BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It's okay for little boys to get fagged out.

The same definition is provided for "worn out", so we'll base it off that. (1) Although some level of exhaustion can be good, to be fagged is to an extreme degree. If someone says they're fagged (which is no one) or worn out, they are probably speaking in hyperbole. The reason for this, is because words like extreme ("of the greatest possible degree or extent or intensity" (2)) and depleted ("no longer sufficient" (3)) suggest having dangerously low amounts of energy or to be the most exhausted one can be. This would be achieved by excess exercise, which was found to dangerous. (4) Therefore, to be literally fagged is dangerous, and therefore it is not okay for little boys to be fagged. 1-http://www.vocabulary.com... 2-http://www.vocabulary.com... 3-http://www.vocabulary.com... 4-http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Use blank in a story. Challenge.

There was once a very sick child when she was born. She had several diseases and allergy to Xylocaine she had to walk on a wheelchair and had to be given food. She knew that there wern't a lot of doctors who treated her well because she was an African and this was in the 1900-1999ths. There was one doctor who treated blacks well. The doctor said, "She just has to practice. She will eventually get better."In the end she did. Slowly and every night she walked along the path. She was getting better and better. Her allergy of Xylocaine soon disappeared. 5 years later she was finally intending schools. She could speak, read, and write. Many years later she turned into a college student. After her graduation, she picked her job. It was a scientist who studied the elements. Finally she learned about Xylocaine and many other elements.Your word is callipygian
Use blank in a story. Challenge.

It was a dark a storming Friday night. School just ended. My two friends James and Robbie came over for a sleep over. My parents weren't home and only five people were here. The maid, Robbie, James, me and my little sister Peppa. The four of us were playing a game of Monopoly, but suddenly a loud shriek came from the kitchen, and a breeze came in the room. James ran to the sofa. Peppa who was six years old at the time looked frightened and help tightly on my shirt. Robbie asked if he could go check what it was all about. I said I'll come with and left Peppa with James. When we got to the kitchen I saw our maid dead on the floor, beside it a note written using blood. It read "Look behind you" I felt carried and worried. I tapped Robbie's shoulder and showed him the note on the floor. So we turned around together and saw three dead children. I've whom I never seen before. They said in a creepy voice. "I'm Ganope. The master of dark magic. I've come for your souls. But I'll give you a chance for survival. The four of may live. The four of you may die." "How do you play?" I asked. "Simple. The first to find me and kill me wins. No rules. Just hunter vs hunter. Spy vs spy. First team to kill the other wins. But don't get cocky. I am known yo posses kakorrhaphiophobia, the fear of failure and I have only ever failed once." After he spoke the children turned into smoke and a huge thunderstorm started. I looked at Robbie and he looked at me. Robbie gas kakorrhaphiophobia too. And he knew I was wondering if he was Ganope. "W-we be-better t-tell the the others." Robbie said clearly so scared he stuttered. I nodded and we ran to the great hall where they were. But when we got there we saw James and Peppa trapped in fallen furniture. "What happened?" I yelled. "The world it started shaking!" Peppa exclaimed. "Quickly! Get us out of here!" James said in a scared voice. As I ran towards them a gran father clock fell towards Peppa's face. Smashing it. "O my god! O my god! O my god! I yelled as tears poured out of my eyes. Ganope was going to die! He has too. "A li-little h-help p-p-please?" Robbie muttered. I ran to help then bowling balls fell from the celling and landed all around me. Then I felt pain in my head and I woke up. It was all just a dream. Or was it? Was I dead? Was Ganope the ghost with kakorrhaphiophobia the victor? It all looked so real. It couldn't have been a dream. You decide. Con's next word is Xylocaine. I repeat Xylocaine.
Use blank in a story. Challenge.

There was once a small kingdom named Carthyass and there was the king and queen. They were scared of xenephobe because all the other kingdoms had good defense, but there prince just died so there was a lot of commotion of who will be the next prince. The king and queen knew that they could get attacked any time so waited. The day came. There was war. With no prince there was a lot of confusion. They had a high sense of xenophobe because all the other kingdoms loved to fight. The sat in a corner and waited an waited. Finally they heard the news. There kingdom Carthyass was getting stronger. Now the king and queen thought they had a small possibility to win. They tried all there best. They tried to stop the fear of Xenophobe.Three months later the war ended. They had huge victory. Now the kingdom were now all at peace. No other countries could stop them. The kingdom called Carthyass happily lived for ever and did not get in attack. Pro's word is kakorrhaphiophobia.
Which soda is better Mt.Dew or coke? I feel that Mt.Dew is

Taking that first sip of a cold can of Coke is so crisp and refreshing. There is nothing like it. Mtn Dew is too sweet and it tastes flat. There is no comparison. Coke beats Mtn Dew by far. Their marketing is better too. Coca Cola doesn't need a ton of celebrities to endorse their product like Mtn Dew or Pepsi does. If a restaurant doesn't have Coke than I go elsewhere.
We need gun control

Yes, we are protesting. Yes, we are trying to make a difference. But why is no one doing anything? Why is the government not listening? Why does no one care? The constitution did say that we have the right to bear arms, but it did not say right to murder with those arms. Not" just mentally ill people have guns, Trump. And yes, I know that only 3 percent of gun crime were committed with legally owned guns. If we try to stop all the guns, no one would accept our wanted law. We have to take this one step at a time. We need to"make"gun"control laws more strict. "According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 467,321 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm in 2011." That is a lot of people killed by guns. So remind me again why no one is listening, why no one is trying to persuade government officials. Is it just because we are children? Is that it? No one should judge us. Children will be adults, and adults were once children. So why are we being judged? You tell me.
batman vs. spiderman

Low character amount, sorry for briefness: < > A regular person isn't a super rich billionaire with all sorts of cool gadgets. He wears bullet-proof yet flexible armour, has amazing weaponry that he can fit inside a belt, and a car that can turn into a submarine or boat. None of this is normal. http://rcrawford79.files.wordpress.com... << wow who ever got killed or hurt by a little spider web>> They are not little. In fact, spider silk is 5 times stronger than steel. http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk... << Batman is way stronger than spiderman.>> Spiderman has super strength, Batman does not. http://en.wikipedia.org... << Batman is a master tactician and plans ahead,>> Evidence? << he is also a member of the JLA which everybody fears.=)>> We are not debating Spiderman vs. JLA, we're debating Spiderman vs. Batman.
batman vs. spiderman

ok batman doesnt have any powers so he has to fight regular just like any other person and wow who ever got killed or hurt by a little spider web. Seriously i dont think spider web can stop someone from doin something i mean it will probable just slow them down. Ok Spiderman can climb walls but whats so good about that? Batman is way stronger than spiderman. Spiderman is just weak and batman can definetly beat him. Batman is a master tactician and plans ahead, he is also a member of the JLA which everybody fears.=)
batman vs. spiderman

I would like to affirm that I think Spiderman is way better than Batman. Batman is just a super rich guy who knows martial arts, Spiderman is an actualy superhero. Spiderman: -Can climb walls -has super strength -can shoot webs out of his wrist -has to overcome the difficulties of being a teenager and young adult -fights actual super villains -gets his girl Batman: -is rich and can buy stuff (not very super) -knows martial arts (him and a million other people) -fights psychopaths and drug dealers (like a normal cop) -doesn't get his girl As you can see Spiderman fights way more dangerous villains, has better powers, and faces more adversities than Batman making him a much better superhero. There's nothing that special about batman, any rich person can do it. However, there is and can only be one Spiderman. I look forward to your response.
Socialism still has a chance

How can somethng fail when in reality it has never really been tried? Guess you are going for the most ludicrous stance. It has been tried in China and Sweden. If you meant in the US then I would wait until they vote someone in to make that happen. If this was meant to be why not try socialism? I would say why not have laissez faire capitalism? If you lived in 1789 in France and then saw France decend in to chaos and bloodshed, One would conclude that liberal democracy was a horrible idea and would never work. Do you even know what happened? French people started a revolution to overthrow the monarchy. A monarchy is not democractic instead it based on values that the Religion holds. But it was attempted again and again, Lots of failures and a few success stories, Yet in thee world today the dominant and most successfull form of government is constitutional liberal democracy through either republics or constituional monarchies no one ever thought it would workProvided no examples of it failing instead just state it as if I had the evidence. I will move on from this point. And there are still many problems but look at the progresss we have made, And I think Socialism will work the same wayNo it won't. Socialism will change radically so that it can ever work to bring people the best model to govern with. Eventually we will try and tryYou can't even admit that it was even tried so I don't see how you would accept its failure and then say this is the first try socialism when it does work. Insanity is doing the same thng over and over and expecting different results, So we will try different policies, Tilwe find the ones that work like western european democratic socialsimAt least you agree with me on the insanity. The thing is to know your mistakes you have to acknowledge. I hardly seen anyone acknowledge the mistakes of socialism instead blame on other factors like capitalism. Socialism as it is being tested in the present is the definition of insanity due to no one admitting to the faults and even trying to improve it. Lets take the democractic party. Kamala Harris cannot even think of a percentage to tax people. Bernie Sanders will be again stopped by the DNC. Ocasio-Cortez is an awful congresswoman who has a green new deal. That has stuff about races and paying people who are unwilling to work. Not as in unable unwilling. Meaning the person is able to work but just refuses and Cortez thinks they should be given an income sort of like a universal income. What democrats I see trying to run for office is that they do not know how to make it happen. They cannot enforce taxation, Don't even think money is a problem and think they can make a Green New Deal happen without money.
Socialism still has a chance

How can somethng fail when in reality it has never really been tried? If you lived in 1789 in France and then saw France decend in to chaos and bloodshed, One would conclude that liberal democracy was a horrible idea and would never work. But it was attempted again and again, Lots of failures and a few success stories, Yet in thee world today the dominant and most successfull form of government is constitutional liberal democracy through either republics or constituional monarchies no one ever thought it would work, And there are still many problems but look at the progresss we have made, And I think Socialism will work the same way, Eventually we will try and try, Insanity is doing the same thng over and over and expecting different results, So we will try different policies, Tilwe find the ones that work like western european democratic socialsim
Socialism still has a chance

We meet again billsands. Do try and be courteous this time. Socialism is a concept which is a government ceasing the means of production and distributing it in a way they see fit. The problems with this is that if the government control the money who will hold them accountable? A popular saying going around on both left and right circles is take money out of politics. Instead of taking money out of politics you instead give them more money to politics. Sure it would be in the form of taxes we all pay but that is a ludicrous amount. The present taxes some are well awful and others are reasonable. When a country does follow socialism everything will be taxed more than 50% even a wage. Lets say I earn 10, 000. If I was taxed 50% as a flat number for everything then I lose 5k. I can't use it for what I want and the government takes it away from me and I can't do anything about it apart from political action. This limits how free the people can be. I can't spend my money on entertainment instead I would give money to the government with no promises. It can go to increasing public hospitals or inside the pockets of the government. They made no promises when the exchange was made with taxes. Yes this is also a problem now but the less money they have the less corruption that can occur. Basically at worst socialism would become communism. At worst with captialism corporations will be in charge. Stalin is worse than Jack Dorsey. One killed the most people in the 20th Century and other ruins people's career if they are a personality limited to Twitter. A person from that position can come back and find a regular job but under Stalin worship him like a God or die for advocating against him. I will stick to that and rebut in the next Round.
Socialism still has a chance

In 1992 when the ussr FELL everyone thought Socialism had come and gone and been proven a terrible failure all around, And there were terrible mistakes that cost many lives, But what good idea ver works the first time? People spent centuries trying to fly and failing, Right? And then in 1969 we landed on the moon, We have jets rockets the lot. How many hands were blown off, How many heads exploded befoe they made the gun work? I ALMOST drowned learning how to swiim i gave up but my mom caled me a sissy and siad i'd never get desert again unless i learned. I did and even swam on a swim team i got awards. . It may take centuries to figure out the right way to make socialism work but i think it is inevitable, Why should 1% own 90% of the wealth. I think china and nordic nations like sweden are gradually discovering policies to incrementally put bit of socialism into market systems, It will take a long time, It won't happe over night and i think that was the problem, People wanted to build ROME in a day, It doesnt work that way Rome took centuries to build and so will a new society whether we call it socialism or progress. . Eventually we will get there we may have to take two steps forward and one step back many many times. . But eventually we must go forward
belief is a blind man seeing

Firstly,belief is a personal thing and it differs from person to person.Here,you say I don't know means the other person don't know how many fingers you had kept at back.But,your belief cannot be defined what the other know.Your beliefs are defined by whether you know how many fingers are at back and that is absolutely yes. So,one's beliefs are definitely known to oneself.The only thing is that it may or may not be true or realistic.So,it cannot be said as blind man seeing. Secondly,the justification you required about whether knowledge and belief is now clear.Even then let me explain clearly,knowledge is what we know,I completely agree with that but belief is what we don't know is completely unacceptable as discussed above.
belief is a blind man seeing

i am not trapping you.. you are con, so you show me where i am wrongso show me how knowledge is not the opposite of belief.. but i will do it for you, argue against me for you i dont know means, i have to imagine it, i can at best imagine it, so if i take my hand behind my back, is my claim that i am showing 3 fingers behind my back true? knowledge=memory of knowand you dont know my claim so you dont remember, and have no truth to tell of how many fingers i might be showing on my back
belief is a blind man seeing

Firstly,I wanted to say that in a debate one should show the audacity to express oneself clearly so that the opposing contender can debate on it.You should have the courage to listen and accept the other party's opinion rather than just trying to trap the opposite side. Also,if you try to trap the opposite side you should have some grounds for that because you mentioned "knowledge is memory, opposite of belief".Adding to it,belief is not unknown.It is something that may or may not be realistic but known.
Consciousness Could've Happened by Mistake

Cells are not conscious beings, at least as far as we understand. But yet they still work in a complex system. Animals which have a lesser consciousness than us can still catch things, and they are able to jump from branch to branch. As far as we are aware, our consciousness developing could be just as random as the universe developing. Physics, Biology, and Chemistry in a way explain complex systems and how they move towards a goal as well. Are they conscious?
Consciousness Could've Happened by Mistake

Survival instinct is a feature of the reptilian brain. Passed on through evolution. Seeking a purpose for our existence is a product of consciousness and even without having a purpose can not overpower instincts. We don't decide what's right and wrong. We're taught that certain things are either right or wrong. We are the product of our physiology and our past experiences. Consciousness is not an accident, but an inevitable result of evolution. Thanks for the debate.
Consciousness Could've Happened by Mistake

But here's the thing, what if we create the purpose to it? What if that is the reason for us to keep on living? When we became conscious, someone could've decided to kill themselves and everyone else. But they didn't because they decided it was wrong. If a powerful enough person wanted everyone to die, that would have happened. Our consciousness could've happened by mistake, and the only way for us to endure our existence is to create a reason for it.
Consciousness Could've Happened by Mistake

Entropy is randomness. How is life itself not random? Our cells just happened to become complex, it doesn't take away the fact that it happened randomly. Consciousness's inevitability could be seen as inevitable because everything that can happen, eventually will. One day our brains were able to handle enough information so that we could think and act consciously. In that same respect, Humans will one day figure out how to amass information and create true artificial intelligence.
US Education Requires Modernization

My opponent has, unfortunately, missed the point in my last argument. For any true application to take place, there must first be a foundation. It was when students are young that such a foundation is placed. Yes, teachers do give the "math apples" demonstration, but as a lead in. People cannot go throw life just learning about apples and not plus signs--it is more apt to consider the demonstration a foreshadowing of how the material will help later on in life. Young children do not understand the application of what they learn, they do not care. Very few kids have a realistic job plan, much less realize the skills needed to achieve. Education, as it is today, provides the necessary foundation, mainly through linear learning, that will allow people to branch off into their chosen skill sets. As the students grow older, conceptual learning takes more of a role, as it should. My opponent speaks of the "doldrums" that our education puts young students into. I would question changing something to make it more "interesting". For example, many students would find that a study of classic literature, such as Shakespeare, boring. However, is it not good for their writing skills to be exposed to many different types of style? Is it not for their own cultural literacy and appreciation that teachers make students read such books? Besides, what one students finds "interesting" may bore another to tears. School is, indeed, a one size fits all. While my opponent would, most likely, say that all he wants to do is add variety to help those students who do not find school in their correct "size", doing so would be disastrous to education. There will always be students who find the study of addition boring, but they must learn if they are to be successful in life and productive members of society. The foundation that our education supplies is, when education is done properly, egalitarian. It provides the same foundation, the same tools, to each member that partakes in it. To change education in order to tailor to the interests of some would be to destroy this great equalizer. My opponent references the 17th century minds that developed our education system. I would like to point out that this system has turned out a society with the greatest minds of any age. While there have been some that conventional education has passed over, Edison and Einstein come to mind, these men are the exception, not the rule. From statesmen like Hamilton and Jefferson, to scientists like Newton, Watson, and Crick, the western education system has churned out, and still is providing, some of humanities greatest thinkers. That is why a Western Education is so sought after, why what we do is replicated world wide. This is a situation where the adage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" comes into play. I will once again return to my first argument, it is not the way that we educate our children, but the educational system that is broken. It is not because we have in place a bad teaching method, but bad administrators. I believe that the problem with today's educational system is managerial, not material.