BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Clan jangle presents: "Impossibly hard questions only a genius could know"

Answer all questions correctly to win this debate. These questions all have academic qualities to them and support the general knowledge hypothesis. Answer all questions correctly to win this debate. 1) What’s the tallest building in the world? 2) Why can't you trust an atom? 3) What’s the fundamental difference between roast beef and pea soup? 4) What's the fundamental difference between a cat and a complex sentence? 5) How do fish get high? Terms and conditions.If you lose you must delete your account.If you lose then Jangle's clan reserves the right to bully and harrass you until you commit suicide.Jangle's clan is not responsible for any loss of life that may occur as a result of this debate.
Most Children are parasites

This is alot more challenging than I thought it would be, but that's OK; I like a challenge. "So, while the fact that the child hasn't put their toys away until then still remains, actually putting them away is still helpful, for my reasons stated in round one. It really doesn't matter if anyone you know has done any meaningful chores, for two reasons. The people you know are not the majority of children. Plus, would someone randomly say "Hey man, I just got a chore done, and it was meaningful!" Anyway, even if a child did some kind of meaningful chore, like cleaning their room once in their childhood years they would not be considered a parasite. The majority of children have done that." I accept that picking up the toy is a service, however when you consider that the child must first get the toy out, it cancels out any beneficial effect thet picking up the toy may cause, but that's only if they put the toy away right when they are done playing with it, if they leave it out, and the parent/sibling steps on it, then they comited yet another dis-service. Consider this, if I were to shoot someone, then call an abulance, would you consider the event do a service for someone? What if they died before it got there? As for the chores, I know that you didn't do any meaningful chores other than the ones you were(very) well compensated for(I was very jelous). "Okay, I forgot about that. But nevertheless, education is still helpful to a parent for my reasons in round one. Even if you say discipline is irrelevant, it's not. The child may be getting education from a cost to society, but discipline is still helpful for my round one reasons. If it's helpful, then it's a service, so it's useful, and so not parasitic." Teaching them is doing yourself a service, as the children don't actually do anything. The children only do a service if they USE what they are taught(which they rarely do). This may seem like semantics but it's a BIG distiction. "No it isn't, because if someone wants children, then obviously they believe they would benefit them in some way. Whether that be love, traits to pass on, or the reasons above, it is still relevant." People don't always do things to benefit themselves, sometimes people do things just to be nice. We call those people alruists(dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com...). We(or at least I) see commercials all the time trying to get me to send money to help people in Africa(which I would if I had anything to give), they must be getting money from somewhere, otherwise they wouldn't be able to air commercials.
Most Children are parasites

Picking up something YOU got out is not performing a service to someone else, it is balancing a dis-service. As for doing chores, no-one I know actually did any meaningful chores(that I know of) until they hit their early teens. Now onto school. Public school is not actually free, you must pay taxes in order to finance it. As for the assertion that schools teach discipline, it is irrelevent. Wether the parents teach disciplin, or the schools do, the child is still benefitting from it at a cost to society. Moving onto what would happen if children weren't educated, through most of human civilization education was either non-existent, or reserved for the wealthy, and yet: here we are. Formal Education is not neccisary to succeed. In fact, Andrew Jackson(president of the U.S.A.) had very little formal education. http://en.wikipedia.org... Yet again, we come to an irrelevant point. Wether a child is allowed to work has NOTHING to do with wether he/she is parasitic. And for something to be "useful" it must tangible (definition of useful: "of practical use, as for doing work; producing material results; supplying common needs"; From dictionary.com) Wether people like or want children is also COMPLETELY irrelevent. Your turn Flash :)
Most Children are parasites

Definitions: Children: anyone the age of 12 or under Most: more than 50% Parasite: a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.(definition of parasite is from dictionary.com) Children clearly demonstrate the the meaning of parasite. They live with thier parents, they go to school at no cost to them, they eat for free, they get free transportation, as well as any number of other benefits, without giving anything tangible in return. In short, they live on the hospitality of others.
Australia horseback riding

I understand that this is most likely advertisement spam, but I'm going to see if I can discredit what you've advertised. Furthermore, I would find it uncontrollably amusing if you successfully countered my points and won this debate, considering that you are more than likely a spam-bot of some kind.Horse riding vacations are inherantly wasteful The purpose of a horse riding vaction is to experience pleasure. Whilst this may be the case, the amount of resources required to obtain this pleasure exceeds that of similar alternatives. For example, a similar experience would be opening a window in your car whilst driving (or even driving a convertible), regardless if you are driving to work or for pleasure. The similarities are as follows:1. A steady stream of wind in horse-riding could be experienced at low speeds in a car2. The bumpiness of a horseride could by replicated by driving on a bumpy road3. You could make a sound-track of 'neighing' to put the CD player of your carAdditionally, you have far more control over your car than you a horse, considering the horse has a mind of its own (albeit a trained mind).Horse riding vacations are EXPENSIVEComparatively, buying a covertable from Carsales.com would set you back around $2,000(AUD)[1]. Keep in mind this is to buy a brand new car, not to use the one you already owned (even if it isn't a convertible, you could wind down all the windows). Of the dozen horse-rides I found, all of them exceeded this $2,000 price point. A ride in Melbourne, for example, would cost ~$5,500(USD)[2]. This does not even include airfares (considering that you can drive your car out of town or go across country, in other words 'an adventure'.So, essentially, you're paying around $2,000 ($5,500 - $2,000 for car + petrol +food, you can sleep in your car) for 4.5 star accomodation, the horse and "Watch the Melbourne Cup from reserved lawn stand seat." The latter is worth around $100~200 [3]. So, the horse riding and accomodation should be worth around $2,000 for eight days and nights. If you can not be posh-person for those nights (4stars instead of 4.5), you can pay $99 a night [4]. So, the horse riding should be worth ~$1200.ConclusionYou're paying a lot of money for an adventure on a horse, which is inefficient considering the alternatives.[1]http://www.carsales.com.au...[2]http://www.highpointetours.com...[3]http://melbournecup.com...[4]http://www.booking.com...;
Corn is not a vegetable .

I would like to address the fact that this argument my opponent makes is not based in horticulture but in biology. So consider this, is the fruit apart of the plant if it is I win this debate. This clear from my contentions and My opponent has STILL only shown us that Corn is a grain and a fruit or a dry fruit as he likes to call it. Notice how he says parts of a plant, so what he argues is that Corn cannot be a plant because it is part of a plant but this is evidently wrong so inorder for my opponent to have won this debate he should have show us that Maize, not just Corn in of itself being established as part of this debate in the last sentence, was not a vegetable. Horticulture is not a science. Biology would be the correct basis for this debate. Voters; My opponent has not meet the BoP. He has not scratched my contention that Corn can be a fruit, vegetable, and grain. For these reasons there can be no vote but the Neg. today!
Corn is not a vegetable .

Corn is Fruit from a plant. Corn is the reproductive part of a Plant, thus it's a fruit. Grain is also known as caryopsis, which is a dry fruit. I have already stated this in round 1.In regards to food, the parts of a plant can be separated into two main categories;1.) Vegetables2.) Fruit Botanically a fruit comes from the reproductive part of the plant. There is no botanical definition of a vegetable, however botanists consider a vegetable as anything not a fruit. In regards to cultural definitions, it depends on your culture. Some may call it a fruit, whereas others call it a vegetable. We can't go by cultural definitions, because this is a debate, not a negotiation.In regards to culinary definition for fruit depending on whether it is served in a savory dish (a vegetable), or as a sweet dish or desserts(a fruit). The classifications do not always match the botanically correct ones.When my opponent called a tomato both a fruit and a vegetable he was using the Culinary definition. The culinary definition has 7 main categories; Leafy vegetables Fruit Vegetables Fruit Vegetables Flowery Vegetables Podded Vegetables Bulb & Stem Vegetables Root Vegetables Sea Vegetables However using this definition Yellow Corn(Sweat Corn) would be a Fruit, and other corn such as popping corn and corn meal would neither be a Fruit nor a vegetable.Thus the same circumstances for tomatoes do not apply to corn. http://www.ehow.com... If you noticed this debate is in the science category, not the Society category, nor the Health category. Therefore culinary definitions, and Cultural definitions, don't apply. It has to be a scientific definition. The horticultural (science of cultivating) differences between a vegetable and a Fruit is; A vegetable is a herbaceous plant cultivated for edible stems, leaves, and roots. Some people think rhubarb is a fruit, because it is used to make pies. But, rhubarb is a vegetable according to the botanical definition.A fruit is the edible part of the plant that contains the seeds. So your eggplant, tomato, cucumber and zucchini are fruits. http://www.comevisit.com... Let's Recap; Scientific Definitions Horticulturally a Grain, and not a vegetable Botanically a Fruit, and not a vegetable Unscientific Definition Culturally varies Culinarally neither
Corn is not a vegetable .

My opponent is making a hasty case he is saying that one a vegetable cannot be a fruit, two all Grains are fruit, and three that if the former are true then Corn cannot be a vegetable. But because of the definitions I have provided and the Authoritive evidence from the book "Biological and Elementary chemistry" . Corn is still a plant and being a that we eat, makes it by definition a vegetable. Also the statement that Corn is a grain and fruit is irrelvant in this argument truely only his first contention is important because only if (as he claims) a Corn is truely only a fruit then can he win this debate. Another thing he says is that Corn is a grain and a fruit but he DID NOT say in his second argument that this is always so as he claims. But we can question many things in his argument. One thing is that he has a notion that if a fruit cannot be vegetable, this is untrue. My opponent contends nutritional value has nothing to due with whether a Corn is a fruit/grain or vegetable but we must realize that they were the first people to come up with the term vegetable. Also we must also realize that my opponent has only meet the BoP that Corn is a grain and a fruit. He has done little to no contending on the issue of whether or not Corn is a vegetable. My opponent in order to win this debate must show that Corn is indeed not a vegetable. Thank you.
Corn is not a vegetable .

I did not contradict myself. Corn is a fruit and a grain. I never said it wasn't a fruit. All grains are a type of fruit, as stated in my last round. Vegetables are never fruit, as also stated in my last round. The confusion between vegetable and fruit occur when fruit have the nutritional value of vegetables. This same reasoning labels peanuts as meat, and soy as dairy. Corn is a warm season cereal grain, like millet, fonio, sorghum, and job's tears. Because corn is a grain, you can pop it, you can turn it into bread, and you can make corn flakes cereal. Corn is also the most widely used feed grain. Corn accounts for 90% of all feed grain production. http://www.ers.usda.gov... http://www.youtube.com...
Corn is not a vegetable .

You have contradicted yourself in this debate. All of the sources you put forward say it is fruit and you are arguing against your own evidence. Also we have remember that I only I have to put reasonable doubt that Corn maybe a vegetable. Also my opponent has contradicted his own sources and he has yet to address my contention that Corn is in fact a fruit and vegetable both. We have to remember that people were contradicted for year on the tomato issue with many people but as mentioned in the book Biological and Elementary chemistry "most often when considering [vegetables] and [fruits] the fundamental difference is in the way they are used because in biology, [vegetables] are really nonexistent they are plants so the only way to tell the difference in fundamental..." he goes on to talk about the different varieties of vegetables but you get the idea, he also claims that Corn "is indeed a vegetable". My opponents case is self-contradictory and doesn't have a basis in biology we can conclude that there can only be a Neg. vote today.
Corn is not a vegetable .

Corn is not a vegetable it is a grain. Corn is the seed of Maize, and is a fruit and a grain, but not a vegetable.In the N.Y. State legislature, a bill came up that proposed Corn as the new State vegetable . The bill was shot down because corn was not a vegetable. In response to the legislation, the chairman of the department of horticulture at Cornell University Dr. Marvin P. Pritts said, “The criteria is whether it comes from the reproductive part of a plant or the vegetative part of the plant,” Dr. Pritts further stated. “If it comes from the reproductive part of the plant, it’s a fruit. If it comes from the vegetative part of the plant, it’s a vegetable.”Thus according to the department of horticulture at Cornell University;A Fruit comes from the reproductive part of the plantA Vegetable comes from the vegetative part of the plantCorn is a caryopsis, or dry fruit, which is more popularly known as a grain. http://empirezone.blogs.nytimes.com...In order for corn to be a vegetable it must come from the stem, leaves, or root of the plant. ,Because Corn is a grain, we are able to make Corn Bread, and popped Corn.
Corn is not a vegetable .

I assume this is introductions. Hi I am Sterling. BoP is on the Affirmative because you must prove that Corn is not a vegtable. Definitions: Vegetable: a plant or part of a plant used as food, such as a cabbage, potato, turnip, or bean Oxford Dictionary My argument will be based on the fact corn is a vegetable because it is used as food. For example a tomato is a vegetable but it is also a fruit. Vegetable is not biologically correct term it is in fact not really a term that can be used to apply biology because a fruit; Fruit: the sweet and fleshy product of a tree or other plant that contains seed and can be eaten as food Oxford dictionary Corn maybe a fruit and a vegetable because if it is edible(and a plant) it is considered a vegetable.
Raising the minimum wage

I am against raising the minimum wage, and believe it will not help our economy or even the workers getting higher pay in the long run. The following is my initial argument. I look forward to reading the opposing argument. 1)Raising the minimum wage is not efficient, if companies have to pay their workers more money, then they will have to either cut back on everyone"s hours or lay some people off. Less workers means less production which does not help the growth of an economy. 2)Now that people are making more money, they will naturally be able to afford more things (in the short run) making demand for generally every product go up. According to the law of supply and demand, when demand goes up the price must go up (because of limited amount of supply). This causes inflation. 3)Now let"s put a very simple example with this" say a worker makes $7.50 an hour and a given item costs $1" but minimum wage is raised to $15 an hour so now every worker who bought one of that given item a week can now afford to buy 2 a week and at least half of them do, so demand goes up for that item. Because the producers of this given item can only produce so much of this item a week (let"s keep the example small and simple and say they can produce 100 units a week) but now there is a demand for 200 a week, because there is a high demand they raise the price to $2" now that is the same fraction of the worker"s wage before minimum wage was raised, so now again, they can only afford one of that item a week, therefore making their raise pointless.
DotA 2 is better than League of Legends

So the only thing I really need to do to win this is a provide a contention. He set this to one round, provided no contentions and blindly just asserted the resolution. HE has the BOP so for him to uphold this, he has to provide some type of contention to support it. Nothing has been presented, so a blind assertion of the resolution is all that we have. C1) User base Both user bases have people that rage, get mad, and are all around hard to handle. Leagues however has an entire corporation an fanbase built around riot which is an amazing company that houses an amazing fan base. Anywhere from sponsoring millions of dollars in tournaments to constant customer support, riot is all around the best outlet for a greaet community C2) Skill Leagues requires proper timing, proper coordination, better farming, and the ability to function as an individual and as a team. Dota has some of the same aspects but not the the degree that leagues requires Conclusion His BOP is not uphel
A border fence is needed along America and Mexico.

will choose to avoid the attacks for now., and move onto future arguments. I will have some form of mass rebuttal within the given 5 rounds. The wall satisfies all. Countries in Central America want a strong powerful government, compared to cartel anarchy. We as Americans would want to support a very Democratic-Humantarian cause. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. We like puppet government and no horrible drugs Crack, Cocaine, Heroin, DMT, Salvia, and all forms of meth. The public and the officials in our Government want these things. The wall is "Oh! Thank God we had that!" type of project. Imagine in the future lets say 200-300 years. All of South America untie to fight America. By then we would add on to the wall since, but this is the cornerstone... We have governments, backed by the UN. Cartel controlled areas don't count. A common cause. Defense. The Chinese never really stopped the Mongols. Maybe some walls only went 500 feet. But we learn from history, we surpass it. The wall is built from the edge of California to the Texas Tip. The river we can give the majority of Mexico because well Rio Grande! Unless tunnels are used, which hardly any work/end up collapsing. We have TV shows about it. It is gross propaganda and fear, tactics of conservatives. Thank myself for reminding myself! This would be so bi-partisan if all of other aspects fall into place. We will have more crossing and crossings than ever. I never specified the distances and measurements exactly. Adding 15 new borders, for more looser traffic and more security officers. Also remember the Towers. We have 1989 thousand miles of borders. we will add roughly 14 new crossings. Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and thee American governments are happy. Happiness equals peace. Source: COMMON SENSE Jamaica and other small Caribbean Island nations will lose out they might inherit more children refugees. But the power and complaints too stack high enough on the one world government. UN and BRICS don't care, it is not the 1770's anymore. Greatest Defense System ever. I suppose a scenario: BRICS nations are about to launch a global bank. The Bank will make up of Chinese currency. Not the US dollar. Look this is crazy to think. Not just arming America most the planet. No time in history of humans, have two major banks both globally and not at the same time. This will cause chaos. The stock market will crash massively. Chaos will erupt. America and NATO nations might attack BRICS = Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa. Notice the first? Brazil they have many allies like Argentina, Columbia, Cuba, Venezuela. And even huge sway on Mexico. A war breaks out and if WW3 did go down. The world may establish a no nuke war because of immortality and innocents. A mass ground offensive from South America gets stopped by the wall.
A border fence is needed along America and Mexico.

P1: Defense and rebuttal; You speak of immigrants that come to work, immigrants that contribute to society. They actually help the economy. I speak of ones that smuggle drugs into our our suburbs. Sorry, but marijuana doesn't cut all of the traffic. Marijuana comes in third behind cocaine, and heroin. The cartels are still making money and should be stopped. The wall pays for itself. Less drug money means more for the economy, safer and more often traffic in and out of Mexico. The southern parts of America getting more population means more money spent. And families making it, surviving, living the American dream. P2: Heard of BRICS? That B stands for Brazil and their closet allies are Argentina, Chile, Columbia, and Venezuela. They also have strong sway on the poorer central countries and Mexico. Also Russia can land on Mexico or Canada for that matter and move in that way. A wall doesn't hurt us. Ronald Reagan was a horrible president but I am off topic. This is done for an economical reason not a military precaution. P3: The Government hires young men for 50$ a hour, with builders, engineers, company workers for supplies, support, and scrutiny. You are looking at 3 million man job. Giving a somewhat help to the economy. The taxes can go on the 1%. The ones can cross can stay it would be almost impossible. P4: No one cares about wild life, ecosystem concerns. We pump so much Carbon into the air and many more non-friendly things. No one care, or care and have the power to stop them. *your other points are just humanitarian sob stories. SOURCES http://www.therichest.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://jeff61b.hubpages.com...