BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Finish this sentence

"As the unrelenting flames began to grow, the atoms holding together the building began to rip apart and the little girl in the closet's tears dried with the heat, as she saw a dark black shadow walking towards her.POI-By the way, (as a person with OCD when it comes to English,) in your sentence, after "her best friend had betrayed her," there should have been a full stop or period."There's nothing noble in telling people off about publicly shaming people for grammatical gaffes and typos... Sentence-As the water level increased, Suzie lost her will to live, and felt all time around her stop as she released herself into the cool water. Harriet suddenly found herself in-
Finish this sentence

As the unrelenting flames began to grow, the atoms holding together the building began to rip apart and the little girl in the closet's tears dried with the heat, as she saw a dark black shadow walking towards her. POI- By the way, (as a person with OCD when it comes to English,) in your sentence, after "her best friend had betrayed her," there should have been a full stop or period. Sentence- As the water level increased...
Finish this sentence

Thanks pro. I'll answer questions:"{In the sentence before, I was thinking of a kraken or monster. What did you think I would have responded to your sentence?"I was thinking of a monster, or anything that would strike fear into ones heart to the point of staggering slowly back upon sight.I'll finish this sentence:Never in her life had she been more speechless than when she realized her best friend had betrayed her, a single tear dripped down her small blue eyes as she stood wobbling towards the edge of the cliff, watching her churlish friend grinning widely before her. I'll now create a sentence for Pro to finish: As the unrelenting flames continued to grow...Have a nice day.
Finish this sentence

Rules: First person writes part of a sentence. Second person finishes the sentence, using correct grammar and if necessary punctuation. Second person then writes the beginning of his own sentence. He may continue the sentence from before and add on another before he puts the sentence for the other person to finish if he wishes. First person continues that sentence and the cycle repeats. Please no use of profanities. Jack sucked in a deep breath, staring at the gigantic ...
Viruses are Living organisms

That was just me identifying my stance and letting you go first.So first, a basic Biology class- All living organisms must undergo all the life procceses! (movement, reproduction, stimulous-response/sensitivity, nutrition, excretion, respiration and growth)So let's go down the list-Movement- A virus cannot move itselfReproduction- It cannot reproduce by its own means, only by taking over host cells (which does not count!)Stimulous-response/sensitivity- Cannot respond to environmentNutrition- They do not obtain or use energyExcretion- Do not produce wastesRespiration- Do not undergo respirationGrowth- Do not grow or developSources- http://www.oum.ox.ac.uk...http://www.cliffsnotes.com...;
Viruses are Living organisms

Do you have any backup for your statements? Just curious. I say that viruses, even if they can't reproduce, are indeed living, but not fully autonomous. They are not exactly "living things" and are dormant before they come into contact with humans. In fact, all viruses just evolve and adapt in different ways that broaden the range significantly. This is a very gray area of facts, and there is little chance to paint this question i broad strokes, but I believe that viruses are semi-autonoumous but in fact living, just like the single-celled organisms, that, ya know, WE came from. Sources: http://www.scientificamerican.com... http://serc.carleton.edu... http://news.discovery.com... http://now.tufts.edu...
Hillary Clinton would make a better US President then Elizabeth Warren

Thank you imabench for your post, now without further adieu... Elizabeth Warren has many credentials that qualify her as being a great president. 1) She is a senator from Massachusetts. Elizabeth Warren has been given support by her people of Massachusetts to represent them in Senate. That means she has gotten widespread support from her state, as only two senators are allowed to be elected from each state. She stands as the common woman who made herself into an upperclass lady [1]. This means she knows the struggles of those in the lower class and will do what she can to help them in the right way. Right now this is something we need in a President. We need someone who knows both the lower and upper class life. Senator Warren brings the prime example of both. 2) She has been a law professor for an extensive amount of time. "During the late-1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s, Warren taught law at several universities throughout the country, while researching issues related to bankruptcy and middle-class personal finance. Warren taught at the Rutgers School of Law"Newark during 1977"1978, the University of Houston Law Center from 1978 to 1983, and the University of Texas School of Law from 1981 to 1987, in addition to teaching at the University of Michigan as a visiting professor in 1985 and as a research associate at the University of Texas at Austin from 1983 to 1987." [2] This shows her intellectual capability. As a professor she wrote nine books (two of which became national best sellers) and more than a hundred articles. This obviously directs to the fact that she spends a lot of time thinking about law and especially bankruptcy law as that is her speciality [1]. It's important to know that she specializes in bankruptcy law considering America's economy. It is absolutely necessary that we fix the economy, and who better to spearhead that movement than Elizabeth Warren? As stated earlier she has an understanding of both the lower and upper class to be able to make things fair, and she is an excellent professor in the area of bankruptcy law. 3) She chair of the TARP "In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, Elizabeth served as Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Her independent and tireless efforts to protect taxpayers, to hold Wall Street accountable, and to ensure tough oversight of both the Bush and Obama Administrations won praise from both sides of the aisle. The Boston Globe named Elizabeth Bostonian of the Year in 2009 for her oversight efforts." [1] She has shown to specialize in the exact area our country needs. Between Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren, Warren is certainly the best candidate for the Presidency. Sources: [1] http://elizabethwarren.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Hillary Clinton would make a better US President then Elizabeth Warren

Here we come to the conclusion of our debate. I thank imabench for engaging in this debate with me, and whether I win or lose, it has been fun nevertheless. I suppose the debate really has boiled down to two points, and I'll address both of them in this rebuttal and make some concluding statements. 1) The argument that power corrupts. Now my opponent attacked this point saying that the writers of the study admit to jumping beyond the study. If you read the next couple of sentences they clearly state that they only jump beyond the boundaries to say that the numbness they researched may be applicable to other fields. However, to apply it to another field would be inductive reasoning, which is faulty and the reason they stated that their claims about other fields should not be taken as fact. The fields they speak of are buffers to divorce and physical pain, which they want to study more. In terms of their research on power leading to corrupt behavior, however, they do not shake from their foundation. I would bring up examples of times where I feel Hillary Clinton slipped up and why we may believe that she's reaching the state of numbness the study refers to, but it may be unfair seeing as my opponent will not be able to defend from those examples. I will leave it up to the judges to determine the validity of the study and its applicability to Hillary Clinton. 2) Bipartisanship. Yes, Elizabeth Warren attacked the specific Republicans that shut down the government. Most other Republicans did as well. They did not attack in the same manner she did, but it was not uncommon for a Republican to complain that the "faction" as some like to call it did what they did. I have give a solid example of where she has shown some bipartisanship, or at least willing to work in a bipartisan environment, and my opponent has brought up a shaky example of where she chewed out a few Republicans for shutting down the government. To conclude, yes Hillary has more experience than Warren, however, Warren is still a highly intelligent woman, and Hillary Clinton, as a study suggests, is more susceptible to corruption than Warren. While the two are "eerily similar" as my opponent puts it, Warren is definitely the better choice for President. Thank you.
Hillary Clinton would make a better US President then Elizabeth Warren

1) Power corrupts people"For the sake of sanity and character limit, I won't write out the entire study here, but I will provide the link below. The summarization is found in this sentence however, and it should be strongly noted that: "These findings provide the first empirical support for the stress-buffering effects of power during lie telling and suggest that power may lead to corruption, in part, by lowering the emotional, cognitive, and physiological costs of engaging in corrupt behavior." Your own study at the end openly states that they stepped beyond the data they gathered to advance their own theory:"While the current research certainly supports this claim, and a good deal of previous work also suggests this may be the case, we may have stepped beyond our data slightly in our interpretation" - Top of Page 27 http://mors.haas.berkeley.edu...If you want to prove that being President might corrupt Hillary Clinton, then cite examples of how she has been corrupt in the past, I havent seen any though, and if she hasnt been corrupt in the 20 years she has worked in high level positions of the government, then I dont see why that would suddenly change should she become President. 2) Bipartisianship"it would be unreasonable to say that as soon as Warren comes along we're all going to sit in a circle holding hands and singing Kumbaya, but she has proven to be able to work with both sides in the short time she's been in government."Elizabeth Warren hasnt exactly been known to work well with the GOP though, in fact she criticizes the living sh** out of them on a regular basis now that she's in Congresshttp://mors.haas.berkeley.edu...http://jezebel.com...http://www.rawstory.com...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...Elizabeth Warren is not a legislator with strong bipartisian tendencies, shes as liberal as you can get..... Hillary is pretty liberal too, but she doesnt accuse the GOP of being hostage taking loons who are hell bent on doing everything they can to oppose Obama like Warren does. ==========================================================================================The truth is, Clinton and Warren are both eerily similar in terms of accomplishments, educational prowess, and where they lean politically.... But Clinton simply beats the hell out of Warren when it comes to experience in all kinds of top level government positions to the point that Warren cant come even close to matching it....... Which is why Hillary Clinton would make a better US president then Elizabeth Warren.
Users of this website should have to provide reasons for what they choose to vote for

If it's understood, we don't have a problem, and there is nothing to fix. If it's not, which I hold, then since the rules say nothing about the purpose, again there is nothing to fix :D. I don't know of people who vote without reading the debate... can you mention any examples? Seems speculative. A checklist will not encourage people to "understand the debate..." because they won't spend the time on it... they'll just fake filling it out, most of them, and then we'll have false information on our hands. False information is worse than none.
Users of this website should have to provide reasons for what they choose to vote for

As someone said in a comment below, people aren't ignorant to the purpose of voting in debates, What I am saying is that they usually know who to vote for beforehand, without even reading the debate. Besides, how long does it even take to fill out a checklist? It isn't a big deal, and it will encourage people to fully understand the debate. The rules may not imply that you have to debate based on the quality of the arguement, but it is silently understood that the reader puts personal opinions aside and votes based on who did the better job arguing.
Users of this website should have to provide reasons for what they choose to vote for

Nothing in debate.org's rules implies they can't vote based on opinions. Hell the primary goal of debate is to get people to share your opinion, presumably, so the votes in that sense indicate achievement of the goal. I don't know who did this supposed "deductive proof," but a statement about what "most readers do" by definition CANT be deductive. Most is an inductive term. You can bet whatever you please, but it doesn't make a difference nor does it save the time that not having a checklist saves.
Users of this website should have to provide reasons for what they choose to vote for

The checklist wouldn't be specific, and could be something that could apply to all debates. For example, since the only way you and I are communicating is through typed words, we, of course have to have good spelling so that we can understand each other. If U WUz TiPEn LiiK DiiiZS, I would have a difficult time decoding your words. Things such as grammar, spelling, word choice, and ideas all come into play when deciding who to vote for. All too often people vote based on their personal opinion, as opposed to the quality of the debate. Also, comments are not mandatory, and often people will vote without reading the entire debate. Another debater did a test and deductively proved that most readers don't read the entire debate Heck! I bet half of the people on this page wont even read my full rebuttal!
Users of this website should have to provide reasons for what they choose to vote for

Every debate that has taken place is saved. Thus, checking the votes against the debates gives you full disclosure about the quality of voters available. Although it would be nice to know who has voted for who, comments already allow you to provide reasons. Let the full iniquity of voters be on display. If they vote for trash, don't discount the vote, it defeats the point. Just keep in mind that they sanction trash, that they are trash. If you forbid them from voting, you don't learn they are trash :D. A checklist or scoring standard would become a time waster as many of the sections might not apply in some debates.
Users of this website should have to provide reasons for what they choose to vote for

When people vote, they often don't read the entire arguement, and vote based on their personal views. This is about who does the better job of debating! When you vote, you should fill a checklist of their overall performance in the debate, possibly on a scale of 1-5 or 1-10 for example: Grammar and spelling: 7 Ideas: 8 Refutation of opposing side: 6 Originality: 3 etc. etc. This will encourage people to read the entire debate and not to vote without just reasoning.
Infinite time

Thanks, Con, for the debate. It's been fun. 1) Con is wrong that my argument assumes that it is possible that an infinity of past temporal events in a strict sense. All I argued was that it is possible that the past is beginningless and by implication this shows that an infinity of past temporal events being traversed is possible. I have argued for this and Con has failed to provide reasons to doubt my arguments and his arguments in support of the resolution have been found wanting. Con as stated he is confused by the idea of counting infinite numbers because if the infinite counter had counted an infinite amount of numbers he would have always be counting and would never reach 1 when counting down from infinity. There are a lot of problems with line of thinking but the obvious one is that there are infinite sets of different sizes or cardinalities. For example, if I counted down from infinity to 2,000,000 I have counted an infinite amount of numbers. Similarly, if I counted down from infinity to 1 I have also counted an infinite amount of numbers but obviously the first set I counted is not the same size as the second set of numbers but they are both infinite. I need not count all the numbers on the number line * to count an infinite amount of numbers. And that's the whole point. At every point counting down I'm counting an infinite amount of numbers and have thus traversed an actual infinite amount of numbers. This ties in nicely with my point about an actual infinite series of past events. I maintain that it's possible that the past was beginningless and thus at every point an infinite amount of past events had already occurred. Therefore and actual infinite has already been traversed in my scenario. There is nothing impossible (in the logical or metaphysical sense) about this state of affairs. *Where n represents infinity. Con still contests that the notion is logically impossible but, unfortunately, has done nothing to illustrate this except vaguely gesture in an indeterminate direction towards his argument. The burden of proof was on him to show that the concept is impossible. 2) Con has conceded my main points.
Infinite time

Firstly, your sentences are very long, so please use more punctuation lest my mind explodes. Secondly, you put up better arguments then I've ever heard from any atheist. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing. Anyway let's get back to the subject. 1) I did miss your point that "at every moment in time an infinity of past temporal events has passed" but still, I think this is impossible. My point is that a moment would never occur if an infinity of past temporal events occurred before it because an infinity of past temporal events cannot end. You're argument assumes that they can. Then you go back into the number counting and you confuse me greatly. "You do not have to count all numbers in order to reach 1 ("the present"/an actual infinite) because at every time if you are counting down from infinity to 1 () then you have counted an infinite amount of numbers. You just haven't counted all the numbers." Wait, so were infinite numbers counted or not? Infinite numbers cannot already be counted or else the numbers would still be in the process of being counted. You are claiming that infinite time has already been traversed, but that is impossible. My apologies for saying that the concept of infinite time is mathematically impossible as I am not a mathematician and cannot claim this. However, I still contest that it is logically impossible. 2) I agree with your points on Hilberts Hotel. It doesn't make much sense to the argument. When I said, "It is merely an example of infinities in the physical universe," I meant that infinities in the physical universe are impossible. I will not back this statement up because I am not intelligent enough to apply this to the entire universe. The stack of books analogy I heard from a friend, and since I cannot remember it, forget about it. My apologies on the last paragraph. You do not have to address the statement, and I did not mean to shift the burden of proof. That was more of a typo than anything.
Infinite time

1) "It seems impossible if one assumes that starting from a first event - an infinitely distant point in the past, a beginning - that one could never reach infinity (the present) because there is always one more event that can occur before the present occurs." Alright lets look at this from a different angle. We shall use Pros counting analogy. How long would it take for someone to count from 1 to infinity? It would take forever, the counting would never end. Now let's reverse it. How long would it take for someone to count down from infinity to 1? It would take the same amount of time, i.e. forever. You see, it would take an infinite number of events forever to occur before the present. In other words an infinite number of events would never end and we would not reach the present. This is does not rely on whether or not there was a beginning event and is mathematically and logically impossible. 2) Hilbert's Hotel is not my main argument and was not necessarily meant to disprove infinite time. It is merely an example of infinities in the physical universe. The hotel can never be full. But infinite and infinite should be the same amount. The hotel should be full then with infinite guests, but it isn't. This is more of case to show the universe is finite. There are other paradoxes such as an infinite stack of books. Taking books out of the stack will do weird things. What does finite time mean? (given that you don't disprove it) a.It means that time needs a cause, as well as the rest of the universe. Only God could cause time, and time exists, therefore God exists. b. Since God exists outside of time, he does not need a cause. Often people will claim that God needs a cause. But if God is infinite, not a physical being, and not constrained by time (in fact he created time) then this would not be the case.
Infinite time

I will be arguing that time had a beginning, that it is impossible for time to have gone back infinitely. Good luck. My argument is, if time is infinite, we could not possibly arrive to the present. If a series of past infinite events is infinite, then an infinite number of events would have to elapse before the present moment could arrive. But it is impossible for an infinite number of events to elapse. Therefore, if the series of past events is infinite, the present moment could not arrive. But the present moment has arrived. Therefore, the series of past events cannot be infinite [1]. Given the additional premiss that whatever begins to exist must have a cause, one concludes to the uncaused first cause of the temporal series of events. There are so many paradoxes on infinite numbers. The problem is, things that deal with the physical do not often get along well with the infinite numbers. An example of this is Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel [2]. It is a mathematical concept that is logically impossible. Likewise, infinite time is a mathematical concept that is logically impossible. [1] Julian Wolfe and infinite time; William L. Craig [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel