BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Drawing Debate

Last one! Note: I've legally changed my name to Claude Monet, so any similarities between his impressionist drawings and mine are merely coincidence. I have not plagiarized his work.Another note: Just kidding. ;DThanks for a wonderful debate. Marina, you are truly talented and it was a pleasure going up against you.I've mentioned that I love animals, so this one is a penned sketch of a touching moment between a girl and her dog. Enjoy!
Drawing Debate

This is a Drawing Debate. My fiance and I have been trying to find a way to spend time together on the site. She loves to draw and is pretty freaking good at it, so I came up with the idea of a drawing debate. She shall participate in this herself. Each round a person shall submit a drawing. It has to be sketched with pencil or pen. At the bottom of the Drawing you are to sign your DDO username or at least something noticeable where people will know you actually drew itExample : We shall sign Marina/MikalTrying to copy someone elses work such as trying to forge your signature on to something you did not draw is a full 7 point dropTracing is not allowed either. This is a improv debate and hopefully will be funIf you are interested post in the comments.
The Office is by far, the best primetime television show on TV ever made

With its histerically humorous characters like Michael Scott (Steve Carell), Dwight Schrute (Rainn Wilson), Kevin Malone (Brian Baumgartner), Andy Bernard (Ed Helms), Jim Halpert (John Krasinski), and so many other favorites, the NBC show based on a false paper company "Dunder-Mifflin" located in Scraton, PA, it truly is the best show ever created, and not to mention the 7 awards won, and was alos nominated in various topics 17 times.
Riddle Debate

1. How Long is a Chinese man.2. How much dirt is in a hole that is 1 foot by 1 foot by 1 foot?3. In this neighborhood there are tons of houses. There's a green house, blue house, orange house, etc... The Red man lives in the red hosue, the yellow man lives in the yellow house, the purple man lives in the purple house. Who lives in the White House?4. How do you drop an egg onto a concrete floor without cracking it?5. It takes 8 men 20 minutes to build a wall, how long does it take 5 men to build the same wall?6. I have a head, body, one foot but four legs. I live in your house and you see me everyday. What am I?
Riddle Debate

This is a Riddle Debate the rules are very simple. 1st round will be acceptance and in the second round I will ask a total of 6 questions all of which my opponent must answer correctly or he will forfeit all 7 of his points. (select winner option being used) He must not use the Internet either. In the finial round I will reveal the answers and weather or not he has gotten them correct or not. He/she will end the debate by a simple thank you comment.
Riddle Debate

I am disappointed that my opponent has Forfeited his last round. Via the rules I win by default. Here are the answers1. How Long is the man's name.2. None, it's a hole there's no dirt in it.3. The President or Obama would have been acceptable.4. It's easy, concrete floors are very hard to crack.5. None, the wall has already been built.6. Bed.I do wish to here what answers my opponent did come up with though.
0.999... = 1 | Prove Me Wrong

0.999... Define x. The reason you cannot is because, since 0.999... is an infinite number, you cannot find the end to infinity, and therefore find the difference between 0.999... and 1, but it would theoretically be x=0.0000...00001 somewhere, but because 0.999 is infinite, you will never know the exact amount of x. So the difference between 1 and x is infinitely small, but still exists. https://hiizuru.wordpress.com... I read the article, and found that it shows that you can look at it from both ways, and still be right. However, by all technicality, I firmly believe that 0.999, even if some people use it to replace 1, does not equal 1, and never will. There will always be a difference between the two numbers, even if it is infinitely small.
0.999... = 1 | Prove Me Wrong

1 x 0.999...=0.999... 1 x 1=1 Yes, it is true that we use 0.666... repeating to represent 2/3, and 1/3 is represented by 0.333... However, this is simply because a true 1/3 or 2/3 of 1 does not exist, and this is roughly what it would be. Does that make sense? I figured you would see the logic in my last argument, but instead you just acted offended by it. Again, 0.999... is a number very close to 1, but it will never be one. Now, if you multiply a number by 0.999... instead of by 1, you will get a very close number, but it will still be a different number. Of course, the calculator will round it to 1, because it is very close to 1, but it technically is not one. There will theoretically be a difference between the numbers, no matter how small it is. So if you use 0.999... repeating to replace 1, it may work on a calculator, but it technically is still never the same as the number 1.
0.999... = 1 | Prove Me Wrong

1 and 0.999 repeating are not the same number. They are numerically different. This is because numbers are exact. 1 is an exact number used to represent an exact amount. True, you may round 0.9999 repeating up to 1, but when you do that, you are rounding, and not being exact. That is why when you solve 79.99999...+40.00000000012321..., and you want to estimate the answer, you would rewrite it as 80+40. However, that is an estimate. Key word, estimate! That means that in this context, the value of 120, or the sum of the rounded numbers, is an indicator used to help find a relative range of what your true sum will be. So, you round up to 1 when using 0.999 repeating, but that does not mean they represent the same amount. Just like 1.0000000001 will never equal just 1.
0.999... = 1 | Prove Me Wrong

Argument: 0.999... = 1 Proofs: x = 0.999... 10x = 9.999... 10x - x = 9.999... - 0.999... 9x = 9 x = 1 1/3 = 0.333... 2/3 = 0.666... 3/3 = 0.999... Define x. 0.999... < x < 1 Rules: BertrandsTeapot will NOT be allowed to accept this debate. Please disprove/give sufficient enough evidence for anyone to vote for you, and for me to believe 0.999... DOESN"T equal 1.
Who is the best comedic actor

Well you did say that you thought Jim Carrey was the best comedic actor, and I was proving to you and the audience that he in fact is not the best comedic actor. My argument stands that there cannot be a 'best comedic actor'. In my cases that I put forward I intended to convince you and prove to you that Jim Carrey is not the 'best' comedic actor and that you cannot be the 'best' comedic actor. You can be the most successful or most recognised actor but it is impossible to be the best as there is no real competition. Thankyou
Who is the best comedic actor

I want to follow up by saying that im not specifying that Adam Sandler is the best, I dont think anyone can be the best however people can have personal favourite actors. What I am saying is that there are better comedic actors than Jim Carrey. Jim Carrey also has his horrible movies which were in no way funny or entertaining, such as The number 23, Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls and Fun with Dick and Jane. Considering you assumed that Im saying Adam Sandler is better (which he may be), ill tell you that Adam Sandler is worth an astonishing 300 million dollars, where as Jim Carrey is only worth 150 million dollars. Adam's movies are also well known alot better, he may have a few movies that aren't really funny how ever he is still known alot more than Jim Carrey. According to many media reports, Jim Carrey's movies are on the decline and fall.
Who is the best comedic actor

Okay well you didn't say who you think is the best comedic actor, but I'm assuming you are saying Adam Sandler and that was predictable. The thing about Adam Sandler is while he's funny he keeps turning out crappy movies. Now I liked happy Gilmore and Billy Madison, but Jack and Jill, that's my boy, I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry, Little Nicky which Mike Nelson said was the worst comedy ever. I'm just going by movies you can't really see Adam Sandler's comedic genius if the movies don't let him show it. Now Jim Carrey on the other hand has amazing movies that let him show his talents and he was on in my opinion one of the greatest sketch shows ever in living color. My final statement is that Jim Carrey has a higher total gross in movies, A higher average gross in movies, his highest grossing movie was higher then Adam Sandler's highest grossing movie in all staring roles and in all credited roles he has more movies, higher average gross, higher total gross, higher gross in the 90s, higher gross in the 2000s. So how do you want to follow up with your argument
Who is the best comedic actor

I am going to be arguing against you and saying that Jim Carrey is not the best comedic actor. You may personally believe that he is, which is totally acceptable, how ever in this debate I believe that he is not, I also would like to question how you can say that he's the best comedic actor. Have you seen and compared every comedic actor? What makes you think that he is the best actor when you may not even know about 90% of other comedic actors. There are also many comedic actors of past generations which you would deffinately have no idea about. Adam Sandler has won 34 awards and has been nominated for 79, this clearly shows he could potentially be one of the best comedic actors. Judging by many charts which I have looked at, including IMDb: Top 100 Comedian Actors of All Time, IMDb: The 30 funniest Comedy Actors of Hollywood, IMDb: The Best Comedy Actors of all time, IMDb: BEST COMEDY ACTORS, and many more.
Racoons would make great pets when domesticated

There are many animals that go through people's garbage, dogs being one of them. They only go through it when lack the means of getting food elsewhere. Once domesticated racoons shouldn't make more of a mess than dogs or cats. In the 1950s the Soviets decided to conduct an eperiment to see if they could domesticate foxes. After a couple decades they became pretty successful and today are being sold around the world as pets. These foxes became less aggressive and very dog like in their need to want to be around humans. Through a similar process racoons could be just as easily domesticated.
Racoons would make great pets when domesticated

Racoons are nature's cute little bandits. Though wild ones often get into people's garbage and make a mess a racoon raised from birth by someone is just like any other pet, they play with you and are very attached. What would make racoons even better pets is that they run on all fours but can use their hands. This opens the door to be able to train your racoon to do much more tricks than a dog or cat. There are already some people who keep racoons as pets and most of them report that they made great pets. Here is a video of one of those people.http://www.youtube.com...
Have Brazil, Russia, India, and China had a positive effect on the United States

"And if we kept all of the jobs we outsourced back in america, it would only make the problem worse. Our companies would cease to be able to compete on a global scale, and would fall, losing thousands or tens of thousands more jobs than the situation now. In a global market, competition is much more tense. Outsourcing to other countries like Brazil, Russia, India, and China, has helped the United States stay in the lead, helped our companies expand back home, which means more jobs for everyone" First of all who starts a sentence with and? and secound to this quote i say Objection! Tell me when did i say that we should take all of the jobs back im talking about only a few just to help people here and your going to say something that i didn't say at all. The fact of the matter is that we need jobs they need jobs we have a few states that extremly need jobs spread the jobs around, just help some in our country. Its only reasonable to have our countries people first then trade.
Have Brazil, Russia, India, and China had a positive effect on the United States

All right. So you've basically proven you have no understanding of how world economics, or economics in general, work. It operates on two quantities. Supply and Demand. Right now, we are in an economic recession/crisis, and so companies are losing money, hence they cut jobs. Once the economy gets better, the companies will have more money and expand to create more jobs again. China had no impact on this. In fact, they are in some hard times too. Your overly exxagerated claims make America sound like a third world country right now. People are not starving here. Even the homeless can usually find a homeless shelter or soup kitchen. Countries like China and India are the places where people are really starving. Don't you think people over there would like any job that comes their way, even from an american company outsourcing? And if we kept all of the jobs we outsourced back in america, it would only make the problem worse. Our companies would cease to be able to compete on a global scale, and would fall, losing thousands or tens of thousands more jobs than the situation now. In a global market, competition is much more tense. Outsourcing to other countries like Brazil, Russia, India, and China, has helped the United States stay in the lead, helped our companies expand back home, which means more jobs for everyone. In conclusion, BRIC has been a valuable trading partner for us in more ways than one. It has helped us expand, and given more money to our people in the most direct way possible. Without outsourcing and getting raw materials from them, we would be eating the dust of countried like England and Japan. There is no more debate. BRIC is the only way forward in a competitive global economy. As the famous quote goes, "Use it or lose it."
Have Brazil, Russia, India, and China had a positive effect on the United States

Okay for one yes i know its not all china's fault and i wasn't blaming them but this little tibit is funny really "The people can't be directly helped. Besides, you need businesses to make jobs. When businesses get money, they don't cut jobs. They cut jobs when they lose money. If a business in America doesn't get money, it doesn't have any to pay to its workers, so it cuts jobs. If it gets more money, it expands, and creates more jobs." Let me ask one question what jobs there are practicaly none so how is this helping. Also how about here "All China did was take some of the jobs people here didn't want to do." You know i bet we would want them now a can garentee if you ask someone they will say that. One of the reasons they move is because its cheaper to have korea or china or ect. People are straving here and they dont have jobs and last time Mc D's dont have that many job openings. Alot of the companies are moving not for the country i agree some jobs should stay there but not every one of them. Too many people not alot of jobs if some of the jobs would come back then that would at least help.
Have Brazil, Russia, India, and China had a positive effect on the United States

Look, you're little tidbit about the 'lead poisoning'. Seriously, there have only been three or four reported cases where that lead actually hurt anyone, and the problem has been dealt with the best way the American public knows how. A big media scandal, investors taking out their shares, the company losing money, and fixing the problem. Also, you can't help the people of a country without helping the government, unless you're proposing the U.N. start setting up food aid. Clearly, you don't understand world economics. In world economics, the easiest, fastest way to get money from one country to another is business to business, government to government. The people can't be directly helped. Besides, you need businesses to make jobs. When businesses get money, they don't cut jobs. They cut jobs when they lose money. If a business in America doesn't get money, it doesn't have any to pay to its workers, so it cuts jobs. If it gets more money, it expands, and creates more jobs. And it's not like China is the primary one to blame for our unemployment. Our unemployment is due to a bad economy and poor government handling of that bad economy. All China did was take some of the jobs people here didn't want to do. In order for American businesses to even compete in a global economy, they have to outsource jobs so they can expand. If businesses go down, even more jobs are lost. Therefore, we should at least keep most of the jobs and have a few people out of a job for a couple of months, rather than blaming China and losing even more. And about the militaries. When Russia invaded Georgia, the entire world yelled at us to do something. Not the U.N., us. Every time something goes sour, we are always expected to deal with the problem. Somalia, Panama, Kosovo, the list goes on. If more and more countries started taking a more active role, like the BRIC countries are starting to, the burden would be less on our Army, so we would have more money in our own pockets. In the end, BRIC is not the enemy, or the friend. Relationships between countries are much more complicated than that. Maybe in the future they might turn on us. But the topic of the debate is if they HAVE HAD a positive impact, and so far, they have.
Have Brazil, Russia, India, and China had a positive effect on the United States

Okay for one yes china spoon feeding us money and all of our jobs have gone over sea helping people like say bill gates. But guess what people that need money want to know why because bill gates (as an example) sent his X-Box 360 factorie to china and korea. Now your say hey there still helping us last time i check we saved there butt first, we gave them our jobs and now our people are starving. On a secound note the toys that make have given kids lead posining and have died from it. So yes they helped our rich pigs and and let our poor die and strave and strugle. yes the helped our goverment but not whats important the most our people. I mean how greedy can the companies be so what your making more money but every doller them make leave someone with out a job. To support there famlies, you took out that part of the people that live in the u.s dont matter as if the don't have any use at all. Like this for example:"saving our companies money and giving people in BRIC money. Both parties win". yeah the both win but what about our countrys people the don't get crap. Example 2 :"BRIC countries, as a product of good economies, have been able to build up their militaries to participate in United Nations" . As a good product of their good economies but what kind of economies do we have practicly nothing. Also whats this crap about "saving the United States from being obligated to fight in many conflicts across the globe" why the heck would we fight these in the first place?(this is a question id like to be answered) So in reality they helped other countrys not ours they only helped our companies thats all rich get richer poor get poorer.
Have Brazil, Russia, India, and China had a positive effect on the United States

BRIC countries lend the United States a lot of money, and without China spoonfeeding us money, we wouldn't be able to finance our bailouts. Also, we have been able to outsource lots of our jobs to India and China, saving our companies money and giving people in BRIC money. Both parties win. BRIC countries, as a product of good economies, have been able to build up their militaries to participate in United Nations peacekeeping operations, saving the United States from being obligated to fight in many conflicts across the globe, such as Somalia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Better to rape a baby than be raped by one.

Positive effects or raping a babysense of controlOrgasmFunLack of BoredomExercising of Muscles for Good HealthNegative effects of raping a babyNoneI think you are looking from the baby's point of view but this debate is whether raping a baby or being raped by one is better, not whether being raped when you are a baby or raping as a baby is better.
Better to rape a baby than be raped by one.

To be raped is to lose control, to have yourself violated and to be upthrusted through levels of trauma that you'd never dream of. A baby can barely process what is going on, it naturally should be incapable of overpowering you, so it's more unnatural (if we wish to relate to natural as being moral, as many people do) for one to rape you than for you to have capability to rape it. Thus it's the better scenario for you to rape the baby than be raped.
Better to rape a baby than be raped by one.

If a baby sis firstly able to rape you, and secondly you remain helpless and traumatised by it, and FAR MORE conscious of what's going on than a baby would be (not a child, a baby do not confuse the two). Then there is something so truly wrong and impossibly incorrect and horribly disgusting that you'd rather be raping a baby in my opinion.That is all.Thank you.You probably will get more votes due to the popularity of your opinion, people not even considering how horrible it is to truly be raped by a 'chucky' styled baby, but perhaps if you did you'd see what I'm saying is true. Have a nice day chap.
Gay marriage

In responseYada is indeed the Hebrew form and it can be euphemized. However, context matters. Especially in the case of Adam and Eve it is quite straightforward. In the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, it is not as clear, but at the very least sexual immorality is a sin, homosexuality being one of those immoralities as pointed out in the Leviticus and other scriptures. But of course, my real point here is as you point out, the freedom of religion. Though I understand the frustration homosexual couples face, there is a real cause for concern the way legalization is being done. This brings me to my final remarks. Homosexual people are not bad people. They deserve to be treated like any other human being, I agree. Marriage is quite the interesting institution however which does draw the line. According to many churchs' beliefs, marriage is a sacred ordinance to be performed in fulfillment of the plan of God, a plan which expresses marriage, indeed eternal marriage requires a man and woman to be bound together "as one flesh". Personally, I feel that if homosexual couples want to marry, by all means do so. However, in an effort to legalize gay marriage, the equality arm seeks to make all things equal for something that can't possibly be totally equal using the government whose role it never was and never was intended to be to make these decisions. Society loves equality because it seems to make everyone happy. And yet, the more we make people equal, the more we find other ways to make us equal or even create other inequalities in the process. This is such an example where we desire equal freedoms for religion and for societal groups such as homosexuals. If you so desire to legalize gay marriage, I believe it must be done so as not as an effort at equality. Doing so will likely require religions to perform homosexual marriages whose beliefs are not in favor of such kinds of marriages. If anything, I would rather see this happen: Instead of legalizing gay marriage thus jeopardizing religious freedoms, just make it not illegal (leave it unspecified, since it was never meant to be political in the first place), and allow those who religions who wish to perform the marriages to do so and of course civil institutions to do so as well. I do not recommend homosexual marriages because of my beliefs, but I will not force you one way or another and I think this is more fair than simply legalizing and accepting the consequences.