BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
An orange is better than a banana

Great, let's start! 1. Chinese Thank you for agreeing to my point. Oranges let you heal from the cold faster than just waiting for the immune system. 2. Banana diet Your 150% of vitamin C is only for a 2000 calorie diet. Boys 11- 13 could eat 2100 calories if they are active. Teenagers have more calories. Therefore, you could eat two oranges a day. However, it's only their opinion to not eat two oranges a day. 3. Spot lights You did not refute about the orange leaves for tea argument. 4. Littering We both know that you could throw the orange peel and the banana peel away on the ground. You should also know that bananas contain sugars, which means that ants will crawl into your garden. 5. Middle East Still, if you don't want the orange tree because it drains water, then chop it down. You will have orange leaves, oranges, and orange wood. 6. Superhero reactivity You would still die. You would die from gamma rays. Technically speaking, you cannot control the plane (having two hands on the controls), and doing somersaults without crashing. Autopilot does not work. You have to control the plane with your hands. You made a topic of model trains. Let's just say the train is 10 centimeters long and about 5 ounces, the typical Thomas the Train. You cannot hold it with one finger. 7. Rare There are more potassium foods than citrus food. Citrus food is rarer. You could get potassium off many foods, but many foods lack citrus. Banana's smile. True and false. A banana is a frown shaped fruit. 8. Plagiarism False. I put it in quotes and listed the source. This is not plagiarizing. 9. Your mom Well, everyone has a different body. 10. Enjoyment Oranges could also be enjoyed, too. You could juggle them. Besides, you could eat oranges one slice by one slice, or gobble the whole thing. You could also roll them, too. Could a banana roll? No. 11. Banana Peel Let's face it. This is harmful. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." ~ The Golden Rule. 12. Muhammad Note: You stated that the research said that Muhammad's mouth PROBABLY… 13. Lies Oranges is the 2nd best fruit. Bananas are well off the Top 5. Arguments 1. Top 5 Bananas are the 6th best fruit, while oranges are the 2nd best fruit. Oranges rock! 2. Eating People who suffer hypoglycemia cannot eat banana breakfast, while many people can eat an orange breakfast. 3. Termites Orange oil prevents termites. Bananas can't do that. 4. States Florida's fruit is the orange. How about bananas? 5. Storage Bananas could be stored for 3 to 4 weeks, whereas oranges could last a month. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.3fatchicks.com... I thank my opponent for this outstanding debate! Good luck!
An orange is better than a banana

I thank whoever my opponent is. Let's begin! 1. Definitions Orange- a globose, reddish-yellow, bitter or sweet, edible citrus fruit. Let's just say it is the orange that we eat. http://dictionary.reference.com... Better- of superior excellence. You know the main idea. http://dictionary.reference.com... Banana- the fruit, esp. that of M. paradisiaca, with yellow or reddish rind. Let's just say it is the banana we eat. http://dictionary.reference.com... 2. The Orange An orange has a sour flavor. When you are sick, you will have to eat sour items to get well faster. Orange juice. Many people love this type of juice. Orange juice is more famous than banana juice. Orange leaves could be boiled to make tea. Orange peel is used by gardeners as a slug repellent. Orange wood is a flavoring wood in meat grilling. These are the facts that I will throw out in round 1 about the orange. 1) http://en.wikipedia.org... 2) www.hort.purdue.edu/ext/senior/fruits/orange1.htm My opponent should have eaten a banana and know about bananas. Thank you.
Prostitution should be decriminalized in the United States

Canidae's busy schedule as well as the fact that every DDO user forgets their first few rounds has led to a missing round. This round will just be used to summarise my previous arguments to be reader friendly. My previous round has the sources. 1; Legalizing Prostitution has little to no effect on the rate of trafficking in its countries, in fact, it bolsters these rates. 2; The shameful stigma that comes with being a sex worker means that less than 1% of prostitutes apply for state benefits where it is legal. They prefer to see it as a short term solution, and do not want the state to recognize them as whores. 3; Legalisation will encourage people to avail of the service, aiding the traffickers as well as sending a global message that the US is comfortable with women being sex toys for a living. 4; It annoys me that when I type recognise, it marks it as incorrect and demands I use the American Z in place of an S. There. Nice and simple. See you next round everyone. Duncan.
Prostitution should be decriminalized in the United States

I will be arguing Pro for Prostitution (not child or coerced prostitution) to be decriminalized in the US. Con will argue against it, for either legalization or criminalization. Criminalization means it is illegal in all circumstances, legalization means it is illegal in a highly regulated state and deviations from such are illegal, and decriminalization means it is unregulated and the act of prostitution itself is not grounds for legal action of any sort (though accompanying activity can be, such as assault, rape, child prostitution, trafficking, and any kind of violence or exploitation). 4 rounds 72 hours 8,000 characters Looking forward to a great debate!
pi is the most significant number.

Thank you for defining significance, this makes things much simpler. Since you defined significance as the most needed number then that would suggest that a significant number would be frequently used. It is well known that pi has been often used to find dimensions of circles and spheres. Since pi is so essential to finding dimensions of such shapes than it would make sense that if these shapes appeared often, pi would be used often. If pi is used often that it is needed more. If it is needed more then pi would be the most significant number. The interesting thing is that spheres and cicles are extremely common in this universe. Forming into a circular object is the natural way of things. This because of gravity and various other factors. Things such as orbits, plants, stars, Galaxys, and even black holes take on a spherical/circular shape. Now, since these shapes are so common in this universe, then it would be logical to say that pi is quite important in finding the dimensions of such objects. Of course, on our planet Earth there are shapes such as pentagons and squares but it must be noted that you'd be hard-pressed to find such shapes anywhere else besides Earth. This is due Earth's rather unique characteristic of life. So my point is that since most objects in the Universe are made up of circular/spherical shapes, that would mean pi is quite imperative to getting to know the rest of the cosmos. Without it, these vertex-ridden shapes we have now are all we'd have to compare it to.
pi is the most significant number.

Significant meaning the most needed number, or the best number.Pi is significant in circles, but what about pentagons and pentagonal stars: then we need phi. And with squares, we need sqrt(2). I don't see why circles are more significant than squares and pentagons. And phi is significant also because it is commonly used in advertising (see sources), and have you ever seen pi used in the same way? I sure haven't. You may argue that the facts C=2pir, A=pir^2, SA=4/3*pir^2, and V=1/3*pir^3 are too coincidental, but this is a feature of circles and spheres, and pi just happens to be the number. Just like phi just happens to be the number with pentagonal stars. Sqrt(2)*n is the diagonal of a square with side length n, 2^(1/3)*n is the diagonal of a cube with side length n, sqrt(sqrt(2))*n is the diagonal of a 4-cube with side length n, and so on with the diagonal of an m-cube with side length n being 2^(1/m)*n. Now, how is pi more significant than phi and 2 (not that they are more significant, just that they are equally significant)? Also, wouldn't all whole numbers be significant, because there are infinite numbers in between all whole numbers. This means that if you randomly picked a number, including irrational numbers such as pi and e, then there would literally be a 1/infinity chance of getting a whole number.Sorry if I have not done the debate correctly, but this is my first time debating.Sources:http://www.graphicart-news.com...
pi is the most significant number.

Your opening statement is invalid for two reasons: You did not define significance, therefore your statement is up to interpretation You supplied no reasons confirming that pi was not significant, you only provided examples of other numbers To remain fair, I will only use the type of arguments you supplied.Pi is significant. All other numbers are not as significant as pi.Pi is significant because 3 is equal to 3. Also because A=Area.Sources:Not Wikipedia. So my argument is not based off the word of millions of Internet users.
pi is the most significant number.

π is not the most significant number. I get the thing with the circle, but there is also e, which is the limit of (1+1/n)^n, and the derivative of e^x is itself. τ is equal two 2π. Also, φ is equal to .5+√(1.25), and we have i which is √(-1), which reminds me, 1 is pretty significant. Anyway, my point is that π is not the most significant number ever. Whoever wants to challenge me can.Sources:https://en.wikipedia.org...(mathematical_constant)https://en.wikipedia.org...https://en.wikipedia.org...
The Bing Bang does not contradict Catholic Teaching

Paragraph 1Alright well you actualy got my point completely backwards but it's entirely my fault because there was a typo. When I said "Can understand" I meant "Can't". It was completely my fault on that one. Even then though your argument is just not correct. We can understand the concept of god and we can understand omnipotency, it just takes a lot of thinking to really get. The rest of this paragraph is essentially just ramblings and is still completely irrelivant to the topic in the first place.Paragraph 2Well most of this paragraph is actually correct save for the last sentence. It wasn't ingenious it was a flat out lie. Again since he's omnipotent he also would have known that they wouldn't understand what he said and he also would have known a way to say it to make them understand OR he could have just said "You're not gonna get it so let's just drop the subject till later." instead of coming up with a story that again is so far from the Big Bang Theory that it's almost laughable. The point is this, the story in the Bible is what Catholicism teaches as the beginning of the universe and what it teaches directly conflicts with what is taught in the big bang theory. And don't try to say "Catholics don't teach that" because for the early part of my life I was forced to go to a Catholic school and that IS what they taught us. Paragraphs 3 and 4You basically just proved my point. They COMPILED the Bible (and the Catholic Church didn't even do THAT first) but they didn't CREATE the Bible. Also this leads into my next point so I'll mention it first but the Catholic Church WAS NOT AROUND before around 325 when they tried to unite the Roman Empire under Christianity however Constantine wasn't fully dedicated to the faith and mixed it with his pagan practices and beliefs which is when the Catholic Church was really founded. That being said the first canon that was compiled was the Muratorian Canon which was compiled around 170AD which we can see was LONG before the Catholic church. But with this ENTIRE paragraph there's jsut one huge glaring problem. IT'S IRRELIVANT! It's completely irrelivant WHO created the Bible to the original argument of "Does The Big Bang Conflict with Catholic Teachings". Quick side note however. While there is the big book o rules my point was that not everyone follows it to the letter and yet those people ARE still Catholics. If they identify as Catholics, go to Catholic churches, and do Catholic practices then they ARE Catholics even if they don't follow every little rule in the book. But none of this really matters to you does it as you recycled your No True Scotsman fallacy in the last paragraph.Paragraph 5*sigh* The statement while interesting is irrelivant. The religion of a person making a groundbreaking discovery is irrelivant unless the person made that discovery through or because of their religion.
The Bing Bang does not contradict Catholic Teaching

Refutation to Paragraphs 1 and 2 It's not really ironic at all. It's not that our minds can fully comprehend what a singularity IS but what a singularity MEANS. It sounds similar but it's not. See we know that it's a point of infinite density but we can't really comprehend what infinitely dense matter would act like, look like, feel like, ect. See what I mean?Also, our minds do fully comprehend god, or more specifically your concept of god as there are many many MANY different concepts of god. We understand the concepts of gods through the "holy" books that describe them. For instance we know that your concept of god is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent. Never mind all the contradictions that raises. But then again noone was saying that just because we can't conprehend something it's not real so it's odd that you even put this in here.Refutations to Paragraphs 3 and 4Despite our differences on what inspired the bible your first 2 sentences make sense, but that's all that does. As said before if your concept of god was omnipotent why did he have to straight up lie and give them a story that is so far from the Big Bang Theory that it's almost laughable? If he's all knowing he should know a dubmed down way to explain it, even I can do it and I'm not even claiming omniscience, watch. "Alright so literally EVERYTHING that exists was smushed together into a tiny space, then one day it spread out. Alright now write that down and go tell the rest of the Hebrews." See? Not that hard and I didn't have to come up with a whole story about how I created everything in 7 days with detailed descriptions on how I did it.Refutation to Paragraph 5Now this is the one that really got me. First off the Catholic Church did NOT create the Bible. I don't know where you heard that but it's rediculous. The earliest writings of the old testament were around for CENTURIES before Jesus was even born! These stories were passed down for generations by the Hebrews untill some scribes finally got around to compiling them into a comprehensive collection. Even then those Hebrews weren't Catholic they were Jewish! Catholicism didn't officially come untill around 325AD When Constantine proclaimed it the official religion of rome. Also, Catholicism doesn't really have one central rule list of what it thinks about which parts are taken literally and which aren't. Catholic beliefs are really defined by those who hold them. I know many Catholics who take the bible literally. I know many who take almost all of is allegorically. I know some who take the parts like the creation story literally and Jesus' teachings allegorically. Using the whole "Well no TRUE Catholic would say that it ect ect ect..." You're using a No True Scottsman fallacy and are saying that people who don't conform to what you think Catholicism is aren't "True" Catholics.
The Bing Bang does not contradict Catholic Teaching

I agree completely with the theory you have presented on the Big Bang. But actually I find something to be quite ironic in your argument... You and I agree that "our minds cannot fully comprehend what a singularity is but we know that it is a point in which the gravitational pressure is so intense it actually turns finite matter into an infinite density." Our minds cannot fully comprehend something yet we agree in its validity. Well our minds do not fully understand God but many use that as an argument against God. Clearly, just because we do not fully understand something or someone does not mean that that something is not real/true. Now, the Bible does state that the universe was created in seven days. This does not contradict The Catholic Church's accordance with the Big Bang for these reasons: The Bible was divinely inspired and designed to be interpreted. When Jesus says that if our right had causes us to sin we should cut it off, that is a figurative way of saying we should avoid that which causes us to sin. In the same way, God revealed Himself through the prophets in a way they could understand. If God had said "I created a singular point from which near infinite density caused near infinite gravity etc" then simply no one could have understood Him. Rather, he revealed Himself in a way that the prophets and people of the time could comprehend. *Note the Bible also is literal in parts. Like the divinity of Christ and His resurrection is to be taken literally* Furthermore, the Catholic Church created the Bible. The Church existed before the Bible was compiled. The Church knew the Bible, from its very beginning, would need to be interpreted. That is why the Church eventually created the Magisterium. It is the Magisterium's sole duty to interpret the divinely inspired Bible, and then to also teach it. If you argue that literal interpretation of the Bible would contradict the Big Bang theory, any good Catholic would agree. That is because Catholic teaching does not teach that the Bible is taken literally. Actually, this is one of the reasons Martin Luther split with the Church. In his belief of Sola Scriptura, he believed in literal interpretation of the Bible as well as that the bible was the only thing needed for salvation. The Catholic Church held firm AGAINST these beliefs and that is, in part, why Luther split to form the Protestant Church. And since I'm arguing true Catholic teaching, then literal interpretation of the Bible holds no ground. When you use literal interpretation as an argument, you are agreeing with the Catholic Church that the universe was not created in seven days.
The Bing Bang does not contradict Catholic Teaching

So does the Big Bang Theory contradict the Catholic faith and the bible? Well to answer this question we'd first have to cover what it is that the big bang theory states. The Big Bang TheoryThe Big Bang Theory is the widely accepted notion that the universe began in a hyper-dense point called a singularity. Now our minds cannot fully comprehend what a singularity is but we know that it is a point in which the gravitational pressure is so intense it actually turns finite matter into an infinite density. This means that at the beginning of our universe some 13.7 BILLION years ago all the energy and matter were compacted into a single point in space. When that singularity expanded however all the matter and energy in the universe spread out far and wide and thus was the beginning of the universe.Contradictions with the Bible.Now while the Big Bang Theory shows us that the universe began by natural causes the Bible teaches us something different. Genesis 1 tells a story of god creating the world in just seven days. First he makes the Earth and makes some land. Then he makes some light (he doesn't make any light SOURCE mind you just the light). Then god makes some plants (but he hasn't made the sun yet cause screw that photosynthesis crap). Then he makes two lights one for day and one for night (Yep, apparently the moon is it's own light now). Then he makes some animals and so on and so forth. Now that's just the first chapter of Genesis. The second chapter oddly enough tells a different story to the first which raises some questions but I'll push that to the side for now. How the two don't coincide.It's quite simple to see why the two don't coincide. One requires a creator and the other doesn't. One relies on actual scientific data that has been gathered, tested, tested again, peer reviewed, and published and the other relies on the texts of a book written by bronze-age goat herders with so many scientific and historical innacuracies and contradictions within itself that if it was sent to any competent editor today it'd be thrown in the trash. Simple as that.
The Bing Bang does not contradict Catholic Teaching

Well, unfortunately I do not yet know what arguments you have against my opening statement so I do not really have anything to argue against yet in support of my statement. I suppose for now, at least in this round, I should start off by saying I have seen others argue things such as "And on the seventh day God...." in which they use Bible passages to refute the coherency between the Big Bang and Catholic belief and teaching. If you also use this same essential response, I will argue against that later. But for now, I would be interested in seeing your refutations to my opening statement. Thank you for accepting this debate. Much respect to you.
Welfare is important to the economy

We gain a lot of the money we give, comes back to us because people on welfare still have to pay taxes. We get more money from people on welfare, than people in big organizations, who would move out of Canada, if they had to pay taxes. How can we blame the needy, if our money is really going to the greedy? I hate to seem selfish, but the fact that we try to help everyone who needs help, reflects well on this country. Ladies and gentlemen of the court, this concludes my statement that welfare IS important to the economy.
Welfare is important to the economy

I just got back from a class debate on welfare, and my team won by two. I'll be using some of their arguments this time. 1 in 6 people are living in poverty, so that's a lot of people, that if they lose their jobs, must accept welfare from the government, if they want to legally eat. Also, we're human beings. We have dominated this planet, and are taking everything from it. Yet, we divide ourselves by how much money we have. If we can't pay money, for basically everything, we're expected to just leave. So, the person who thought it wasn't fair to do that, ran for mayor to try to make a change, but all it took was a dumb rumor, and nobody was on their side.
Welfare is important to the economy

I'm in Canada, so the minimum wage here is $10.25, which means that welfare is 12.25. Also if you shut down welfare, you shut down the food stamps, the medical insurance, the emergency heating, and most importantly, the rent help. If you shut down welfare, our poverty-stricken members of society will be homeless, hungry, and unable to do anything about it.Also, minimum wage workers have the choice to use welfare. If welfare is removed from the equation, the government will have no way to help them. As much as people take swings at the government, they don't only think about money. They provide us with homes, schools, hospitals, and a helping hand to get back on track if you lose your job, and yet we don't think they're doing anything right. The whole "Rob Ford smokes pot" thing could of been made with good video editing, but because people love to make conspiracy's about mayors, everyone joined in, and tried to get him out of office. Going back to the welfare talk, we are all of the same species. We said they couldn't make people work for less, if they're black or white. We said they couldn't make people work for less if they are a man or a woman. Why can they make people work for less, if they're rich or poor?
Welfare is important to the economy

Two dollars above minimum wage is two dollars more than anyone with a minimum wage job is making. What is more valuable to society, someone who is receiving seven dollars and twenty five cents an hour to complete a valuable job or someone who is receiving nine dollars and twenty five cents for nothing? Obviously the worker is more valuable; they are helping society run efficiently. Is it fair that an unemployed citizen makes more an hour than some employed citizens? While it"s true that not everyone misuses welfare, there is clearly an enticement to making more money being unemployed than employed.