no it does not. The "spectacular happenstance" of humanity being the most advanced species is speculation. Any claim that we're the most advanced species is subjective. It cannot be applied to the mechanics of reality.