BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It's time to make zoologists clear up the monotreme mess they've made

It is always a pleasure matching wits with my worthy opponent Brian Eggleston; but as I only have 2,897 characters left and an infinite amount of information to impart, I beg his indulgence for dispensing with further friendlinesses. I'm sure he understands. All the Ozlings, Aborigine or European, are included in my deportation plan. Modern science has permitted the Aborigines human status for at least twelve years now, after all; one must move with the times. At this rate, even lawyers and publicity agents may be accorded human status someday. I understand that shipping these ex-cons and their descendants to another country is necessary but impolitic; many countries would consider the sudden arrival of a few thousand Aussies an act of war on Britain's part. I therefore humbly suggest you pick a country that is unlikely to react in a military manner; France comes to mind. Considering the example of the chair, I find myself compelled to point out that this sort of thing would not happen to my opponent if he attended more reputable establishments. This, however, is related to the age-old question: If a tree falls on a mime in a forest, and there is no one around to hear, does he make any noise? The connection is tenebrous, though; a word which here means "too complicated and unlikely to be explicable in the remaining 1637 characters." Some voters will object to my answering my opponent case-by-case like this; there's always another scenario, they'll say. What about x? Blast x, I say; figure it out yourself. I'm busy. So, the chair. Not to worry, MWO; the waiter is in no appreciable danger. In this question, as in so many others involving finance or the way women think, the answer is provided to us by theoretical mathematics. You see, time is a human construct, a sequential ordering of an infinite series of states of the universe; "freeze-frames" if you will. Every action takes place along a "vector," a mathematical line connecting an infinite number of infinitesimal points. This means for every action there are an infinite number of universal states in which the action has not yet been completed, and only one in which the chair meets the top of the obstruse waiter's head. The chair will literally take forever to reach the waiter, during which time the waiter can easily dodge, and may even have time to bring out your food. The latter has a rather low probability though, 15.3%, so don't get your hopes up too much. Even if the chair defies Zeno's paradox and insists on clunking the server, you can enjoy your meal in the assurance that the waiter has had it coming to him for an infinite number of universal states of being. This neatly removes the problem, not just of warning waiters, but literally of every instance in which you might be tempted to use the word "duck" to mean anything but "a bread-eating perfesterous waterfowl." Thank you. C.
It's time to make zoologists clear up the monotreme mess they've made

With many thanks to Chrysippus for accepting this challenge, I should like to congratulate him on his splendid proposal to de-populate Australia and turn the whole caboodle into one giant wildlife park. Hang on a second, though: where will all the Aussies go? Australia is a former penal colony and the Australians are the direct descendants of convicts that were transported there from Britain for stealing bread, poaching pheasants, trespassing on the estates of the landed gentry and other heinous crimes: Britain doesn't want them back; our prisons are packed to the rafters already. And what about the Aborigines? The European settlers have only been in Australia for a couple of hundred years or so, but the Aborigines have inhabited Australia for at least 60,000 years: they are as much a part of the landscape as kangaroos, koalas and kookaburras; but perhaps my opponent considers these ‘savages' to be part of the native Australian wildlife and will allow them to remain? Maybe he would be good enough to clarify this point? Now, moving on to the plurality of the word "duck", my opponent seemed dissatisfied with the necessity of removing the ambiguity of the term in my slack-jawed yokel / village pond / ballistic missile scenario so I shall provide another. You at a table in a Chinese restaurant with some friends waiting patiently for your orders to be taken. The waiter is at a nearby table dealing with a rather irascible looking gentleman and you overhear their conversation. The customer says to the waiter "This chicken is rubbery" and the waiter replies "Ah! Thank you velly much!" then comes over to your table to take your orders. Your friends reply in turn "pork"; "beef" and "chicken" when you spot the (now furious) diner from the other table approach the waiter from behind wielding a chair and you realise that he is about to swing it at the waiter's head so you shout "duck" – but instead of taking avoiding action the waiter just says "Peking duck, or crispy aromatic duck, sir?" just before he gets bludgeoned to the floor by the aforementioned item of restaurant furniture. Now, that would never have happened if the dishes on the menu were ‘Peking platypus-billed waterfowl' and ‘crispy aromatic platypus-billed waterfowl' would it? And this inappropriate naming of animals is not confined to platypus-billed waterfowl, by the way. For example, the so-called ‘bat-eared fox' would be more correctly named the ‘fox-bodied bat' and the prairie dog isn't a dog at all, it's a rodent, but that's for another debate. In the meantime, I will confine myself to the issue of the platypus-billed waterfowl misnomer and reassert that it's time to make zoologists clear up the monotreme mess they've made. Thank you.
It's time to make zoologists clear up the monotreme mess they've made

The so-called "duck-billed platypus" (or "duck-mole" as it is sometimes called in its native Australia) has inhabited an inhospitable, God-forsaken, barren, and uninviting desert island in the hardest to reach part of this planet for much longer than any species of bird, living or extinct, has any business expecting to live there. It has virtually no impact on human life, other than providing examples of things zoologists ought to have had more imagination naming. It would surely be more appropriate to simply ignore this venomous, semi-aquatic, egg-laying, beaver-tailed, otter-footed, shovel-faced, electroreceptive, monotreme mammal "platypus" (since it is far less harmful than its close cousin, the modern politician), and then give them as wide a berth as possible. It might be wise to go so far as to make all of Australia a wildlife preserve, so as to protect humans from this bloodthirsty chimera. Some might object to this plan on the grounds that it would make Australia closed to human habitation. I humbly submit that this would merely be legal recognition of that fact. The number of deluded souls who insist on trying to live there and who would have to be displaced is minimal, considering the area; a mere 0.317% of the world's population.[1] A pair of amphibious Greyhound buses would handle the job easily. So, having closed Australia to humans, and thus removed the last shred of claim platypi have on us, we can avoid the legal repercussions inherent in changing all of our kindergarten reading supplements from "D d Duck" to "P p Platypus-billed waterfowl." My worthy opponent submits that "duck" is used homonymously for the word, "to avoid a supersonic cruise missile by inclining the head." And he is correct in this. However, I put it to our kindly readers: How often has this scenario occurred to you? Have you or any of your loved ones ever had occasion to say, "I shall now duck to avoid being hit by the Soviet-built Kazakhstani-fired supersonic cruise missile flying at my head whilst I take a bucolic stroll round the old duck pond?" I contend, with all due respect, that they have not. The sentence would be cut short, to a mere "I shall-", as in that one second the missile, traveling at mach 4, will have covered 4466 ft, [2] and the duck pond will now be slightly larger. Also empty, but that does not concern us here. The point is, they would not even get the chance to say the word,"Duck." We can safely take out that extra meaning of the word from our dictionaries, and no-one will ever notice. Finally, my opponent makes a terribly misguided remark about platypi and deserving dignity. I assume that he has in fact seen a platypus, as he did post a video of one singing just now. I leave this grave lie to his conscience. C. 1. http://www.wolframalpha.com... 2. http://www.wolframalpha.com...
It's time to make zoologists clear up the monotreme mess they've made

The so-called "duck-billed platypus" (or "duck-mole" as it is sometimes called in its native Australia) has inhabited this planet for at least 166 million years – much longer than any species of bird, living or extinct {1,2}, so it would surely be more appropriate to simply rename this venomous, semi-aquatic, egg-laying, beaver-tailed, otter-footed, shovel-faced, electroreceptive, monotreme mammal "platypus" (since it is the sole living representative of its family Ornithorhynchidae and genus Ornithorhynchus, it cannot be confused with any other species of platypus) and then rename "ducks"; "platypus-billed waterfowl". The word "duck" could then be exclusively employed in the sense of ‘to quickly lower the head or the body in order to avoid a missile'. {3} This measure would be very helpful in avoiding injuries caused as the result of the current dual-meaning of the word "duck". For example, dangerous confusion could easily arise if you happened to be walking past a duck pond as some in-bred clod-hopper attempted to bring your attention to a cruise missile travelling at supersonic speed in your direction, precisely at head height. Therefore, for the avoidance of any confusion in the meaning of the word "duck" and in order to accord the misleadingly-named "duck-billed platypus" the dignity its superior heritage over its avian namesake it deserves, I duly affirm that it's time to make zoologists clear up the monotreme mess they've made and have them officially rename "ducks"; "platypus-billed waterfowl". Thank you. {1} http://www.timesonline.co.uk... {2} http://evolutiondiary.com... {3} http://english.oxforddictionaries.com... http://www.youtube.com...
is sexual intercourse bad for you at a young age

well its nice to debate with my girl but it teaches young woman and me what being a parent is all about It improves mood: Sex may act to alleviate teen angst. Researchers from Children's Hospital Boston and Harvard University examined adolescent mood (link is external) over an extended period of time. Adolescents gauged their feelings every three hours on a hand-held computer device and a baseline was determined. The researchers found that adolescents reported a marked improvement in happiness and reduced feelings of stress and anger after sex. https://www.psychologytoday.com...
homosexuality is NOT condemned in the bible.

My friend, you have asked me to produce verses where it says that homosexuality is a sin, and as you have seen in my previous arguments, I have provided you with a number of verses, their versions and even the Greek version of the debate topic at question. I urge you to re-read the verses, and understand that the explicit, word for word, phrase of "homosexuality is a sin" is not in the Bible, but the seeker must have enough knowledge to understand the context of the verses for themselves. For example, if Mr.Jones wanted proof for Jesus's claims as Messiah and he reads the Bible but doesn't see the phrase "I am the Messiah", it doesn't mean that Jesus wasn't actually the Messiah. It just means he hasn't understood the context of the verses in the Bible nor does he understand the history behind the religion itself. So just like Mr. Jones, investigate the verses and don't brush them off just because it's not saying the phrase you're looking for. The verses I showed you above, tell us that if the act of homosexuality is committed then punishment will befall the accused, specifically death. If this isn't an indication that such an action is a sin, then I don't know what else is. In the present time, theft is sin and punishable, murder is a sin and punishable, adultery is a sin and punishable, and homosexuality is a sin and it is clearly punishable. When an action is done contrary to the Law of a Religion or a land, then the accused is punished according to that Law. Homosexuality is no different. I respectfully ask you to look at those verses, study them thoroughly and understand that homosexual actions are condemned. Your turn and before you answer open the bible and read...please.
homosexuality is NOT condemned in the bible.

Okay....Let's take a look. Leviticus 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." Basically any version you look at will say "yo..no homo" Let's have a look :) (NIV) = Do not have sexual relations with a man... (NLT) = Do not practice homosexuality... (ESV) = You shall not lie with a male... (NASB) = You shall not lie with a male... (KJV) = Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind... (HCSB) = You are not to sleep with a man... (ISV) = You are not to have sexual relations with a male... (NET Bible) = You must not have sexual intercourse with a male... (GODS WORD Translation) = Never have sexual intercourse with a man... I could go on, but my characters are limited... Leviticus 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them... Other versions: (NIV) = If a man has sexual relations with a man...is detestable...to be put to death. (NLT) = If a man practices homosexuality...a detestable act...be put to death. (ESV) = If a man lies with a male...be put to death (NASB) = If there is a man who lies with a male...surely be put to death (KJV) = If a man also lie with mankind...they shall surely be put to death. (HCSB) = If a man sleeps with a man...must be put to death. (ISV) = If a man has sexual relations with another male...certainly put to death. (NET Bible) = If a man has sexual intercourse with a male...must be put to death. (GODS WORD Translation) = When a man has sexual intercourse with another man...must be put to death. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God." I won't show other versions because it's exausting...you'll get the gist yourself :) 1 Timothy 1:9-10, We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine... Homosexuals are, as far as the Bible is concerned, law-breakers 1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men Homosexuals are immoral and wrongdoers In conclusion, my first conclusion made sense you just never read it properly, and not only does it say that homosexuals are sinning, it said they should be put to death....soooooooooooo basicallyyyy, according to your last sentence, I win haha...I can smell your confidence, my friend, but it is not serving you so well :) Your turn
homosexuality is NOT condemned in the bible.

"All you need to do is to read the string and ever one, every single one of your points (without internet links in most cases as everyone knows the internet always is truthful LOL) is shown to be false with Biblical facts - yes facts not opinions. Proving homosexuality is not a sin, and your conclusion is flat out wrong. You just need the original text to find the truth - homosexuality is not a sin. Again, I can cut and past, but just read the string you will see the truth provided, Biblically. If you can show me a verse that says or means - 2 of the same sex in a loving and committed relationship are sinning you win.
homosexuality is NOT condemned in the bible.

I'll start with this. Most Christians have not read the string or you would know Rom (Paul) has not 1 thing to do with homosexuality. As for Romans 1:26 ""For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men gave up the natural function of the woman and burned in their lust toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."" First of all, you can't "give up" something you never had in the first place. If I ask you for a million dollars, you can't "give it up" to me if you never had it, right? The use of the woman for gay men, is not NATURAL. Second of all, no one that I know of is defending LUST. Obviously these men were straight because they left the women in the name of LUST. That of course would be wrong. There was lust, promiscuity, and adultery going on in this passage. It is clearly not "loving your neighbor". We would never read a passage in the Bible about heterosexual lust and promiscuity and condemn all heterosexual marriages, would we? Now before you try to say that verse says that homosexuality goes against "NATURE": 1 Cor 11:113-15 says "Does not the very NATURE of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him..." Nature had to do with custom, not biology. Unless of course you believe that NATURE controls the length of a man's hair. It is the same Greek word for "nature/natural" in Greek translated in 1 Cor 11 as it is in Romans . "phusis " We are to interpret the Bible with rest of the Bible. A word cannot mean one thing in one verse and something else in another. None of these verses give clear condemnation of homosexuality. It only proves it is wrong in certain circumstances; just as heterosexuality is wrong in certain circumstances." Please explain to me how any of those verses condemn 2 members of the same sex in a loving and committed relationship? If you bothered to read the chapter, he was addressing idol worshipers and not 2 members of the same sex in a loving and committed relationship." "As for Jude 7 (I'm assuming that you believe the words "going after STRANGE FLESH") somehow would be defined as "other men", am I right? This verse is referring to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Start with the very first verse in: "Genesis 19, "The two ANGELS arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city." As you can clearly see the folks being described as "strange flesh" are ANGELS!!!" I can go on. Homosexuality is not "sin in the original text of the Bible. Where does it say - 2 of the same sex in a loving and committed relationship are sinning?
Luigi rules, Mario drools.

Interesting topic... "Luigi is sort of the "underdog", he does all the plumbing jobs while Mario signs autographs." You're right! I'd rather sign autographs than plumb any day. Looks like Mario rules so far. "I think Luigi is an inspiration, because though he is largely ignored, he keeps on going. More to come after my challenge is accepted." Let's hear it then. "Knock Knock" "Who's there?" "Luigi" "Luigi who?" "Story of my life..." I don't get it...
Luigi rules, Mario drools.

"Yes, yes, and no; he saves the resident tomboy Daisy who rocks my sox. " Too bad Daisy never actually appears in a Super Mario Bros. game. On a side note, see how the title of the series is Super MARIO Bros. ? Not Super Luigi Bros. "And Mario doesn't decide not to plumb, he just doesn't have a fallback. He's in a rut. " So you're saying Mario was never a plumber, and that he still isn't one? False.
Luigi rules, Mario drools.

""Luigi who?" as in nobody knows him. O_o" Ah... "Mario's abilities max out at signing autographs. He's too stupid to do anything else. He's been saved my Luigi tons of times. Plus, he's just a default charecter and Luigi is usualy the unlock. Luigi's always the best playable character because he can jump higher and run faster. So ha." Can Luigi eat a mushroom and get bigger? What about shoot fireballs? Does Luigi save Peach? Luigi may jump higher, but he also jumps slower. Looks like Mario is still winning.
Global warming is a hoax.

I will now prove that global warming is both false and a hoax. Claim 1: The Earth sometimes gets extra cold. Warrant: "It"s Too Cold To Protest Global Warming At Yale" [1]. Impact: Global Warming cannot be happening if it still gets this cold. Claim 2: Polar vortex exists. Warrant: " Right now much of the U. S. is in the grip of a polar vortex, which is pretty much what it sounds like: a whirlwind of extremely cold, extremely dense air that forms near the poles. " [2]. Impact: Global warming must be a hoax for these polar vortex to exist. Claim 3: Polar vortex linked to global climate change. Warrant: "Polar vortex visits to U. S. linked to climate change" [3]. Impact: I have now proven sufficient evidence that global climate change exists. Since global climate change and global warming are mutually exclusive. I have now dis-proven global warming. Claim 4: Global warming is a hoax. Warrant: People still refer to the dis-proven notion of global warming all over the internet, thus common knowledge. Impact: Since global climate change has been proven and global warming dis-proven, I can only conclude that global warming is a hoax. Why else would people reference an obsolete term? Thanks again for the debate. Links 1. . http://dailycaller.com... 2. . http://science.time.com... 3. . http://www.usatoday.com...
The study of religion should enter the educational curriculum.

"THe reason for religion is to subconsciously control as all. even atheist have an idealistic morality mirrored by the creation of fundamental religion." This, as far as I can tell, is the only bare essence of a semblance of an argument. While this debate appears to have turned futile the moment my opponent clicked on accept, I will address these two points. "THe reason for religion is to subconsciously control as all." Religions purposes are many, it was once, and by some still is a tool for explaining the natural universe. By the inclusion of the study of all such basises of religion you enable the rationalist discourse in the nature of religion itself. How they form, evolve, and accomodate over time would be a facet of such an education. Teaching factual studies of religion does not hinder free thought, it enables it. If any one given religion can not stand up to this scrutiny by its faithful then they and everyone can question the validity of its form. "even atheist have an idealistic morality mirrored by the creation of fundamental religion." This is not relevant to the debate itself, however, morality systems were appropriated by religions, most notably greek philosophical traditions (for the monotheistic religions). Morality may or may not be inherent in humankind, its values however are a facet of the society and the cultural norms of the time.
The study of religion should enter the educational curriculum.

i'm sorry it took me a while to reply i was puking from my anus from what you wrote. And you know what came out? methane, from what you ask? your smelly words! they dont even touch me. did you even read what i said? THe reason for religion is to subconsciously control as all. even atheist have an idealistic morality mirrored by the creation of fundamental religion. Education for such a reason is counterproductive if you suggest it shound be taught your a jackass and smell like one too because you said that your not against any religion. seriously how many showers did you take this week? because you smell. THAT IS ALL.