BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should the US nuke China

What is so bad about chinese eyes. I wish I had chinese eyes. It is a proven fact that chinese people have great provisional eye sight. If you are chinese you can see up to 20 yards farther left and right. They can also see farther than anyone else in the world. I have a link to prove you. http://answers.yahoo.com... I'am ZBEAST, of course I have sources. If we nuked China, we would not have Chow off the hangover. We would not have the Kong Fu Panda. We would not have Chuck Norris, Yao Ming, or Shin Soo Choo. The last thing, if we nuked china we would not have the sport of football, because they invented it. Therefor there would be no NFL, and therefor NO FANTASY FOOTBALL!!!!!!!!!!! ZBEAST OUT
Should the US nuke China

Ok you are right about the movie "Ping Pong Playa", it is in the top 5 best movies ever made, but the movie has already been made and we have copies on netflix so therefore we can still nuke china. Next samari swords are for gay people that dont know how to use guns. If somebody were coming up to me with a samari sword id pull my gat out and pop that ninja. Finally if we were to nuke china we would never ever have to worry about people with weird eyes ever again. We would live in a world with people with normal eyes.
Should the US nuke China

With out china there would be nothing great. There would be no samurai swords in the word for collections and self defense. Defensless people in the world would not be able to protect themselves if there was no samurai swords. There would be no movie "The Ping Pong Playa". I mean that is just a great movie, great plot, it just gets you motivated. I think that is why the US is so strong because George Washington watched Ping Pong Playa and it just motivated him to make a great country. I'am ZBEAST. Next round
Should the US nuke China

Ok lets face the fact that the clothes made in china SUCK. You can tell they are made by young children with absolutely no life. So if we nuke china we will be able to kill those people. Then we can make these products in america which obviously means that they will be made ten times better. That Car that you just showed me is literally gay. If I were to design a male car that would be attracted to other male cars, that is the car I would make. If you want a straight car like americans do, you would buy a chevy Camaro because they are awesome. If we nuked China we could kill people like this that just make this world a less good place to live!!!!!!!!! http://www.youtube.com...
Should the US nuke China

Why would we not nuke them. First of all none of them can speak american so what good are they. And about the little chinese boy. He can barely hit the ball 200 yards. No doubt the bigger and better golfers are going to beat him up in the bathroom. Back to the nuking, If we nuked china we could get rid of all that stupid "made in china" stuff!! We dont need it. The only other country we need is japan because they make cool video games. In my opinion we need to nuke every country so the United States can rule the world, but that is not the argument. And if we nuke china we want be in debt and We will kill all those people that look Weird!!!!!!!
pinapples are healthier than lemons

the fact that all my points are valid supports me in as what you refer to 'copying and pasting'. it is merely a way of saving time, as as awkward as it may sound to some of you fellow debaters out there, i have a life to get on with, therefore i would rather save time, instead of re-wording valid points which are self-explanatory. i do not see my opponent forwarding any more arguements. this makes it easy for me to say that he simply has nothing left to argue.
pinapples are healthier than lemons

Although the lemon is often thought of as acidic, it is very effective in curing many digestion problems when mixed with hot water, including biliousness, nausea, heartburn, disorders of the lower intestines like constipation and worm infestations. It is even known to relieve hiccups. Lemon juice, when taken regularly in the morning, acts as a tonic to the liver and stimulates it to produce bile making it ready to digest the day's food. It is also thought to help dissolve gallstones. Because of its high vitamin C content, it is thought to help prevent and treat many infections, hasten wound healing and temper down high fever. Lemon juice also relieves symptoms of asthma, tonsillitis and sore throat. Lemon is also a diuretic. This means it is good for people with urinary tract infections and high uric acid problems, such as those with arthritis or rheumatism because it helps flush out all the toxins and bad bacteria. When lemon is mixed with coffee, it is thought to help treat malaria. This concoction is also effective for headaches. When externally applied, lemon juice that is poured onto a small piece of cotton wool and gently applied to the nostrils could stop epistaxis (more commonly known as nose bleeds) although this may sting a bit. When massaged gently into gums, lemon juice may also stop gum bleeding. Lemon juice with glycerin is effective when used on the lips to treat chapping. This may be a little strange but lemon juice applied on your skin can also help prevent sunburn. Lemons are also used as balms in highly concentrated forms. Some may know them as "cure-alls". Lemon balms are known for their ability to break fevers by encouraging the patient's body to perspire. Because of this, lemon balms are recommended for all fevers, no matter what the cause. Lemon balms are also popular treatments for cough and colds, even hay fever. Balms are also used in the treatment of flatulence and other digestive conditions. Menstrual cramps are relieved by lemon balms, as are dizziness, headaches and high blood pressure. Psychologically, lemon balm is used to lift people's spirits, especially those who are undergoing menopause and are depressed, because it will calm anxieties, clear their minds and center their focus. It also supposedly improves memory storage and recall. so as well as physically, lemons can also mentally help indiviuals in some situations. . http://health.learninginfo.org...
pinapples are healthier than lemons

Pineapples are also a good source of vitamin C but are very useful in other ways. They contain large amounts of enzymes such as Bromelain. Bromelain has been found to be effective in reducing swelling and is therefore helpful in the treatment of conditions such as arthritis, sore throat and gout. Pineapple is also useful as an aid to digestion, due to the properties of bromelain and other enzymes. Manganese is also found in pineapples, which is essential for certain minerals involved in energy production. As well as containing vitamin C, which has been found to help prevent certain types of cancer such as colon cancer, there have been molecules found in the stems of pineapples which can act as defence against some types of cancer. These types of cancer are skin, lung, ovarian, breast, and colon cancer. I would like to refer you to . http://www.knowledgebase-script.com...
Donald Trump i not a racist

Once again, my opponent uses all liberal sites and ignores the statements Trump has made about the KKK and racism. Donald has never done anything remotely racist. Saying "you are very special people" or calling someone a native American name is not racist. He has the right to fire whomever he wants, and it probably docent have anything to do with race. Trump has fired a ton of people, and the majority have been white anyway. Please look over my sources
Donald Trump i not a racist

1. I'm new to debate so please excuse me 2. For the sake of this debate, I'm going to bring any offensive thing directed towards religion, race, beliefs, and sexuality. 3. I'm determined I'm not forfeiting. Moving on with my argument, Trump showed bigotry by disrespecting the Gold Star parents who were Muslim. He would not bad mouth the neo-nazis when they killed the woman who was protesting but shifted the blame to the liberals. He constantly calls Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas as a racial slur since she had indicated that she had some Native American in her heritage as discussed by family. Particularly if you knew about Trump's long history of making derogatory comments about Native Americans, you would know what he said. One specific instance he said: "I just want to thank you because you're very, very special people. You were here long before any of us were here, although we have a representative in Congress who, they say, was here a long time ago. They call her "Pocahontas." But you know what, I like you because you are special. You are special people. [Trump]" First of all, "they" don't call Sen. Warren "Pocahontas." Only Trump does. Her family lore has it that she has some Native American ancestry, stressing the word little. He always condemns and calls for the "wall" whenever there has been a mass killing if the perpetrator is black, Muslim or Hispanic, but if the perpetrator is white ( and usually a neo-nazi or other religious zealot) he has nothing to tweet or say, and sweeps it under the rug. Most recently he did not invite a prominent black journalist to the yearly Christmas dinner ( she"s been to the last 20 years). As well as no LGTB journalists as well. Unless you are white, male heterosexual and "supposedly " Christian, he has no use for you. Sources: http://theweek.com... http://www.latimes.com... https://www.nytimes.com...
Donald Trump i not a racist

Thank you for accepting my argument. First and foremost, I notice that your source is from a liberal site that has little to no respect for Trump. Going on, Mexican and Muslim are not races. Mexican is a nationality, and Muslim is a religion. A Caucasian guy born in Mexico with Mexican parents is a Mexican. A African American who practices the Muslim religion is a Muslim. Their for, it is not racist to build a wall or make a ban. And your statement on how Donald is racist toward African Americans is also wrong. - one source. My next source includes another argument, but has necessary evidence gathered into one video. - - I also find it funny that people are just now making a big deal about him being "racist" now that he won. Please do not forfeit. Thanks.
Donald Trump i not a racist

President Donald Trump has targeted Mexicans and Muslims. Mainly in him claiming that Mexico will pay for the wall (which he hasn't made yet, along with other things he claimed to do by now.) And suggesting a travel ban on Muslims, Witch by now is in full effect. Yet another time he was racist was when he claimed a judge was biased because he's a Mexican, "He's a Mexican," Trump told CNN. "We're building a wall between here and Mexico. The answer is, he is giving us very unfair rulings " rulings that people can't even believe." Which is unfair in the sense he is a judge meaning he is an American citizen; an American citizen has no reason to be biased towards the building of the wall between Mexico and America. Even members of Trump's own party slammed the racist remarks. "Claiming a person can't do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment," House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said, though he clarified that he still endorsed Trump. In fact, discrimination against black people has been a pattern throughout Trump's career Workers at Trump's casinos in Atlantic City, New Jersey, The New Jersey Casino Control Commission fined the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino $200,000 in 1992 because managers would remove African-American card dealers at the request of a certain big-spending gambler. Which is unexpectable as a president or business owner, picking favorites is never expectable. What that says about his followers worries me even more, his followers are obviously racists, and people tend to follow others who believe the same thing. Sorces: https://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Social Memedia is better than ifunny

In my opponent's previous argument he stated that "Users on Social Memedia have a 90% good app rating." I am unaware of a place he could have possibly received that statistic, because not only has no one visited Social Memedia in the past two months, but after countless seconds of research (research that my opponent claims I have not done), I found not a single rating, or review, on the application. In conclusion, my opponent made a false statement, which he probably wrote before he consumed his snicker bar. On second thought, who's to say that he even ate a snickers bar? How are we to know if he's had one in awhile? He could have very possibly not been himself this entire debate, which is quite literally the only explanation I can think of, to why anybody could ever think that Social Memedia is better than iFunny. He also said that it is compatible with handheld devices, I'm not even going to go into that, I'm just going to say that it isn't. Because of the lack of statistics I decided to conduct a survey of my own. Participants included teens ages 12-19, which is the target audience of Social Memedia. The following are the results of my survey. Question: Have you heard of Social Memedia? Results: 0/56 (0%) say that they have. Some responses: "No, that sounds really stupid", "What kind of dumb name is Social Memedia?", Have YOU ever heard of personal space?" Question: Would you agree that iFunny is superior to Social Memedia (After a brief introduction to both applications) Results: 78/78 (100%) Agree that iFunny is superior to Social Memedia Some responses: "iFunny is where it's at!", "Can Geico save you 15% or more on car insurance?", "If I say yes, will you leave?" Considering the results of my survey, I have concluded that iFunny is far more supreme than Social Memedia, and that Social Memedia more than likely sucks things that even I would not put in my mouth. So.. yeah.. I'm gonna stop it there because I woke up in the middle of the night to finish this. Social Memedia sucks.
Social Memedia is better than ifunny

First, I would like to say how my opponent did NOT do research on the topic because I was sitting right next to him as he was working on it. Secondly, I would like to point out that Social Memedia is easy to access via a mobile device, because it is an app, and is compatible with mobile devices. Social Memedia also has professional meme experts and not monkeys running the app. The points my opponent has made about Social Memedia only running on computers is completely false. Also, my opponent talks about the amount of memes quite a lot. The amount of memes does not matter. It's the thought that counts, which I think was a quote from a very poor family that can't afford their kids Christmas presents. Thus, Social Memedia was born! Sorry I get weird when I'm hungry. Don't worry, I ate a Snickers, I'm all good now. My opponent may need to eat a Snickers too after that bogus link he just blindly put up there. Anywho the memes on Social Memedia provide a funny oasis of memes each day, while on iFunny is full of drama, reposts, and unhappy users. Users on Social Memedia have a 90% good app rating. For those who are not that good at math, that is very good. My opponent also argues that I do not know the application iFunny, simply because I spelled it wrong. Ladies and gentlemen of the voters, if my opponent cannot point out viable arguments to the topic, he simply does not know a lot about the two applications being presented. One more argument my opponent had was that Social Memedia was not compatible with iOS. It indeed is, going back to my previous statement, that it is compatible with all devices, including every smartphone, tablet, computer on the market. I would like to close my argument by saying that, no matter how many grammatical errors I have, the fact that Social Memedia is much better than iFunny, will always remain true.
Social Memedia is better than ifunny

My opponent's previous statement "No it doesn't" is a false statement. According to my sources "it" does indeed. http://www.google.com... I would also like to point out that wether "it" does or does not, the statement has no relevance to the subject, and does not aid my opponents argument that Social Memedia is better than iFunny. This being said I would now like to point out some grammatical errors of my opponent. -In my opponents first argument he states the following "When you're going through collective, how often do you think, 'Wow, this one's good." I'm not an english teacher, but I do believe that is a question and should be appropriately followed with a question mark. -Throughout my opponents entire argument he mentions something called "Ifunny", I am not aware of what this is, but I am assuming my opponent is referring to the popular application "iFunny". Which, according to the application itself, is indeed spelt iFunny. How can you expect that my opponent is giving a reliable argument, if he can not even properly spell the name of what he is arguing about. Considering the continuous misspelling of the name, I am assuming that my opponent truly believes that he was correctly spelling it, in which case PROVES that he has done little or even NO research whatsoever on this topic. Now on to my argument. Before taking on this argument I had never heard of a "Social Memedia" before. After doing a little bit of digging, I found that it is like, iFunny, and application. One that is not only is it hard to access, but of far less quality than iFunny. Also, it is incompatible with any iOS, Android, or other smartphone devices, making it even more difficult to access, and possibly less convenient for people who do not wish to carry a large computer with them. My opponent also stated that Social Memedia has more memes than iFunny. This is a false statement. Not only does Social Memedia contain far, far, far less memes than iFunny, but every single meme that can be found on Social Memedia, had already been posted on iFunny, even previous to Social Memedia's existence. Which shows that Social Memedia is not original, but leeching off iFunny for its material. This shows that not only is iFunny just as good as Social Memedia, but far superior, especially considering it contains at least 1000x the amount of memes as Social Memedia (Which, if anything, is HUGE understatement).
Social Memedia is better than ifunny

Social Memedia is a growing meme app in which you can view hilarious memes, pictures, and videos, in order to brighten peoples day. Ifunny is full of inappropriate user submitting people, when half of the entries are good. It has its benefits, of course. It allows people to share their own memes to the Ifunny featuring committee where they put the best user submitted pictures on the top featured. The sad thing is, most are not even funny. When you're going through collective, how often do you think, "Wow, this one's good." Answer: Never. Users always wait for the featured which only happen twice a day. Social Memedia has hilarious photos and pics that they find online, or create themselves, limiting the opportunities for Kiks and stupid attempts at making people laugh. Social Memedia has more memes for every user. Top memes daily, top memes monthly, top memes ever, sports memes, music memes, celebrity memes, all in one meme app! The pictures in the app are always funny and authentic, to ensure laughs. What also sets this app apart from Ifunny, is the 'Memesaging' section of the app. This section allows users to send memes they make in the app to their friends. All you need to do is take a screen shot and send and you're done. It definitely sets Social Memedia aside from Ifunny. Overall, Social Memedia is a great app to view funny memes and pictures everyday and share them with your friends. It is a great app and should pass Ifunny in the next few years.
Gun Control

My opponent has provided no evidence for his assertions.My opponent has said that he has never once stated that he believes there should be no gun control, and while this is true, he is "con" for gun control. I would point out that he has not even tried to rebut my arguments, nor has he provided any support for his statement that "[Gun control] is ineffective and unnecessary." At this point it's really irrelevant what his position is, as he has not provided support for any position at all, and he has not responded to any of my arguments. He says that taking away guns is unconstitutional. In my opening statement I never condoned this action, and also the constitutionality of the action is irrelevant to our debate, as it deals with the effectiveness and need of gun control. Furthermore, "taking away weapons" doesn't even really fit the definition of gun control for this debate."Gun control is something that should be in affect[sic], to an extent" As far as I'm concerned, my opponent has pretty much conceded.
Gun Control

I will begin by stating that I have never once said there should be "no gun control", I have simply stated that it is ineffective and unnecessary. Gun control is something that should be in affect, to an extent. Taking guns away from innocent civilians that own the guns in order to defend themselves and their families, is unconstitutional. Our, the United States, forefathers created the second amendment so that the civilians of the United States could protect themselves if the government ever becomes tyrannical and needs to be overthrown, as the case of the Revolutionary War. The complete removal of weapons is absolutely absurd.
Gun Control

I realize that this is not my rebuttal statement, but I would point out that my opponent did not limit the issue of gun control to just the United States in his opening statement, and therefore cannot do so now. In my opening statement I will provide some definitions that will be useful for the remainder of this debate:Gun control-Through legislation, the limiting of access to and use of weaponry and associated items such as ammunition. This can include regulating who is permitted to buy and use guns, when and where they are allowed to be displayed/used, the sale of guns and ammunition, as well as determining which guns are allowed to be bought and sold. Essentially any laws "controlling" guns.My opponent will be arguing that gun control is ineffective and unnecessary. I will take the position that it is "needed" and certainly can be effective.Need (vb)-Something required or wanted [1]Effective (adj)-Successful in producing a desired or intended resultIn this case, I will be be arguing that gun control laws are desirable/wanted/needed in order to produce the desired result of reducing shootings and unfortunate events. My argument is that gun control is, in some instances, and can be helpful in keeping dangerous weaponry out of the hands of dangerous people such as the mentally insane. Also, citizens should not be allowed to have military grade weaponry, such as a GAU-19/A Gatling gun for example. In order to support my position, I must simply show that there "should" be at least some gun control given the definitions and explanation I have already provided. It seems self evident to me why mentally insane people should not be allowed to by guns. Unless my opponent can give reasons why this is not the case, I conclude that I will have won.As for their effectiveness, I argue that they certainly have been effective at preventing dangerous people from acquiring guns. Simply because they have not been perfect in doing so does not mean that we should get rid them. Also, just one other example are laws that prevent people from openly carrying firearms. As my opponent has taken the position that there should not be gun control, he must support the position that there should be absolutely no restrictions on who guns are sold to, and that even children and the mentally insane should be allowed firearms. He must also provide support for the position that gun owners should be able to do what they want with their guns wherever they want (for example, take one into a bank and make a withdrawal). He must also provide reasons why gun control is not effective and can never be effective.In conclusion, I feel I have already met my burden of proof (assuming burden of proof is shared in this debate and not completely on my opponent who holds to the more radical position that there should be no gun control).[1] thefreedictionary.com