BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Modified Storytelling

Suddenly, Carlos, Enrique, and Jose emerged from behind a building. Mira! You gonna take my money man? asked Carlos. Who says it's yours? asked Luis-Noel We got some business man. I aint got no business with you Carlos. Carlos nodded at Enrique and Jose who slowly and deliberately walked toward Luis-Noel. "What you want wit me man?" asked Luis-Noel. We need your help. replied Carlos To do what? Fight the Diablos? Carlos grinned, This guy is funny Enrique. As Jose and Enrique creeped toward Luis-Noel, Carlos locked his switch blade with a loud click against the still of the evening. Luis-Noel lunged at Jose. He swung his elbow hard into Jose's nose. There was a sickening thud and crack. Jose's nose, obviously broken, began gushing blood. Half a second later Enrique found himself doubled over after Luis-Noel planted his foot into Enrique's groin. Half a second after that, Enrique was laying on the ground, knocked out cold after a hard punch split his cheek open. His right eye instantly swelled shut. Do you still think its funny Oso? asked Luis-Noel Carlos, "Oso" Rodriguez was taken aback. He had heard about Luis-Noel's fighting ability but had never seen it until now. "Calm down botto! You just messed up 2 of my guys man! " Do you want to be next Oso? I can think of lots of places to put your cheap assed knife" No man! No! I want you on my team man! "I dont want to be on your "team" replied Luis-Noel, I got plans man. "It's cool dog, if you ever change your mind... I won't. You can go now. Luis-Noel watched Carlos back away then disappear down an alley. Luis-Noel picked up the money and continued on his way leaving two of the "Lobos Commons" laying on the ground bleeding.
Modified Storytelling

Luis-Noel's mind often wondered, as if in a trance like state. Random thought patterns such as using poeple's names as acronyms was not uncommon. Luis-Noel was walking home from school when he noticed a twenty dollar bill laying on the ground up ahead of him. He dismissed the acronyms and quickly thought how he might spend this small treasure. Twenty dollars wasn't what it used to be, but hey, he'd take it. He quickened his pace as he got closer. Fifteen yards away, ten yards away, 5 yards away! Just as he reached down to pick up the money....................................................
Modified Storytelling

The other day I checked out the game "Character Name in a Sentence". I posted a few responses and realized I wasn't doing the same thing as the others, but really enjoyed how I posted and thought others might find this way challenging and fun to try. Tell a character's story, and/or one of their stories, by using the letters in their name. Then post another name for the next player to try. Here are some of the examples I used on the other post: Christine Williams Cricket aka "The Bug"; Model for Jabot Jr Cosmetics Holier Than Thou Righteous Attitude Insisted on Leaving Danny after His Affair w/Phyllis Sexually Harassed and Stalked by Michael Baldwin Tried Lecturing Nina on How to Live Her Life In Love and engaged with Phillip Chancellor III Nina was Caught in Bed with Phillip which Ended Christine's engagement to Phillip Was Everybody's Idea of the Girl Next Door Into the Field of Law She Went; being a Legal Aid Attorney; a Legal Partner in Baldwin, Blair & Associates Into Everybody's Business; Former Assistant District Attorney Married to Paul Williams for a Time Single now, after Divorcing Paul Cordelia Conceived by Billy & Chloe Only Chloe said Cane was the father Righteous Cane claimed the baby Denied telling Chole he knew the truth Ended up being wanted by both Cane & Billy Loved by all in the end Irresistible in the football costume Absolutely adorable! Tim Reid Timid personality Insecure around women Made to look like a fool Red slept with him and blackmailed him Eating him alive In the end he recanted his testimony leading to Death to his career; crossed over to Bold & Beautiful Let's get the creative juices flowing. . .1st up Victor Newman My apponent may have a good story but not good enough...
Modified Storytelling

Opponent & I will add to the existing story line. Voting can be for the participant who produced the most enjoyable passages. There was a boy named Luis-Noel Martinez. Boy isn't really an accurate description as he is a 19 year old senior at PS 8 high school in Queens. He is 5-8, around 170, and has a thin beard line and goatee. He secretly loves to draw and sketch, but his friends would definitely give him a hard time if they knew that was his true passion. Although average sized, Luis-Noel was known as an excellent fighter. Even though there was tension in school between the whites, blacks, and Puerto Ricans, no one bothered Luis-Noel anymore. He had been, and was probably still being scouted for blanco 13. This was the gang that controlled the area from the Whitestone Bridge to about a mile beyond Corona Park. No one in Luis-Noel's family had ever graduated from high school, and he was determined to be the first. He had already overcame many obstacles. His English was mediocre at best, having moved to Queens from Santurce at age 11. He learned to speak English by trial and error. (please continue)
"1+1" equals 3

My Opponent tries to argue that I can;t tell him what HIS definition of "1" is. Sadly, I did and he ignored my definion, thus conceding to it. He hasn't even responded to this, so vote con just on that. Vote con because math is objective, and 1+1=2. Vote Con because if a word is in quotations that does not change its definition. If I say Obama is the "president", or Obama is the President, the definition of the words involved are still the same. My Opponent aslo contradicts himself. Check out these quotes: "Obviously I had to have defined "1" as 1.5" and ". In a retend language, "+" can be the symbol for subtraction, for instance." So possibly even with Pros definition the answer is not 3, but 0. Theres no other way to vote except Con on this.
"1+1" equals 3

Although I didn't tell you my definition of "1," I wrote the statement, ""1+1" equals 3." Who are you to tell me what my definition of "1" is? Perhaps for you, "1+1" equals 3. You cannot tell me that I did not define "1" so that you can have your way. Obviously I had to have defined "1" as 1.5 for it to equal to the value of three, or my argument would have been false. Yes, I couldv'e posted a false argument, but why would I defend it? Nevertheless, what is important is that I wrote the argument and can define "1" whenever I want because the argument belongs to me. "1" is mine.
"1+1" equals 3

It is too late to define "1", I already did and my opponent dropped it, thus conceding to my definition. You can't vote pro because he's: 1. Trying to spring a silly semantic argument2. Has already coceded to my definition.So you have to vote con. Heres another quote from he source of where I defined 1 (y opponent has conceded to this remember) http://en.wikipedia.org...(number)" One, sometimes referred to as unity, is the integer before two and after zero. One is the first non-zero number in the natural numbers as well as the first odd number in the natural numbers. Any number multiplied by one is the number, as one is the identity for multiplication. As a result, one is its own factorial, its own square, its own cube, and so on. One is also the empty product, as any number multiplied by one is itself, which produces the same result as multiplying by no numbers at all. That's preferable to my opponent just coming up with his own.
"1+1" equals 3

I will define "1" as 1.5. Since I posted "1+1" equals 3 in the first place, my definitions of "1" and "+" are the only significant definitions. I will give the universal definition + to my symbol "+" The opponent is trying to infringe universal definitions onto my symbols, they are my symbols and I proposed them. Again, "1" is the symbol for what we know as 1.5. 1.5 + 1.5 = 3.
"1+1" equals 3

I already defined 1, my opponent did not dispute the definition so his argument that "1" could mean anything falls. My Opponent argues that "+" could mean anything. I have three responses.1. It's generally accepated that + means addition. 2. There is nothing you can do to a pair of "1"s as I defined it to make them equal to three.3. My Opponent has not aruged how 1+1 is 3.I win.
Pathways to 270

Pro's argument is that "President Obama has an easy path to re-election. Romney will have a more difficult time in the General Election. "So my argument is that Obama will have a harder time winning the election. Here are my points:Stagnant EconomyCurrently, the economy in the United States is stagnant. This means that it is not good or bad. While Obama can spin that he helped fix the economy, he really did not. The fact is that this economy is one of the worst for many people. They maybe reluctant to give Obama a second term and instead vote for Romney who has business experience. Ineffective PresidentMuch of Obama's liberal agenda (cap and trade, tax increases on the rich,etc. ) was proposed, but failed to pass. This disappointed voters on the left while alienating voters on the right. ObamacareObamacare, Obama's most famous legislative accomplishment is currently very unpopular. Many voters may not support him. It will be worse if the Supreme Court rules it as unconstitutional. He is OlderThe eloquence and novelty that gave Obama his win in 2008 has been largely sapped by time. . http://www.elephantwatcher.com...
Guaranteed Minimum Income

Full resolution: The United States should begin conversion of the existing welfare structure into aguaranteed minimum income.Right now, I've made this debate impossible to accept. If you're interested, comment or PM me.Some definitions: A guaranteed minimum income is a mechanism to ensure that every citizen has enough income to live on.The existing welfare structure in the United States consists of various programs, CATO identifying at least 126[1]. It is not my burden to argue that *all* of these must immediately vanish, but rather than the transition to a guaranteed minimum income should begin.The first round is for acceptance. No new arguments in the last round.1. http://www.cato.org...
The Death Penalty is not humane.

The death penalty is a wrong and barbaric punishment. This is a new era! Not the era for public murders like the times of the kingdoms! The death penalty violates the eighth amendment section titled "Cruel and Unusual". It states that no cruel or unusual punishment shall be given out. The death penalty is obviously violating the eighth amendment. To make it easy to understand, let me put it in another way. Imagine that you did something so horrific; for instance you burned a family or something. Would you want to be sentenced to death? I wouldn't! Criminals who are sentenced to death are human beings. NOT monsters or animals. What I mean by that is that the death penalty has many choices of how to die. There is the firing squad, lethal injection, hanging, electric chair, deprivation of oxygen from your lungs, and many other possibilities that may have not surfaced yet. The state also lets a small crowd watch the killing of the murder. Are we time traveling back in time?! No! Not yet! We as the world need to progress and learn from our mistakes. We need to treat each other like humans and not like crazy animals! One thing I really think is horrible is that sometimes the accused criminal is killed but they are proven innocent after they were killed. That sickens me to the max! The accused criminals that are proven innocent before they are killed get released. Between 2003 and 2012, 42 people have been proven innocent in court and in the execution room. Can't you see that the state(s) are accusing 100% innocent people? I know the state doesn't do it on purpose but come on, give the investigation crew and defendant's lawyer/ accountant more time! Therefore, I'm saying this. Just lock the criminal up. They will suffer anyways once they die. It's more humane to lock them away forever than killing them in front of crowds. We are human beings; not crazed animals.
The Death Penalty is not humane.

Ok yeah, now I'm done. I was just being a bit too competitive. I usually am not like this, so if I was thought of as cruel, then I am immensely sorry for what I have done. Davee has given all criteria for the question, and I can no longer ask anything else. Vote for this man, please. He deserves it. Though, I will say one thing: You seem to be a bit too empathetic, but I guess inhumane does have to do with empathy. Nonetheless, you win, good sir. Well done.
The Death Penalty is not humane.

First off, innocence and death penalties both relate. The USA gives death penalties to innocent people. Too many people want to see the convicted person dead. And the USA allows the criminals family, the victim's family, and other law enforcement people watch the execution. As I said before, nobody deserves to die. Not even if they did the most horrific crime imaginable. Think about it. If you committed a horrible crime, would you want to killed? Now, if you didn't commit this crime and you still killed, how would you feel?
The Death Penalty is not humane.

I'm not giving up just yet. I was just too lazy to see what you had written. That, and there's other debates that don't interest me. Regardless of which, allow me to state my point of view. First off, you seem to be going off-topic. First you talk about how we are not animals, but human beings. Then you were talking about how innocent people are being executed. Innocence and death penalties don't relate. Now allow me to get to the core points. Allow yourself to think a crime that is worse than no other. This could range from a bank robbery to a serial killing. The criminal is, from that point, in court. You lose the lawsuit, and your sentenced to a death penalty. However much later, you get executed. As horrible as this sounds, it is simply not inhumane. Think about what goes on in the judges head when it is time for a sentence. He or she probably is thinking that this criminal should deserve the worst sentence (assuming that the committed the "worst crime"). Plenty of thought goes into his or her head, and as they would feel awful to do it, they would think that it would be best to kill them while they are in prison. It's not like the judge is heartless. That person knows what will happen for the rest of his life. Now why would it be considered inhumane? Think about it. What is the difference between a life sentence and a death sentence. Well, with the first option, the criminal will die on its own, and as for the second option, the criminal is executed. You can see that there is not much of a difference between the two. You even think of it that way yourself from your Round One argument. "Just lock the criminal up. They will suffer anyways once they die." Also, you seem to be touching the basis that the "execution" portion of the death sentence is "humiliating". Unless if he or she is an infamous prisoner, there is no point of the humiliation. Who's going to watch? Police officers? Other prisoners? You seem to be over-exaggerating the issue a bit. Now am I saying that the death penalty is humane? No. Maybe some changes could be occurred in the court and imprisonment department of government, but it is most definitely not inhumane.
hell is to much heaven

wrong religion is not an item, you can never have it in your hand.. you can believe in movies without followers religion dosnt exist, religion is a position on an imaginary claim that denis reality god is illogical, imaginary, you have no truth to tell about god like you do rocks islam is a disgusting dead heard of walking corpses, specifikally the most distgusting life sucking piece of death soiling the earth where ever it goes as far as i know, anything to the contrary of life itself your insanity is clear.. we are talking about heaven and hell, and you are just jammering on you retarded clown
hell is to much heaven

You went on a different trajectory so I had done the same. My apologies. But Religion is not illogical. Rather I would argue that it is an item. A tool in simplified terms. You say that religion is illogical. Because most religious people when observations about the Universe is made the people of Religion quickly claim that God did it. But as Atheists with no Religion what so ever endeavor to see the Methods of it.It's not Religion that is Illogical but its followers. Because that goes for Atheists when they study the Actualization of the studied material must come to the deduction that God did it but they do not. And when Religious people realize how a creator willed it into being they should come to terms to how and the parameters of it. But that doesn't happen usually? Right? People often ask. But mainly the Atheists. Why does God put someone in Hell for eternity for living for only 50,60,70 years? The Scholars say that if a person was to live a life of sin. Then if the person was to live forever then that person would do exactly that. And that is true of obedience. That is the Wisdom of God Almighty. This life is a test. And with all the beauties. Of Women of Architecture of the Plants the Flowers the Animals the Sky and the Earth. On the Day of Judgement a man will be brought in front of Allah. And he lived the most pleasant and luxurious life. But he died disbelieving in God. And so God will dip him into the Fire of Hell for only a moment. And then question him. Did you experience any Good in the life you had? He would reply back. By you I experienced nothing.
NTIC en educación secundaria

Ya son muchos technologï¿½as en educacï¿½on secundaria. Muchos distritos de escuela son muy endeudado. Y los nuevas technologias no son especificado. No es una buena idea a pagar dinero por un idea que no es especificado, especialmente si muchos escuelas son financiado por impuestos, porque impuestos son latrocinios. There are already many technologies in secondary education, and many school districts are in debt. The "new technologies" are not specific, and it is not a good idea to pay many for something that is not specific, especially if many of the schools in question are funded by taxes, because taxes are theft.
should children be allowed to vote

I am josh i am 12 years old and i say children should be allowed to run for president of course with some restrictions(age/IQ ect.) Most people would ridicule me for this but look at these past elections donald trump:whines bursts out, doesn't think of consequences hillary clinton: did something stupid because it was "convenient"(almost caused deaths) "slam talks" other opponents gains respect for having popular friends those are all childish attitudes and these are our front runners and some children are much smarter than these people. we are people to. There have been many young leaders in history and none have been terrible. This also may teach children to be more successful and mature kids repeat what they see especially if they are close in age and what do we give them as examples "damn daniel" we need to show kids to work hard
Songwriting Competition

My song was such a stroke of pure genius, it literally gave you a stroke and now you cannot recognize a masterpiece and that image that should appear in your brain's perception areas have now been replaced with something along the lines of "this peice of crap has forfeited the round. What a loser" I submit to you and everyone else also, for you see, everyone has also had the same exact stroke -- that I have written a piece of pure melodic majesty, and is not to be devoted the slightest. Vote for me because... well, you had a stroke.
Songwriting Competition

Chords: Intro: Cadd9 Gmajor Em7 Dsus4 (x2) Verse: Gmajor Cadd9 Em7 Dsus4 Chorus: Cadd9 Gmajor Em7 Dsus4 Interlude: Cadd9 Gmajor Em7 Dsus4 Bridge: Em7 Gmajor Dsus4 Cadd9
Songwriting Competition

Verse 1: I used to feel so alone, I felt like life could push me away from now. But since you came you turned it all around, And all I know "" is that. Chorus: When you came into my life, I felt a change I never felt before. I"ll leave the past behind me, Cause I know "" you"re here with me. Interlude: Cadd9 Gmajor Em7 Dsus4 (x2) Verse 2: I used to doubt myself day by day, Now look at me everything has changed. What happened then will never be now, Cause all I know is that... Chorus: When you came into my life, I felt a change I never felt before. I"ll leave the past behind me, Cause I know "" you"re here with me. Interlude: Cadd9 Gmajor Em7 Dsus4 (x2) Bridge: Leave the past behind, Cause there"s nothing there for me. All I need is you, So don"t ever leave my side. Chorus: Cadd9 Gmajor Em7 Dsus4 (one downward strum for the whole chorus) When you came into my life, I felt a change I never felt before. I"ll leave the past behind me, Cause I know "" you"re here with me. Chorus: When you came into my life, I felt a change I never felt before. I"ll leave the past behind me, Cause I know "" you"re here with me End: Cadd9 Gmajor Em7 Dsus4 ------------------------------------------------------------- The chords included were to just pin point the interludes and how the strumming pattern works. The strumming pattern for the song is: Verse & Chorus & Interlude: v v ^^^ Bridge: v v v v
Resolved: Theism is logical

Tournament Challenge, (Pro) That1User vs. BDPershing (Con) Resolved: Theism is logical Round 1. Acceptance only Round 2. Opening arguments Round 3. Counter arguments Round 4. Closing arguments & Conclusions Debate topic, Resolved: Theism is logical Theism: : "belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world: -Merriam Webster logical: : "agreeing with the rules of logic : sensible or reasonable of or relating to the formal processes used in thinking and reasoning" -Merriam Webster Note, this debate is about whether the belief of a god or gods is logical, we are not debating whether a god or gods exist. It is also preferable to keep this argument relevant in the Modern Age. BoP lies with the defender of theism.
minium wages should be illegal

You claim that minimum wage is holding workers back???...well clearly you dont kno the point of minimum wage or the situation...Now i dont like minimum wage...really what it does is defy the capitalist (our economy) purpose...i believe that a job should have a wage for what evr that job is worth...if a paper route is worth a dollar an hour then i believe that the paperboy or girl shouyld be paid a dollar for there work...BUT...BUT...BUT...I understand that minimum wage helps workers in the exact opposite way in which you discribe it in your first round...You claim that it prevents them of getting raises and it should be abolished...If it weren't for minimum wage then those employers would be paying the hard workers even less...if you got your way then those hard workers would make even less then what they already make...leading to poverty and famine...O.K....So if you were to make it illegal it would have the opposite effect from what you think...