BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jeopardy - The Game Show

Pro contends that removing the time-consuming and "superfluous" need to phrase answers in the form of questions would allow for "a provocative display of intelligence and discussion." What this supposed provocative display would consist of - other than giving the answers to the questions posed - is unclear. On Jeopardy, questions have been phrased as answers and answers as questions since 1964. Alex Trebek has been doing it that way since 1984. Changing how things are done would be a pain for them, at best. Pro further contends that a more intuitive question-answer scheme would save time for more advertising. Obviously, switching the location of "what is" (or some equivalent phrasing) from the answer portion to the question portion would not substantially alter the length of the show. On the other hand, removing Jeopardy's signature element would certainly hurt brand identity, which would invariably hurt ratings. That means less viewers and less advertising dollars.
Jeopardy - The Game Show

If contestants were not required to answer in the form of a question, they would not have to worry about phrasing their answers correctly. Instead of taking extra time and stress to decided between the use of "who is," "who are," "what is," and "what are," the contestants would have several extra moments to conjure up a plausible answer and state the response naturally. Thus, the contestants would act more naturally and openly, allowing for a more provocative display of intelligence and discussion among audience and viewers as well. (Besides, the need to create a question is simply superfluous. ) Plus, the extra time used for every response to add the additional words within the "question-answer" would shorten the run-time of the show and allow for more advertisements; thus, allowing more sponsors for Jeopardy and more commercials that can create economic gains by means of marketing or channels for job opportunities. Thank you.
Jeopardy - The Game Show

I hereby deny the resolution. One of three possible statements is true: (1) On balance, it is more detrimental than beneficial to require contestants of Jeopardy to answer in the form of a question. (2) On balance, it is more beneficial than detrimental to require contestants of Jeopardy to answer in the form of a question. (3) On balance, it is neither more beneficial nor more detrimental to require contestants of Jeopardy to answer in the form of a question. The first statement, word for word, is the proposed resolution, while the second and third are the only logical alternatives. If either the second or third statements are shown to be more convincing than the first, Con shall have won the debate. It is my intention to convince the reader of either the second or third statements.
Jeopardy - The Game Show

The topic of this discussion regards the game show, "Jeopardy." The resolution of the debate shall be, "On balance, it is more detrimental than beneficial to require contestants of Jeopardy to answer in the form of a question." I affirm the mentioned resolution. I propose that it would be better for contestants simply to respond with the actual answer rather than having to put the response in a question format. This initial round shall simply serve as a welcome for my opponent to accept and question anything that he or she feels may need clarification. Best of luck. Actual debating will commence in round two.
School kills creativity

Students think that once they come to school that all their creative juices have to stop working, but that doe not need to be the case. They can express the creativity in different ways, such as a creative writing class or a group project where everyone in the group can put their own spin on the topic. There are also other outlets to express creativity, the person just needs to find a way to let their creative juices flowing. If you enjoy playing instruments then join band, and if you enjoy singing then join chorus. You do not need to put your creativity on hold just because you are in school for a couple of hours during the day.
School kills creativity

Yes that might be true that teachers want you to succeed but they do not want you to do it in a creative way, because they do not want your creativity getting in the way of you succeeding. School work is not about all the glitz and the glam, it is about the dedication you put into to make sure that it is the way the teacher wants it. So yes school does kill your creativity when it comes to you needing to succeed with your school work.
Grand Theft Auto 5 is the most realistic video game to real life.

To conclude, I do realize that Far Cry 3 has its areas of not so realistic parts such as the the search for the compass parts (bonus to Pro from my part... I actually thought he would have brought this up). But on the other hand, GTA 5 also has its not so realistic parts. For instance, when Franklin hears a talking dog that leads him to the Dominator; or that dude in the desert chasing after alien spaceship parts. Yet again, Trevor's ravage mission (which is NOT drug induced and cannot be defended... I mean, one man against an army?). We could have also debated on character strangeness. But then again, even though Citra might seem unrealistic, I've never heard of a psychiatrist like Dr. Friedlander being so selfish and unconcerned, then giving up his patients' confidentiality for a TV show. Or Lazlow, a sexually obsessed TV host that doesn't mind showingit on national TV. Well in fact, all the characters are parodied from American culture, hence being over-realistic. Nonetheless, I keep comparing Far Cry 3 with GTA 5. That's a choice I made when accepting this debate, which makes for a tough battle. But I could have chosen a better game like Mafia 2. With that game I could have forfeited all rounds and still win because Mafia 2 has no unrealistic characters and story scenarios. It has far better realistic game mechanics too (cops patrolling streets on foot and in car, two types of wanted levels (person and car), realistic driving (can get pulled over for speeding and can even pay fines), need to refuel car, lockpicking,... etc). It's free, on Xbox 360 at least, so go try it before voting. Point being, GTA 5 isn't the most realistic game out there. Far Cry 3 is a realistic game. Mafia 2 is a realistic game. And there are more (my collegue names me a few I couldn't remember the titles because I never played them). GTA 5 has credit as a realistic game. Just not "THE MOST". And as a real fan of GTA 5 having spent over a year playing almost daily, I'm not even ready to give it that title.
Grand Theft Auto 5 is the most realistic video game to real life.

I accept this challenge with greatest respect towards GTA 5 as it is the game I have spent the most hours on thus far. Nonetheless, I don't believe it is "THE MOST" realistic open world / sandbox game out there. I will use FarCry 3 as the opposing game. The reason why I chose this game is because its story strength rivals that of GTA 5's and is also set in a real world environment. TheSupremeDebater will have my uttermost respect for his opinions. It will be a clean debate.
Grand Theft Auto 5 is the most realistic video game to real life.

Personally this may be a hard debate, but I am open to criticism. Since Grand Theft Auto 5 came out in 2013 I still believe that it is the most realistic sandbox game to real human life to be released. My opposite will choose another sandbox (Open world) game from any video game console and prove their point on why think theirs is more realistic to human life. Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Argument Round 3: Rebuttal Round 4: Argument Round 5: Conclusion Also if either game has cheats or multiplayer any other forms of gaming that is not close to real life doesn't count as a argument or rebuttal. I will give my con the out most respect in this debate and I expect the same.
Evolution is realistic

Why do you ponter on this so much in that evolution is your second if first God? For I have not seen you mention God being used in any of what you have said. You base you point only on science, in Genesis it clearly says death entered the world when Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge. According to evolution death makes life. What is real? From God is your base and from there you work and bring others to God. God is who defines what real is. From there we are sure. Evolution implies other wise. Evolution says we evolved from a uncirtian and unsure cause from which perception can never be made clear if life is real or is not. From there is no evidence which claims this to be real, life in general. If anyone trusts in evolution to solve where they came from, you simply can not. It is unrealistic to think we even came from the dirt to begin with, from chance and no higher power. A more realistic sense would be saying that machines formed from the metal from the earth, and such a robot was formed because at the end of the day a organic body is far more complex. Its says in Exudus 20:11 "The reason is that in six days the LORD made everything -- the sky, the earth, the sea, and everything in them. So the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." -- It clearly says six days, and for your sake it does not mention millions of years for if the Bible is telling the truth surely evolution does not exist. In this verse it also mentions that the Sabbath day is the holy day. How does this fit into the context of evolution if you portray a week being almost billions of years? It does not work. Job 38:4 "Where were you when I made the earth's foundation? Tell me if you understand." -- Well come on tell God. Do you understand or are you following what the world thinks. The place of a Christian is not of the world but of God. If you decide I will choose evolution over God you are a slave to evolution for you can not stop it changes who you will become. Tell me in this debate how evolution explains how life came to be and how macro evolution occurs with out any use of time, no volume of time, not even a second. (Macro evolution is one kind to another, most of the time it takes millions of years, but you will not use any factor of time, isn't that right? Because it's science is it not?) Time: Science and time can work beside each other, for us witnessing it we can know by being able to see the events occur with all 5 sensors, otherwise it is a belief. For that reason evolution is a plain belief. Its a faith. Evolutionism. You used the moth example. I can tell you that is mirco evolution. Give me an example of macro evolution in the same detail to convince me. For are they not both scientific? Should be easy with no use of time either.
animal testing be banned

Not animals, us. We should be tested on. Our population is 7 billion now. We could as a result carry out the test in ourselves. So what If a few people die. Animal are not in huge numbers they may go extinct. By any chance 3/4 of the test we do give us negative results. This is the reason why snimals are dying in huge numbers. We do not have a right over their lives. For God's sake they aee alo living things. They feel!!
animal testing be banned

Animals are the only way to preserve the population and have medical breakthroughs at the same time. They are really not that genetically different from us; 5 percent of our genetic code is all that separates us from apes. Also, about 99 percent of genes in humans have counterparts in rodents. Therefore, it does make sense to test possible vaccines and other products on animals. Even if it does harm them, it is better than it harming us. Also, at the beginning of your argument, you stated that we need someone to test our medicines on. If not lesser animals then who?
animal testing be banned

Of course we need someone to test our medicines on. I agree with you but then there is no sense In trying there tests on animals. They are genetically so different from us. Let's take rat for example. We test the polio vaccine on them. Does this even make any sense. Like really how can you test a medicine made for a mammal on a primate. This is wrong. A medicine that is good for us can harm them and one okay for them may harm us.
animal testing be banned

Animal testing should not be banned. The use of animal testing is the only reason that we as humans have been able to make so many medical breakthroughs. We have horses to thank for the tetanus shot, and rats, mice, and monkeys for the polio vaccine. Rats are also to thank for one of the most effective breast cancer treatments in use today. Humans are the most advanced species on the planet; we are superior to all of the other animals, which is also taught in Christianity. If we cannot test on animals, then we must test on humans. However, that makes no sense at all, for human lives are more important than animal lives. Testing humans on their deathbeds would not work, because their body is not in an acceptable state for testing. Therefore, our only option is to test medicinal drugs and other products on animals.
animal testing be banned

Our population is only as large as it is now because of animal testing. A great number of animals are killed or crippled due to testing, and the same number would apply to humans if we made the transition. Animals do not run an economy, or invent things to add ease to our lives, they cannot save someone's life in an operating room. In general, they cannot contribute nearly as much to the function and continuation of intelligent life on earth as humans can. Therefore, humans are more valuable than animals are. Seven billion is a large number, but that is one species. Even if we did test on humans, there would be many that died from the testing as well as those that died from the disease that we were trying to eliminate. Seven billion would fall very quickly if we tested on humans. Also, it is estimated that there are over eight million species of animals alone, many of those with populations larger than ours. In addition, only fourteen percent of those species have been discovered. Animals will not go extinct, so that will not be an issue.
You can't go to heaven the way you are yourself

Redundancy is not a rebuttal. I already addressed the 'go' and did so in regard to the mind and the environment being one, as I said 'esho funi'. you are one with your environment. Heaven is a state of life, and can only exist if it is found in the mind-if it is, then one indeed goes to heaven in their environment without physically going anywhere. All I need to go to heaven, is the right environment stimuli and I will go there. And this is true for all of us. If a pretty girl comes up to you and starts lavishing attention on you-did you not go to heaven when it happened? By the definition used in this debate, indeed you did. If your doctor tells you, "It's amazing! Your tumor is gone, you're not going to die!" thereby relieving your suffering... you awaken to the world of heaven-you go to heaven, right there in his office.... until your next desire emerges at which point you will go to hunger, another lower world. Heaven is a low world because it is not based within.
You can't go to heaven the way you are yourself

You can be in your mind, you can't go to your mind unsless you start from outside of your mind. Are you out of your mind? If heaven is a place you can go, it's not in your mind. If it's in your mind, you are already there. Are you out of your mind or ar you in heaven? If you are in heaven, you are already there and you can't go there because you are already there. Believing Bhudda, you are agreeing with me that you can't go to heaven......even if you say it is only because it is in your mind and you are already in your mind so you are already there......unless you are out of your mind, then you can try to go to heaven in your mind...........but then it's still in your mind so it's not a place you can go as you are yourself. Again, are you in your mind or are you out of your mind?
You can't go to heaven the way you are yourself

First of all, you can go to a place you're already at-if you were'nt aware you were there previously or if the place changes while you stand still. Heaven is indeed a place and a life condition, and the 'and' is a must-you cannot have one without the other. If you are in heaven, or hell (life condition of rage, the desire to destroy everything around one, including one's self) in your mind, the environment reflects that-perfectly and wherever you are becomes heaven. This is the Buddhist concept of 'Esho Funi' which means 'you are one with your environment.' So the second I change life conditions, into heaven, wherever I am becomes heaven and I did go there. How I go there is irrelevant to the topic. Example: I don't have a girlfriend and I want one badly-I might be in the world of hunger, alone, feeling empty and alone, wanting this desire fed. I approach a pretty girl at Walton's Discount Store, and ask her out, she agrees-I am elated, I go to heaven for at least a spell.
You can't go to heaven the way you are yourself

My opponent states:"There are not two lands you see. There is no 'pure land' outside your mind-where all environments are defined by the entity in them. Rather, if the mind is pure-the land reflects that and becomes the pure land.My opponents mind is not pure (or is my opponent claiming to have a pure mind? perhaps my opponent needs to define "pure") so my opponent cannot go to whatever heaven is defined asThe title of the debate is "you cannot go to heaven ..........My opponent seems to be saying heaven is in his mind, so it is not a place you go to. That is agreeing with me that you cannot go to heaven the way you are yourself. My opponent is saying it's all in his mind, so you can't go to somewhere you already are. My opponent is agreeing with me in saying he cannot go to heaven. Going somewhere means you are going to a place where you are not at now. If heaven is in my opponents mind, he is already there and there is nowhere to go.
You can't go to heaven the way you are yourself

Well, I accept and thank you, however, I see you have not defined 'Heaven' a term with many meanings. I'll go ahead and get that out of the way. DEFINITION: "Heaven" also called "Rapture". In tHe Lotus Sutra's 2nd Chapter (Hoben or 'expedient means'), the 10 worlds, their mutual possession as well as the 10 factors of life and the 3 realms of life are discussed, multiplied together they make 3000 life conditions in a single moment. Heaven is the 6th world, it is the World of Rapture, it comes about in two ways: The relief of a suffering or the fulfillment of a desire. Heaven is real, a life condition of the mind-the only place these worlds exist. And as you are is the only way one can get there, and it is a lower world, and like all others, temporary. There are not two lands you see. There is no 'pure land' outside your mind-where all environments are defined by the entity in them. Rather, if the mind is pure-the land reflects that and becomes the pure land.
Gun control is futile.

DEFINITIONS:Gun control: government regulation of the sale and ownership of firearms. [1]Futile: incapable of producing any result; ineffective; useless; not successful. [2]That means I believe that government regulation on the sale and ownership of firearms would be ineffective ultimately. ARGUMENTS:I will start my arguments with the failures in countries that have adopted gun control policies. The main one is the United Kingdom. Failures in the United KingdomEver since the Dunblane Massacre of 1996, gun control laws have been put into place in response to it, such as the Firearms Act of 1997. This law banned most firearms from being sold/owned. [3] This act have been absolutely ineffective. Gun crime has soared to 35% more than in 1996. [4] Crimes involving guns have come from 2,700 in 1996 to 5,800 in 2010. Take a look at this graph: (. http://2.bp.blogspot.com...) It shows the homicide rate ever since the gun ban. In 2003, it was at 18. Now, luckily it has dropped, due to other laws, such as the Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2006. This has actually been bad for the United Kingdom, because they have to hire more lawmen/women to work. (. http://3.bp.blogspot.com...) Failures in Jamaica and IrelandIt hasn't only happened to United Kingdom. Jamaica and Ireland have suffered ever since they put gun bans in effect. Take a look at this graph: (. http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org...) The top is Ireland. As you can see, ever since the gun law was put into place, the murders among 100,000 people has skyrocketed to 1.6. Same thing goes with Jamaica down below. The gun laws have actually made crime go up in other countries like this, so it proves my point that not only is gun control ineffective, it is a terrible idea on how to control firearms. Conclusion:Based on the graphs and data coming from countries that have adopted a gun control policy, which is stated in the definitions part of my argument, the gun control policy has not only been ineffective on controlling crime, it has actually caused more crime to happen. Therefore, data shows that gun control is ultimately ineffective in other countries. Over to you, Con! Cites:[1]- . http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]- . http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]- . http://en.wikipedia.org...[4]- . http://townhall.com...;
Christianity is so much crappier than budhiaisaim

Christianity is more common, has more followers, is practiced in most places, is the state religion in many cases unlike Buddhism, and the afterlife for Christians means you might to to the best place ever. Buddhism says you reincarnate. [1, 2] Christianity is better. Vote con. I had valid arguments he didn't. I therefore win. He never said a word about the other religions. Vote CON. Out of room. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
NCAAB Men Opening Round Game

Thank you for recognizing that my reasons were good. I would say the same for yours, but the only argument you used is that they need rest. The argument that they are getting robbed of rest is debatable as well. Sometimes rest can hurt a team and make them rusty. A classic example are the Rockies of a year ago. They swept the NLCS and had a long layoff with more rest, but they got swept in the World Series. You also said the teams in the play-in game get robbed of playing time which is incorrect. They actually get more playing time from being in an extra game. The play-in game is fair and robs no one.
NCAAB Men Opening Round Game

Well reading your argument it gave good reasons, but the days of the team who wins the opening round game is on 2-3 days while other teams get 4-5 days to rest not including travel. It feels that the two teams in the opening round game get robbed of vital playing time. I wonder if the tournament should expand to 128 teams. Well back to the debate, this "play-in" game robs teams the chance of rest, which is necessary to the team.
NCAAB Men Opening Round Game

While taking rest away from teams may be wrong, the play-in game is an essential part of the NCAA tournament. The play-in game is designed to give the tournament one extra at-large bid. You say that kicking the mid-majors out of the tournament is wrong, but if they aren't good enough to win do they deserve to be in it? The answer is clearly a no when you can add one more team to make the tournament more exciting. The mid-majors that are good get decent seeds and get a chance so saying that the committee is "kicking the mid-majors out" is not true. Georgia is a 14 seed from the SEC and they have a winning record. Coppin St. were 16-18 going into the game and you're telling me that they should be given a chance in the tournament over Villanova? Clearly the play-in game makes March Madness more exciting and never has a 16 seed beat a 1, so why would playing a game before matter? Also the play-in game allows for excitement for those mid-majors because they have a chance to win and a chance to taste the tournament.