BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
are tomatoes fruits(pro) or a vegetable (con)

What made your arguments "meaningless" and "not a valid argument" was because they in no way applied to "are tomatoes fruits(pro) or a vegetable (con)," or any of my arguments. I fully understand your posts. What Grover Cleveland said does not prove that the Supreme Court's Ruling about tomatoes would be upheld today, and it certainly does not disprove any of my arguments. Plessy V Ferguson and Brown V Board were examples proving that the Supreme Court is not always right, and can change its rulings at any time, nothing more. Again, I presented these cases just to prove that the Supreme is not always right, and that their rulings can change at any time. Likewise, if the case you mentioned was brought back to the Supreme Court, the rulings would change. The ruling of the case were based upon the idea that tomatoes are a vegetable because most people in 1893 called them a vegetable. As of today, Webster dictionary explicitly defines a tomato as a fruit (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). This means that common speech has changed, and hence the logic behind the ruling has no basis. Even if the Supreme Court never overruled Nix v Hedden, the case itself would soon be overruled if it was presented again to the court. Yes, the ruling still applies: a tomato is legally defined as a vegetable. But if this definition were to be enforced, and brought back to the Supreme Court, the ruling would change. So, even if the courts technically consider a tomato a vegetable, any further ruling today would change that precedent. More so, our argument is: "are tomatoes fruits(pro) or a vegetable (con)" This never specifies in America or in any place particularly. Because of this, it is implied that this applies to the world, not just America. Furthermore, a decision made by the Supreme Court only determines if a tomato is legally a vegetable in America, not the entire world. In Round two, you admitted that a tomato is a technically a fruit: "Since a tomato protects and contains the seeds of its host plant, the juicy sphere is technically a fruit." Again, providing a Supreme Court case only can prove that a tomato is legally considered a vegetable in America; This does not change that it still is 'technically a fruit' in the rest of the world. --------- Anything else you mentioned (fact 1... fact 2...) is and was irrelevant. I still stand by the argument I presented in Round 3. --------- Sources: http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu... http://www.law.cornell.edu... http://www.law.cornell.edu... http://www.businessinsider.com... http://biology.uco.edu...
are tomatoes fruits(pro) or a vegetable (con)

Okay im gonna guess two things: you didn't read what i said or you just didn't read what i said. my argument in round three is a response to your argument in round 2 with your racial case. This is also irrelevant to the main point that the court never disagreed that the tomatoes are vegetables. and just saying "meaningless" and "not a valid argument" is no more of a rebuttal than "because its against you." Reread all of my posts and understand them IF it will help you for your next post.
are tomatoes fruits(pro) or a vegetable (con)

Most of your arguments are irrelevant. Stay on topic next time. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Round 2 you said: "Since a tomato protects and contains the seeds of its host plant, the juicy sphere is technically a fruit." My point: A case in 1893 decided based on what people thought in 1893 has no basis today. 1. You said: of course you not gonna consider this case reliable cause its against you. --> Still not refuted. That's all. You provided no rebuttals at all. Tomatoes are technically a fruit. The Supreme Court Case you provided has an outdated ruling, and was ENTIRELY BASED upon that PEOPLE IN 1893 CONSIDERED it a vegetable. The case has no basis today, because a tomato would no longer be considered a vegetable under common speech. Today, Webster dictionary currently defines a tomato as a fruit: http://www.merriam-webster.com.... Completely Irrelevant: Fact 1: Irrelevant, this is about tomatoes. You also agreed that a tomato is technically a fruit. And still, this new argument does nothing to refute that. Fact 2: Meaningless. Not a valid argument. Fact 3: Meaningless. A vegetable does have a botanical meaning (http://biology.uco.edu...). More so, people can substitute 1 cup Honey for 1 cup of molasses, but neither are the same. Likewise, even if tomatoes are sometimes cooked like vegetables, that still does not change that they are fruit.
are tomatoes fruits(pro) or a vegetable (con)

you cannot judge the supreme court by one bad case. that is like saying the Military is bad because they kill people (i dont think you need a source for that). but im not gonna go to far off topic ranting on about the military. And of course you not gonna consider this case reliable cause its against you. and the people in the supreme court serve for life (http://americanhistory.about.com...) but i dont think anyone who served in 1896 was alive in 1951. To add on to that, it was president Grover Cleveland who was president in 1896 and may i also add he was a democrat and a SLAVE OWNER and may i also add that the democrats where supporting slave owning back then. (http://www.thenewamerican.com...) and (http://wiki.answers.com...) now in 1951 while Harry S. Truman was also a democrat, he did support civil rights. Before he became president, Truman show demonstrated that he had some civil rights credentials. In his campaign to be re-elected senator for Missouri, he said the following in 1940: "I believe in brotherhood".of all men before the law".if any (one) class or race can be permanently set apart from, or pushed down below the rest in politics and civil rights, so may any other class or race""and we say farewell to the principles on which we count our safety"".The majority of our Negro people find but cold comfort in our shanties and tenements. Surely, as free men, they are entitled to something better than this." http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... Now to get back to my real point. *Fact one: It is true that botanically a tomato is a fruit. Everyone talks about this. But guess what: so are squash, green beans, bell peppers, and cucumbers. Are you still prepared to pretend you"re a botanist? *Fact two: To get even more specific, tomatoes are berries. You might also want to note that bananas, avocados, and chili peppers are also berries"and that, botanically, strawberries, blackberries, and raspberries? Not berries at all, my friend, but aggregate fruits. *Fact three: Check this out, Gregor Mendel: "vegetable" doesn"t even have much botanical meaning. It"s a culinary term and since the tomato isn"t sweet, it"s treated as a vegetable for cooking purposes. http://ekarj.com...
are tomatoes fruits(pro) or a vegetable (con)

'those guys know what their talking about?' I would not consider this case in any way reliable. The Supreme Court has overruled > 200 of their precedent cases. This Court case was in 1893. Tomatoes may have been considered a vegetable back then, but that in no way applies today. In 1896, the Supreme Court ruled in Plessy v Ferguson 'Separate But Equal' favoring racial segregation. But in 1951, the Supreme Court ruled in Brown V Board against racial segregation, with a 9-0 vote. What the Supreme Court has ruled in 1896 is in no way applicable or reliable, because since then the Supreme Court has overturned many of their rulings. In the case you provided it was ruled that tomatoes are a vegetable based off the logic that most people in 1896 thought they were: Tomatoes were considered a vegetable under common speech. If a case like this were to be reestablished today, a tomato would not be considered a vegetable because it is no longer considered a vegetable under common speech ( Webster currently defines a tomato as a fruit: http://www.merriam-webster.com...). Whether most people in 1893 considered a tomato a fruit or not has no impact on the definition. Common speech has changed. I still stand by the scientific definition I presented in Round 1. You also agree that a tomato is botanically a fruit, having wrote: 'Since a tomato protects and contains the seeds of its host plant, the juicy sphere is technically a fruit. Sources: http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.businessinsider.com... http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu... http://www.law.cornell.edu... http://www.law.cornell.edu...
are tomatoes fruits(pro) or a vegetable (con)

i thought we were bs-ing this argument but okay let me get my argument face on... itll take couple seconds...almost...sorry im still bs-ing... okay i have it on... (http://www.businessinsider.com...) Though technically ,what you would like to call this VEGE,"fruit", tomatoes fall under the category of "vegetable," according to the Supreme Court. and those guys know what their talking about The high court issued this 1893 tomato ruling in a case brought by members of the Nix family against Edward Hedden, collector at the Port of New York, to recover the fees they spent transporting tomatoes. you see this guy they call Nix, sued the court under the Tariff of 1883, which required taxes on imported vegetables... but not fruit. Botanically, any seed-bearing structure formed from an angiosperm's (a flowering plant's) ovary is a fruit. Since a tomato protects and contains the seeds of its host plant, the juicy sphere is technically a fruit. Some might be shocked to learn a zucchini is a fruit, too. General or culinary classifications, however, tend to differ from the botanical one. Most people would consider a tomato a vegetable. And the court essentially gave that reasoning in Nix v. Hedden: A tomato is a vegetable because people think it is. But that's all the boring stuff this is what i should be saying in the beginning Botanically speaking, tomatoes are the fruit of a vine, just as are cucumbers, squashes, beans, and peas. But in the common language of the people, whether sellers or consumers of provisions, all these are vegetables which are grown in kitchen gardens, and which, whether eaten cooked or raw, are, like potatoes, carrots, parsnips, turnips, beets, cauliflower, cabbage, celery, and lettuce, usually served at dinner in, with, or after the soup, fish, or meats which constitute the principal part of the repast, and not, like fruits generally, as dessert.
are tomatoes fruits(pro) or a vegetable (con)

Your arguments: -Vegetable because it has a stem -Green before it is ripe --------------------------------- (http://urbanext.illinois.edu... defines apples as fruit) Having a stem does not make a tomato a vegetable, if anything that should make it a fruit. Apples are commonly known fruit which also have stems. So, saying that because tomatoes have stems makes them a vegetable, is an invalid argument. (http://www.fruit.cornell.edu... defines currants as fruit) You also said that tomatoes are a vegetable because they are green before they are ripe. A fruit known as currants, also is green before it is ripe, and reddens later on, so again that contradicts your definition. Unless you can define tomatoes in a way that is not applicable to any fruit, then your reasoning and/or definition is invalid. (http://biology.uco.edu... ) defines different types of fruits: Dry fruits - pericarp* becomes dry and often hard at maturity Fleshy fruits - all or most of the pericarp* is soft and fleshy at maturity *layers of the fruit A tomato is soft and fleshy at maturity: It fits the criteria of a fleshy fruit, hence is a fruit.
the bible condones drinking alcohol for recreational purposes

con merely gave some specific examples where alcohol was forbidden. then con gave some verses that say not to drink too much, and that alcohol can be bad for you. notice, can be, not neessarily is. con just ignores the verses i gave that said alcohol can gladden the hearts of men, and things such as that. con also goes on a rant about all the bad health effects of alcohol, but that's mostly for alcohol abuse. same with the 'your body is a temple' stuff. con even admits a couple times taht alcohol can be good for you.
You surmise, I decide.

Resolution 1, "The Federal Government of the United States of America should not provide health insurance or free or reduced cost health care to the citizens of the United States." You are PRO, I am CON. I thank my opponent for accepting this debate and for allowing an extra round. Continuing to contentions: Contention 1: The purpose of government includes supplying a form of health care. The purposes of our government include (but are not limited to) protecting citizen's rights and ensuring their safety. Health care (obviously) helps to keep one safe and maintain their right to life as much as possible. Why have to waste all that money on surgery from an accident that threatened your life/safety, when these protections should come free [as possible]? Contention 2: Forcing some people to pay for health care while giving it away to others is unfair. EVERYONE has the rights listed in contention 1, so why make people pay for them if they can afford it? For instance, let's say Joe is living just under the poverty line and cannot afford health care because he works two low-pay jobs to pay for his apartment. So he gets it free. But Jim, on the other hand, is a middle-class newlywed. He lives in a townhouse, and works hard to support his wife and her expected child. Since he can afford health care, he must pay for it. But why should Jim have to pay for his health care when Joe gets it free? This is obviously unfair. Not only is the government neglecting Jim's rights to safety and life by providing them for Joe, but they are also overlooking the fact that Jim needs as much of his salary as he can get. That's all I will put for now. I await my opponent's contentions and rebuttals.
You surmise, I decide.

This sounds like a cool idea... and I'm game. The three resolutions that I propose are... 1. Resloved: The Federal Government of the United States of America should not provide health insurance or free or reduced cost health care to the citizens of the United States. I would argue PRO. 2. Resolved: The Federal Government of the United States of America should not make illegal the consumption, possesion, or liscensed selling of marijuana, nor make it prohibitively expensive with taxes, fees, or tariffs. I would again argue PRO. 3. Resolved: It is the right of every citizen of the United States of America to have the following needs provided for by the Federal Government: the right to be employed, the right to be insured, and the right to be housed. I would argue CON. I look forward to this debate, and I would like you to go first. In this way, we can debate in round 2. Just post which one you would like to debate, and include your first speech.
You surmise, I decide.

Contender R1: Propose at least 3 resolutions of varying subjects, and pick "PRO" or "CON" for each one. Instigator R2: Choose a resolution to debate. Contender R2: Choose first or second. If the contender goes first, he/she cannot post an argument in the final round. If the contender goes second, the debate will proceed as normal. Rounds 3-5: Debate!
The earth WAS created by God

I can not answer any of Pro's questions because, he did not structure this debate as (Pro believes God created the earth and Con believes the Earth was created by the Big Bang theory) this debate lacks any structure therefore; the BOP in this debate was on my opponent, and he has failed to prove anything. My opponent believes that because we can't explain the creation of the universe, God must have done it. Most people can't possibly fathom the immensity of the universe so to assume that there is a creator who conjured up the whole of it is preposterous. In any debate it is important to assert the facts. Facts are the basic support structure of any argument, and anybody with common sense would agree. So let's examine the facts; *The definition of FACT; an idea that is true because of circumstantial evidence to support it. My opponent says "I believe that God created the earth because it is the most reasonable answer to me" but he writes of no factual evidence to back up his claims. He would first have to "prove" the existence of God before he could prove God created the earth. He only acts on "Faith" Definition of FAITH; to believe in something without circumstantial evidence to support it. "We came from the dust of the ground according to the Holy Bible(created by the hand of God)" This is not based on fact, it is based on faith. No one can prove God spoke to Moses and told him what to write. With absolutely no factual evidence to back up his claim, and the BOP being the responsibility of Pro, and Pro basing his entire argument on a simple faithful assumption, Pro loses by default.
The earth WAS created by God

First, some questions for the opponent. If the earth and the universe and everything was created by a tiny particle, then where did that particle come from? If the solar system including the earth was the result of a solar nebula that collapsed from the formation of the sun, then where did the solar nebula come from? If at first the earth was a hot glowing ball of white hot gases, where did the hot glowing ball of white hot gases come from? All of the answers to those questions lead to one main idea, there was some being that had to have created those things. Therefore, God is the obvious answer. I believe that God created the earth because it is the most reasonable answer to me and many other people in this world. Since science can only prove what is observable, everything that deals with God can not be proved with science, however that also means that science can not disprove anything about God. Look around yourself when you are outside, no mere man or woman could have created all the beauties you see. (By beauties I mean the trees, the flowers, the animals, the plants, the grass, the insects. No mere man or woman could have possibly created all that stuff and more.) When I look at the beauties of the universe I see the handiwork of God. We came from the dust of the ground according to the Holy Bible(created by the hand of God), and thus when we die, we return to the dust of the ground.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound

Definitions:The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) can be stated as follows:P1: Everything that comes into existence has a cause. P2: The Universe came into existence. C: Therefore, the universe had a cause. Sound- Of or relating to an argument in which all the premises are true and the conclusion follows from the premises [1]. BoPAs my opponent stated, to fulfill my BoP, I must prove that the KCA is a sound argument. In other words I must do two things:1. Show that the conclusion follows from the premise (the argument is valid), and 2. Show that the premises are true. Once I have done this, my opponent must fulfill his own BoP by showing how the KCA is not a sound argument. Rules:Some additional rules I would like to add:1. Drops are concessions2. No new arguments in the last roundNow, let's get down to the KCA. Validity of the KCAIn order to analyze the validity of the KCA, let's look at an example of an argument that is valid. All A are B. C is an A. Therefore, C is a B. The KCA follows this form if we let T= things with a beginning, C= caused, and U= the Universe. All T are/were C. U is a T. Therefore, U was C. It is very easy to see that the KCA follows this logical form. Thus, the KCA is proven to be valid. Truth of the premises of the KCAPremise 1: Everything that comes into existence has a cause. In other words, something cannot come from nothing. The only way that my opponent would be able to prove that this premise is false, is by providing a counterexample. I can say that cars are always green. Of course we know this is not true. How do we know that this is not always true? Because cars of other colors exist. In the same way, if my opponent can show that there are times when there is no cause for something to come into existence, then the premise falls. Until then, it stands. Premise 2: The Universe came into existence. The current scientific evidence points to the Big Bang Theory as the start of the universe [2]. This means that the evidence shows that the Universe did, in fact, come into existence. Before our current scientific knowledge, it would be easy to say that the Universe was eternal, that it had no beginning. If the universe is eternal, then the KCA fails in the second premise. But since we know what we do about the scientific evidence that exists, it is virtually impossible to say that the Universe did not come into existence. Thus, the second premise is true. Conclusion: The Universe had a cause. Because I have shown that the conclusion logically follows the premises, and have shown the premises to be true, the KCA is sound. I look forward to my opponent's response and wish him luck in this debate. Sources:[1]- . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2]- . http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound

My opponent will assume the burden of proof by demonstrating that the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God is using valid logic, and that its premises are true. I will be rebutting my opponent's claims, and attacking the Kalam Cosmological Argument in anyway possible to undermine it. This first round will be used for my opponent's opening argument. In the last round, my opponent must not reply with any rebuttals or arguments, but with:"No argument will be posted here, as agreed"Failure to follow the rules, will result in an automatic forfiet.
Funnier Jokes Wins

A man wakes up on his birthday, goes downstairs, and sees his wife. He decides to see if she remembered and goes and gives her a kiss. She says good morning, but says nothing about his birthday. His kids give no remark about his birthday either. He gets in his car, disappointed, and heads off to work. There is heavy rain and a traffic jam, and he gets to work extremely late. When he gets to work, his boss yells at him and completely forgets his birthday as well. He is sent to his desk with paperwork that will take him hours to fill out. That's when a pretty girl that works next to him gives him a box of chocolates with a happy b-day card. He smiles and ends up chatting with the woman for a half an hour. She then asks him if he wants to come to her apartment for a birthday present. He smiles and agrees. When they get to the apartment, they have a couple glasses of wine, and talk about life for a couple hours. She then asks hi to excuse as he gets him a "birthday gift". She leaves for the bathroom, and five minutes later, she comes out with his family and co workers, and they all yell "Surprise!" to the man sitting naked on the couch.