BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Apples or Oranges? I pick apples..

You are right apples have many uses and are known as the forbidden fruit which is exactly what they should be forbidden... but an orange is one of the best fruits for eating raw and juicing...It has a great range of uses, from an ingredient in salads and frozen desserts to marmalade, pastry making, and cooking, including using the peel to extract essential oil...Orange flower water is distilled from the tree blossoms, and is used in Indian cooking...The fruit and its grated zest can be added to punch and cakes as a garnish, and segments are also served with seafood... Bitter oranges are used to make marmalade, jam, jelly, syrup, and sauce... Their bitter zest lends the hint of orange to the alcoholic liqueurs Curaï¿½ao, Cointreau, and Grand Marnier. Oranges are available year-round, even though they are traditionally a winter fruit...Oranges keep well in the refrigerator for two weeks, and the zest from oranges can be frozen. Sweet oranges are used chiefly for juicing or eating...They include the Valencia, Navel, and Temple oranges...The Navel orange, which is grown in California, is considered an eating orange, since its sweet pulp tends to turn a little bitter when the juice is exposed to air...Valencia oranges are enjoyed for both eating and juicing, although commercially the Valencia is considered the best juicing orange...An orange hybrid bearing an orange and red rind with red flesh is called blood orange...The Temple orange, named after the man who created it, is a flavorful orange-tangerine hybrid...Bitter oranges, also known as Seville oranges, are named after the Spanish city of the same name. They are seldom seen in markets and are used chiefly for marmalade or for their peel (in liqueurs). ORANGES -Strengthen the immune system -Lower cholesterol -Prevent inflammation -May lower risk of heart disease and stroke -May help prevent cancer http://thirdage.com... Also I just wanted to add that eating apples are annoying because you have to eat around the core. Whereas with oranges you just peel it and eat it. Oranges are more sanitary too because as you said earlier apples are homes for worms well sorry but I don't want worms in my fruit.. You can also eat oranges without washing them off because of the protective skin they have. When you eat an apple you also have to worry about all of the things that have touched it before you decided to eat it because you eat the outside skin of an apple... The End sorry to drag on so long but I cannot stand apples......
Apples or Oranges? I pick apples..

Apples are big and shiny and beautiful to look at...it is obvious that you've got some kind of sweet tooth if you think oranges taste better..apples are very tasty and not as sweet as oranges, which I enjoy. I've come across bland oranges, sometimes they have no flavor at all...and they are only one color. Boring....apples are also good for digestion.
pick-up lines

Hello, I am a qualified psychologist and can help you out here greatly, could I please know a bit more about the individual you are trying to pick up, so that I may strengthen my lines? The art of the pull is indeed an art and a skill. During this debate I aim to teach my pupil how to pull, bag and shag a member of the opposite sex. Any questions you might have, please do not hesitate to ask.When in a bar I normally use the build known as the 'feigned apathy strategy' bear with me on this one, it's unique. "My wife just died, I'm looking for some pretty girls to take back to mine, know any?" She will either direct you to some, in which case you repeat or she might declare herself to be pretty, in which case you need to let her down gently and tell her, "I meant pretty on the outside" The strategy here is to play hard to get, so go duck down in the corner and observe her behaviour. Throw some peanuts in her direction (This will come into play later) After a while of your absence she will certainly assume you are not interested and this will begin to play into two primary psychological effects which we will use to soften her up. The first effect is the 'familiar face effect' as we have already met her she will no longer view us as a stranger, this will enhance our chances of her feeling comfortable around us. The second effect is the 'pratfall effect' we insulted her earlier and she assumed we did not like her, but once she realizes we do like her she will falsely believe she has gained more than as if we had shown to like her immediately. Let me use basic math to represent this, -1 Represents having someone not like you 0 Represents someone having neutral feelings about you. 1 Represents someone liking you. We have begun at -1 and ended up at 1, this is a gain of +2 as a posed to beginning at 0 and ending up at 1 which would be a gain of +1 Once we have achieved these 2 important psychological effects, we can truly begin our assault and close in on our prey target victim equal? Here we can use our wide array of pickup lines. I will give a few examples of pickup lines from a diverse array of builds and you can decide which one best fits your personality and strategic qualities. Early rush build This build is a quick and decisive approach and looks like this. "In my home country of Pakistan, we don't normally give women a choice, so I'm giving you the opportunity to come quietly." All in timing attack This build is based around throwing all your cards on the table at the correct time. Talk with her pleasantly and once you get her laughing and interested in you, then it's time to attack. "You're hot, I'm hot, let's get out of here and bang." Economic build Here you will be in it for the long haul, you'll have to buy her drinks and listen to her bi*ch about her closest friends, she may even expect you to buy her dinner. Despite the name, this is an uneconomical way to pick up chicks and has no real advantages. Avoid at all costs.
All things considered, the Patriots were better than the Giants in the 2007-08 season.

You asked for it, you got it. Prepare to meet the awsome fist of my wrath. First I'd like to ask that the voters based on the arguments presented, and put one's personal opinion aside. Thank you for judging this debate. I define 'better' as- of superior excellence or quality. I will prove this through a few reasons. Contention I: Season Record. The Pats went, what, 16-0 IN THE REGULAR SEASON?!?! The Giants were only 10-6 in the regular season and 14-6 overall, while the Pats were 18-1. Clearly, the Pats were the better team. They faced harder teams, won more games, and even beat the Giants in the last game of the regular season. Contention II: Records. The pats recieved multiple awards in this year. They had Moss break the recieving TD record, Brady get the most passing TDs, collectivley scored the most points and points/game, and were the first team to have a perfect regular season. This clearly shows the Pats' pwn'ge overall against the Giants. Contention III: The championship game means nothing. First off, the Pats obviously thought they were going to win eaisly, and how. Seeing as how they were perfect and had beaten the Giants before, the game would be a breeze. Granted, the Giants showed their A game, but they simply do not have the raw talent that the Patriots have with Brady, Moss, Stallworth, and Maroney. Furthermore, the Giants got EXTREMLEY lucky on a million-dollar catch made by Tyree. If Eli held it 1 second more or less, he would've A: thrown a bad pass, or B: got sacked. Moreover, Tyree's catch is unrepetable. It was all luck that made that play happen. When the Pats realized they might lose, they actually started trying and almost won the game again. I now await my opponent's rebuttal.
Christianity is a pagan religion.

ok, Christians follow the bible, correct? and to be a Christian you must confess Jesus Christ as your lord and savior and repent of your sins "which means turn away from not just apologize" It says in the bible that eternal life is a free gift and that those are the only requirements to attain it. so, if I do not have to celebrate Easter and Christmas to get to heaven and live forever, that means I do not have to celebrate them to be a Christian, which means they are not at all apart of the Christian religion in any sense or form. ok, so on Easter daylight "wins the battle over night" which in reality when you look at that without a religious view from either side "pagan or Christian" "the sun winning the battle" is just a natural occurrence that has happened before Christians or sun worshipers even existed. and if the pagan view on "the sun winning the battle against night" couldn't the Christian view on that event happening on the exact day that Jesus rose from the dead "Easter" represent Jesus "the light" winning the battle against sin "darkness"? and you speak of sun halos on the top of Jesus' head in depictions of him, those are man made depictions and no where in the bible will you read about a halo, so if halo's are NOT in the bible and the Christian religion is based on the bible then that is a false representation of the bible and the Christian religion and is not apart of it, this is a given but because it is not apart of the religion it cannot be used as evidence of Christianity being sun worship. if you can say that the pagan view on the 12 disciples is the 12 zodiac symbols then couldn't the 12 disciples on the Christian end of the spectrum represent the 12 tribes of Israel? and for the fish symbol, does it say anywhere in the bible that you need to represent your faith with a symbol of a fish? no? Then it is not apart of the Christian religion and cannot be used as evidence in the way you intended. this was a fun discussion, good luck in the voting period!
Christianity is a pagan religion.

"The son dies on the cross" - This means that the sun, in the northern hemisphere, stops moving south; and for 3 days it stays in the same position, then, the sun is reborn and starts moving back in the opposite direction. Thus, Jesus is a figurative version of the sun's movements. Note - All figurative representations of Jesus have a sun halo over his head. The celebration of Christmas, which is globally universal, occurs on the 25rd of December which is the exact date of the transition of the sun's movement. Easter is also a transition point. Easter marks the time when daylight wins the battle over night. The days are now longer than the night hours. Thus, Easter is a celebration of the sun's victory over night. The twelve disciples represents the zodiac of twelve symbols. The fish symbol of Jesus represents the age of Pisces. Pisces is the precession period of Jesus. http://jesusastrotheology.com... https://books.google.com.au...
Christianity is a pagan religion.

Alright, Christianity is a religion based on the teachings of a man named Jesus from Nazareth, Christians believe he died and was raised from the dead 3 days later for the forgiveness of every humans sin. they believe in and worship the Trinity (father, Son "Jesus" and the Holy Spirit), not the sun. If your trying to say that it is a pagan sun worshiping religion because of all of the hidden pagan things found in the various holidays, that doesn't hold any ground because the holidays are not apart of the religion, they are just celebrated by some of the followers of it.
Everyone deserves equal rights

To answer your questions: Q1: Just because someone was convicted of molesting a child doesn't necessarily mean they're going to do it again. Doesn't everyone deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt? A second chance if you will? Q2: Same thing goes for thieves. We all deserve a second chance right? Q3: Just because someone has a restraining order doesn't necessarily mean that the stalker isn't going to go against said restraining order and kill or rape that person anyways. Also, there's a difference between rights and laws. It's against the law to stalk someone, therefore punishment (So to speak) is reasonable. Q4: Again, just because someone has killed in the past doesn't mean they're going to do it again. Besides, if you knew the person was a serial killer they'd be in jail for life or dealing with the death penalty and thus wouldn't even be a part of society. Q5: Reasonably you have stooped me here. However, I feel an argument is necessary. Not all 5 year old's are completely immature and uneducated. In fact when I was 5 I knew quite a bit about politics, and I myself had an opinion of who the president should be. Q6: Sex isn't really a right so to speak. It's more of an action. I can't think of a single place where sex is outlawed amongst adults and therefore wouldn't really consider it to be a right.
Everyone deserves equal rights

I, too believe that we should live in a society in which no one pays attention to race, gender, sexual orientation, so on and so forth. BUT, your resolution falls apart in one aspect, and that comes to dealing with felons and whether children should have all the rights adults have. I would like to ask my opponent the following questions: Q1: Should convicted child molesters be able to have the right to be a teacher or a daycare worker? Should they be able to be in a room alone with a defenseless child? Q2: Should people who have a felon for theft be able to work at a bank or anywhere where they have complete control over money or items that are not theirs? Q3: Should someone who dangerously stalks another person be able to have the right to be near them? What if it is proven that the stalker is contemplating the rape and/or murder of the person they are stalking? Shouldn't the victim have the right to have a restraining order, thus disallowing the stalker the right to be around the victim? Q4: Should a serial killer have the right to live amongst more victims? Q5: Should a 5 year old be able to vote for the president? They are not mature enough. They probably can't even read. That is denying them the right of voting, but it is for the better.Q6: Should children around the age of nine or ten be able to have sex? Sex is a right for adults, but children are not allowed to have intercourse for good reason. Thank you for reading. Back to you, Pro.
More gun control

Your stats about people with knives are underwhelming. I don't know how many people were involved nor do I know the details of the incident by which to judge the variables that led to that type of spree. I don't know the average police response time. I don't know how big the knives were or if they would pass American standards for a legal knife. I don't know what kind of community it was or if the population was dense or If the victims were resisting. It's simply an anecdote if you can't provide these details, So it's dismissed. I thought I approached the middle east common pretty calmly. Don't know why you thought I found it unpalatable. The IRA is not a fair shake because the forces they took out wouldn't compare to modern standards. You also left out the part where IRA soldier were some of the best trained, Most brutal and precise killers in all of history. You also left out the part where they had exclusive access to a type of assault rifle that was superior to their opponents do to the fact that they could hide in water and deliver extremely fast no reflex kill blows from long range do to their intensive training. Just saying The IRA was a whole different monster. I never said that the founding fathers thought statically about guns, That's a straw man. I said that the founding fathers had no idea what would come and we can only judge their decisions based on what technology they had in the time. We could push it forward a little bit, Because we can say they had SOME imagination of what could be. But nothing close to what we have. So what I actually said was that we should think about what they said statically. That's very different. I don't presume to know the optimal standards for gun control. I would have to turn that over to someone smarter than myself, I can only measure them by killing power, So my standard would be to reduce the amount of people it can kill within a certain agreed upon time period. I was simply pointing out that it is more convenient to kill oneself with a pistol. I never said it as impossible to do it with a Rifle, Just impractical unless it's your only choice of guns at that moment. I loved full metal jacket btw. Poor pile :( I was using the building gate thing as an example of gun control. There is no rule saying we have to only stop suicide in one way. We can help them psychologically while still taking their sharp objects away, You strawman me again and say I want to strip a bunch of people of their guns. No I don't, I want to limit guns. That's completely different. If you're really hell bent on protecting yourself from tyranny, Then we should have state funded militias that are separate from the federal government and only design to help the people. That way we can have our big weapons and at the same time keep them out the hands of the dangerous or mentally ill people. It's funny you say I'm being hyperbolic when your the one who exaggerates statistics. That's why I don't use statistics. All of my arguments are epistemological so I can give practical and detailed answers without having to appeal to an authority.
More gun control

I qualify anything up to one inch in caliber a small arm. To be clear my position is no new firearms laws. You claim that the U. S will have learned from the last guerrilla war and will not make the same mistakes twice. You also claim that new technologies will make guerrilla warfare obsolete. I believe that the wars in the middle east prove you wrong. The Taliban, Al'Qaeda, And Isis are as relevant now as they ever were. We have been warring in the middle east longer than in the Vietnam war. These terrorist organizations have been implementing the same tactics to almost the same affect. Not that I support them. I'm only pointing out the tactics haven't changed. The founding fathers had access to the most advanced weaponry of the time and used it. More murders happen with handguns than with any other guns in the U. S. More crimes in general happen with handguns than other guns. (1) So why are you focusing on rifles? Popping a bunch of pills or jumping off a building take just as much physical effort as pulling a trigger. You can do both by accident as well. I think your last point is just personal preference not something you can prove with logos. Your floor.
More gun control

So first off. What do you qualify as small arms? Pistols? Assault Rifles? I'm cool with pistols. I hear this argument a lot about protecting ourselves from tyranny. The fact is that the U. S. Military would wipe us off the map even if we had decent weapons. You referenced the Vietnam war as an analogy. Pretty clever, But the technology back then was a little bit different and it's not like the U. S Military forgot about that loss. You think they'll fall for that trick twice? I think not. Look, I like the 2nd amendment too. But the founding fathers had no idea what kind of technology was around the corner. I think from a legal standpoint, The 2nd amendment should only be able to protect guns that the founding fathers could have conceived at their time. So basically pistols and maybe some low end rifles at best. No semi auto or up. Calibers could be liberal though. The thing about suicide is irrelevant to me. If anything, It makes your argument look worse because if I was to really push it, I could say that guns increase the suicide rate. Some people don't have the nerve to kill themselves without a gun because of survival instinct, But with a hair pin trigger, They could even make a false try and do it by accident. Your Floor.
More gun control

I'd like to start my debate that small arms are extremely effective and essential to ensure tyranny doesn't overcome the populace. Historically an armed population is a free population. It might seem a little redundant but we could start with the inception of the U. S itself as It overthrew a powerful monarchy. Establishing the 2nd amendment "A well-regulated Militia, Being necessary to the security of a free State, The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, Shall not be infringed. " You will notice the wording "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, Shall not be infringed. " It say's the right of the people. I know I'm being redundant but I really want to emphasize that it is the people who are being given the right to bear arms. Not the militias rights or the state's rights but the peoples right. The next point I would like to make is the effectiveness of small arms in modern conflict. Many people claim that small arms are outdated or outmatched by the modern military machine. I would like to make the point that the Vietnam war was won by soldiers using primarily small arms against a modern war machine. They did this 3 times by my account. First the Vietnamese kicked out the french, Then the U. S, Then China. Those are 3 modern instances of, Primarily, Small arms defeating large conventional armies and all from the same nation. lastly I'd like to say that the overwhelming amount of gun deaths don't come from mass shootings or any murder for that matter. Most gun deaths are attributed to suicide. 60% of gun deaths in the U. S are from suicide. (https://www. Theatlantic. Com/health/archive/2018/12/gun-deaths-city-murders-suicides/578812/) obviously people committing suicide cannot be stopped by removing guns. on an aside I quite liked the foul joke. Obviously I'm not referring to a fowl but it did give me a chuckle.
War on Terror

In the end, all my opponent argued against was the operation Iraqi freedom. Which he doesn't answer why there is no link. It was to eliminate an evil despot. The WoT was started to aoid attacks from ANY enemy. Foreign or Domestic. He drops that terror attacks since the WoT has begun. He drops Isreali security. He drops political capital. So vote pro to secure our country from terror attacks. All his arguements have no link to the debate at hand.
War on Terror

yeah the government is really concerned with economic security with other countries, maybe we should worry about our own, with unemployment rates in our country, trade has always been a factor with the united states and other countries. the kurd massacre was yet another foreign conflict that we got involved in. at the end of the day there was initially not specific reason for the wot to start. their country was being run their own way.. you dont see other countries at iraq with us for the sole reason that it wasnt their conflict to fight and neither was it ours besides going in and making sure there were no weapons of mass destruction and to stop terrorism targeting our country.yeah i mean i guess you can listen to everything you see in the news but really its irrelevant. reality and media are two seperate things. the wot was because of 9\11 and look how many more conflicts have started bc of our eagerness to get involved. uneccessary and VERY exaggerated.
War on Terror

>was it not all stemmed from one event -no, WoT came from 9/11, and iraq freedom stemmed from the kurd massacre >wasting our time, something productive -Economic security isn't a waste of time and is extremely productive 9/11 was a warrent to save the people of Iraq from a despot >so let them be and continue to trade -Recent events in Egypt have caused hell on the oil market, we need an assuanrce that the area is stable >We did not need to save the kurds That's exactly what we said about the jews before they went to the concentration camps Net Benefits of WoT isreali security Oppresion of the Taliban There have been no successful domestic terror attack on the Us since Greater Domestic security Political capital to certain politicians, this is key to secure a balanced agenda