BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Come up with smart answers.

G is seventh out of twenty-six letters in the English language"s alphabet. If you are asking about the definition of "G" from the Latin alphabet then it would be the seventh out of twenty-five letters because the Latin alphabet does not contain the letter "W." If you are wanting to see the Majuscule form of the letter "G" it would be "G" but if you would like to see the Minuscule form of "G" it would be "g." Typographic variants include a double-story and single-story "G" the double-story "G" happens to look like "g" and the single story "G" looks like "g." Because of the letter "G" we have over 5,722 words that start with "G" alone. Because of the letter "G" the possibilities in speech are endless.
Come up with smart answers.

Well, there are many characteristics that Larry might had that Benny didn't have that caused Kay-Anne to kiss Larry instead of Benny. Larry could have bribed Kay-Anne into kissing him. He could also have the higher intelligence and convinced Kay-Anne that she should kiss him. Another option would be that Larry used force to force Kay-Anne to kiss him by grabbing her and pulling her towards him. Also, Kay-Anne can also be more attracted to ugly guys and, therefore, kissed Larry. Another reason is that Kay-Anne lost a bet and had to kiss Larry. The reasons are endless. 2. What is g?
Come up with smart answers.

To correlate the relation with swag and cool, I will define both words first. -The real definition of swag: a swaying or lurching movement -The real definition of cool: moderately cold; neither warm nor cold -The slang definition of swag (in my own words): the quality/characteristic that defines a person's level of awesomeness, coolness, etc. -The slang definition of cool (in my own words): used to describe an person, place, thing, idea, etc. as awesome or swag Therefore, in terms of reality, swag is not a cool word. But today, since the definitions of these two words has been added onto, I would say, in my professional opinion that swag is a cool word. They are both synonymous to the words awesome. Putting it in math terms: For example, let's say that swag=a, cool=b, and awesome=c. Using the basic fundamental theorems of math which is that if a=c and b=c, then a=b. Therefore, I use this equation and substitute it with the given that swag=a, cool=b, and awesome=c; therefore, since swag=awesome and cool=awesome, then swag=cool; thus, it is proven that swag is a cool word. http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... And for the final question of this debate: What... is my real name? I look forward to my opponent's answer to this question and I hope that it is a good one. This was a fun debate. I thank my opponent for agreeing to do this debate with me. We both made some pretty ingenious answers.
Come up with smart answers.

It depends on your definition of good, if you mean tasty, it depends. If you mean healthy, it also depends. Today I"d like to tell you why both of those answers are "it depends." Now most people will say, "You should never feed your children hot dogs because you never know what"s in them, but that is untrue. If you buy a $5.00 container of hot dogs that are kosher, you will only find kosher meat in them. But if you buy a $0.98 package of a dozen hot dogs from the gas station that are labeled "YUMMY," you can be pretty confident that they are not healthy for your offspring. It is okay to feed your children hot dogs, but like all other foods you need a balanced diet and lots of moderation. Today people are twisting the facts to make things seem worse than they are. Take for example a McDonalds Happy Meal. The cheeseburger, fries and soda has about 800 calories. That"s a lot. But, children that are growing up, are burning a lot more than that every day. Is swag a cool word?
Come up with smart answers.

First of all, nice catch; I thought you wouldn't pick that up. 2. If you can lead a horse to water, must your pencils always be led? My pencils don't always need to be led. They can be led, but they don't always have to be. I can lead my pencils to a pencil sharpener, or any other location that my pencils can be led to. One of the ingredients to my pencils are lead, and I can lead my pencils if I wanted to; therefore, I don't always have to lead my pencil. Also, led is the past tense verb of lead. 3.Do you untie your shoes when you take them off? I do not untie my shoes when I take them off. 4. Are hot dogs good?
Being Vegetarian is the healthiest way to live.

Most vegetarians fall into the lacto-ovo category: They eat only non-animal products (fruits, veggies, grains, nuts, soy, etc.), but do eat animal byproducts, such as yogurt and eggs. In terms of nutritional requirements, being a lacto-ovo vegetarian isn"t all that different from being a meat-eater. But it provides all the nutrients without killing animals. That said, following a vegetarian diet "can be nutritionally superior to any other way of eating. It can be one of the healthiest ways to eat, because we know plant foods are loaded with nutrients to protect our health According to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, an evidence-based review showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of death from ischemic heart disease. Vegetarians appear to have lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure and lower rates of hypertension and type 2 diabetes than meat eaters. Vegetarians also tend to have a lower body mass index, lower overall cancer rates and lower risk of chronic disease.
males buy condoms more than females

Your arguments are invalid. Thinking about it as buying a condom for a child to not get pregnant or have kids is a good thing but are you in the room, putting it on, making sure they use it? So how do you know they use it? The condom buying is often embarrassing for many people male or female. Buying the condom shouldn't be about gender but it should be conversed between the two people that are about to have coitus. This ensures that at least the topic at hand is being acknowledged to where someone is at least going to have condoms. How often do you go around thinking about I need a condom, I'm sexually aroused. Not often. Buying and use of protection is very good, but putting it down to what gender should do it is basically like saying only woman should cook in the household or clean in the household. Buying condoms does not make you feel more of a man. Whoever wants the protection for themselves should buy it themselves and not expect the other mate to do so. If you did, the woman might assume the man had one and didn't get any herself which would defeat the whole purpose of this. Not every man cares about protecting himself. My father was Pro-life as he always said he would never get a vasectomy or wear a condom. He didn't have children at a very young age as a result. He was a adult when he did just getting out of his 3 years within the army. Anyways the only 100% proof way of any of this is abstinence.
males buy condoms more than females

Being a male, you're suppose to have condoms anyhow. It's like a natural stage for when a boy becomes a certain age for the parents, mainly the dad, to buy a box of condoms for their son. Every parent is entitled to buy at least two boxes of condoms for their kid. You know once your baby boy starts to grow and hits puberty that he is going to think he's a man and want to explore more option. At a certain age, boy's stop thinking that girls have "cooties" and decides to explore girls more. If you do not want to be a grandparent at an early age, you going to buy your kids condoms. Parents may buy their daughters condoms too for protection and prevention but mainly the guys are the confident ones who are willing to go ahead and try new things; leaving the girls timid/shy and willing to wait patiently unlike the average male who tends to have a bit more hormones than girls
Why there is no god

I will address my opponent's claims in this round and defend my argument as needed. Pro states, "While my opponent states that his argument is not of the god-of-the-gaps nature, it in fact is." To this I simply ask, where is the "gap?" Pro goes on to claim, ". . .it is merely a lesson in genetics which avoids explaining the random process of natural selection. . ." Unfortunately my opponent fails to understand the limitations of natural selection. He attributes the creative power to produce complex, sentient life to a mere culling process of nature which not only is unable to give rise to novel genes, but in fact eliminates genes from a gene pool. This "selection" process is dependent upon pre-existing genetic information and is entirely impotent in regards to formulating new, specified genetic code. Natural selection is not a creative force by any means. To support the idea that random natural processes have given rise to living organisms, Pro cites Hawking stating, "due to the effects of quantum mechanics, that black holes create and emit particles. . .caused the formation of the most basic forms of life found on Earth." This unsubstantiated claim in no way tells us how this happened. It is like an "evolution-of-the-gaps" theory: black holes emit particles which are similar to what the early universe may have consisted of and these particles coalesced due to gravitational forces to create molecules which got together under the right conditions on a solar planet and formed the first living organism. This is equivalent to me saying God did the same thing using natural forces. Without evidence to support this claim, it cannot rebut my argument. At best this seems to be a "may-have-been-the-case" type of argument, whereas mine is an evidence-based "this-is-the-case" argument.Pro argues, ". . .the perfect, designed, process of genetic coding is essentially flawed, and not perfect, which dismisses the claim that genetic coding is intelligently designed." First of all, an imperfect design does not negate the fact that it was designed, though I would argue that God is a perfect designer but has allowed His creation to be subject to man and thus, with the advent of sin, has been marred. Mutations which are deleterious in nature and lead ultimately to the death and corruption of living organisms have been introduced as the penalty of sin. While this is a biblical answer, your question is philosophical in nature.Pro claims, "Gradual adaptation amongst the most rudimentary organism have led to the existence of sentient life." In what way has adaptation led to sentient life? Adaptation occurs when a physical trait or behavior due to inherited characteristics gives an organism the ability to survive in a given environment. What mechanism provides the means for the induction of novel genetic information which could lead to sentient life?My opponent has thus far not supported his case and has certainly not refuted mine. On to Pro...Referenceshttp://www.icr.org... https://answersingenesis.org...
Why there is no god

There is no "god" or sets of "gods". This is a man-made concept that has withstood the test of time. I am willing to debate with anyone and am looking for a challenger to prove to me that god exists. The pre-disposition for many is that there must be a god because all of this wouldn't exist without one. This is where I leave an expert in the field Stephen Hawking to explain the self-designing universe, which in a nutshell, dictates that gravity created the universe. This can be thought of as the first cause. The notion that we are intelligently designed is also false. ID( intelligent design) is a sophisticated word for the unintelligible belief in creationism, in that god created the heavens and Earth. This preposterous assumption can be dismissed by Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species as well as several arguments throughout the books that Mr. Richard Dawkins has written through the years ( I will go into detail further if needed). As with the other flaws that religion dangles in our faces, it has managed very well to avoid the problem of evil. Ask yourself this: how is it possible for evil to exist in a universe permeated by an all knowing, all powerful, always present overlord? It is quite impossible. The monotheistic god cannot exist within a universe filled with evil and imperfection, unless god himself was evil. This is a very brief summary of my opening statement. I consider myself an atheist and am trying to find another intelligent person to debate me on this issue and to actually prove that god does in fact, exist.
The United States should adopt a publicly funded health care system

When I said bankrupt earlier that was wrong, but what is true that is $1,233 for the ER or $800 for an abortion is too expensive. You see in Canadian they universal health care and yes people can abuse the system but EVERY health care plan can be abused. Also, it is a right of a citizen to life. Why is because life means the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual. Let me point out a word here PHYSICAL. PHYSICAL means relating to the body. To keep good PHYSICAL health you need to HAVE healthcare. So to sum up you need health care to take care of your physical body, which is a part of life. But with the high prices of medical treatments, many Americans can't afford it. So with no money, you can't keep your body in good health, which is a part of life. Also, Americans don't what universal health care because of the miss information going around about it. I believe that if everyone knew what really would happen then more people would want it. Thank you for your points before this has been an interesting debate. I have learned a lot about debating tips since I'm only in 7th grade
The United States should adopt a publicly funded health care system

My original definition of basic human rights are more than what constitution the constitution claims as unalienable things. Whether you have health care or not, you still have a life. Health care will prolong your life. No where in the constitution does it say it is the governments job to prolong your life, just to have one. By the way, I know what taxes are, I know that schools, roads, and general maintenance are all from taxes. But those are entirely different concepts. They are things that the large majority of people agree to pay for. In health care more than 50% of the US does not think they should pay for it. And for the record I agree with paying taxes for those other things you mentioned. Do you have any idea what it costs for a doctors visit. One visit will not make you bankrupt. If you have health insurance the costs are much lower. Your "proof"" that people do not abuse the system is completely invalid. I have known some Canadians that see people abusing the system all the time.
The United States should adopt a publicly funded health care system

My first reason is that it is a basic human right and an American right. In the Declaration of Independence, it says life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights. This means that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are given to all humans. It says LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which means medicine should be provided to all. Also, you said that you should not have to pay for someone else abortion. My response to that is what do you think taxes are? Since you seem not to know I'll tell you. You see taxes are when you pay the government and they use these things for public schools, roads, and general maintenance. This means OTHER PEOPLE use things your tax dollars make. So are you going to not pay taxes anymore? Next, you send that it will be a long wait time. Will yes that is true I think that a long wait time is better than being bankrupt after one visit, or not even getting a doctor. Also, you said how people would "abuse" the system. This is not true because it DOES NOT HAPPEN.
The United States should adopt a publicly funded health care system

Some may argue that in the US health care costs are extremely inflated causing a substantial loss of money for the lower-class. I am personally against that for many reasons. You only have two rounds in this debate so you should use your arguments wisely. My first reason is why should other people have to pay for something that they will not be receiving directly. I am not personally responsible for other peoples health. The government is not responsible for giving their citizens health care. This is simply because health care is NOT a basic human right. As a citizen of the United States your basic human rights are food, water, freedom, and access to a basic education. If you are a strong pro-life supporter, it is simply not right to be forced to pay for someone else's abortion. Publicly funded health care is forcing people to pay something that is not a basic human right which is practically communism. My second argument is the terrible wait times from publicly funded health care. People in Canada have been known to have waited 10+ hours in the emergency room for a doctor. This is a strongly inefficient process. In my area and most other areas in the US I only have to wait 10 minutes in the emergency room to see a doctor. This is largely because some people would abuse health care being publicly funded and go every time they have a cold. Having health care cost more money forces people to only go to the emergency room when they absolutely need it. Not only the emergency rooms but peoples regular doctors offices can get very busy when people are abusing the system. I will give my next points in my second argument. Good luck to the challenger.
Atheism is a lie.

You have accepted the con argument yet claimed pro so I'll be taking the opposite of your opinion which is: Atheism is not a lie. Please bear in mind this is not the pro status, I do not believe Atheism is a lie, however for the sake of this odd format I'll be making my case in the pro section. Atheism is by definition a lack of belief in a deity. It makes this assumption on the fact that no scientific evidence has yet been presented that 'proves' the existence of a deity, and so as a scientist, the logical conclusion is to not believe in the claim. This is the same with all claims that are not based on evidence: the flying spaghetti monster is a favourite in the Atheist community, which proposes that an invisible, undetectable, flying spaghetti monster is in fact living among us without our knowledge. There is no evidence for this claim, and so generally people don't believe it is there. There is a minute probability that it does exist, as there is a minute probability for the existence of any made up idea, however even claiming you don't know is useless as it helps no one to belief in anything and everything. If for example a man bursts into an engineer's lab saying: 'This law of physics upon which you base all of your equations is wrong!' and upon questioning has no evidence for the claim he has made, it does not suit the engineer to put down his pencil and stop his work in the event the crazed man was correct. Atheists use this logic when claiming that no God exists, as it is not helpful to genuinely contemplate every idea that pops into someone's head just in case that idea turns out true. Being an Atheist is simply hedging your bets with the most (by an extremely long way) likely argument which is that there is no God. Being an Atheist does not mean that you KNOW there is no God, but merely that the likelihood is so very small that such a belief is utterly useless. In science, it is generally accepted when you say 'this ball will fall to the floor' as gravity dictates as such. This is indeed claiming you 'know' it will fall to the floor, even though there is a tiny possibility the laws of physics will change and so the ball never does fall. The same for the reverse, saying 'the ball will not move upwards when dropped' is based on evidence and method, even though a claim without evidence may imply the ball will indeed move upwards. Logic would dictate we believe in things when we have evidence, and so the opposite would be we don't believe things until we have evidence hence 'a lack of belief in a deity'.
Atheism is a lie.

chipmonk Pro chipmonk Pro I have yet to recieve a satisfactory rebuttle to this argument. Hopefully, this time around , my opponent will not use critical fallacies one after another in place of his argument. If you do not know what a "fallacy" is, please do not accept this debate. There are no rules in logical debates. The only rule is that you be logical. If you are illogical , or only want to discuss things based on a matter of your own opinion, please do not accept this debate. I present 3 constructs, in which i argue each is a logical truth on its own.. As well as my final conclusion being deduced from the combination of all three constructs. You can attempt to refute any part of my construct, definitions or logic. Just please do so logically. My resolution is "Atheism is a lie." Below is my logical argument supporting my resolution. Theism. Belief in God Atheism. Disbelief in God. A LIE. Deception. Pretending. Acting. Hypocrisy. To decieve another or give another a false or inaccurate depiction of the truth. Belief...assumption of truth with or without evidence Disbelief assumption of falsehood due to a lack or contradictory evidence. Faith. An assertive Belief without valid evidence. Knowing. An assertive belief with valid evidence. Construct 1 Premise1 : no one can know if God exists of not. Premise2: to claim to know is to have valid evidence Conclusion: whoever claims to know if God exists or not, is a liar. Construct 2 Premise 1: Believers claim they have faith God exists. Premise 2: to have faith is a belief without valid evidence (see defintions) Conclusion: Believers do not claim to "know" if God exists. Construct 3 Premise 1: Atheists claim they disbelieve God exists. Premise 2: disbelief or rejection of a claim is based on a lack of valid evidence and an abundance of contradictory evidence. (See definitions) Conclusion: Atheists claim to "know" if God exists. Final Conclusion.: Atheism is a lie by definition and logic. Rules. If u do not know how logic works. You lose. If you do not like my definitions, you may propose an alternate definition. However, Both parties must concede to all definitions for any claim to be evaluated at all. If con is unable to find an agreeable ground for each definition cited, there is no point in talking to each other as we are not even talking the same language. Logic. Basically, Con and Pro must agree on definitions before making any argument for or against. Any arguments ensued without agreeing on definitions is rendered moot. Report this Argument as flawless.
Hillary Clinton is the Sara Palin of the Democratic Party.

Closing argument, I really liked the closing Hebrew! Same to ya with a big smile. Witch bitch Clinton my soul utterly abhors and detests as a evil human being. Something approaching the Nazi SS in utter loathing and contempt. The slut did not reach crimes against humanity on that degraded scale. But then neither did the war criminal Bush Cheney and Rumsfeld. Bad leadership merits that people despise scoundrels. Ms Palin never sat in office in the Federal Government. Had idiot McCain beaten the Shoe Shine Boy in the White House, She would have become VP. We know that Obozo did not die in Office and that McShame remains alive to this day. Therefore Ms Palin, Had McShame not run for re election in 2012 would have had to defeat a known loser in Romney to win the GOP status as head of the Party. I do not know if she would have developed the political clout to lead the GOP. If it came to a Head to Head run Ms Palin vs the witch bitch Hillery. . . Hands down i would support the candidacy of Ms. Palin.
Hillary Clinton is the Sara Palin of the Democratic Party.

In closing. The Hillary Clinton experiment has proven to be a faux. Time to move on. I made the comparison of Hillary with Sara to maintain the readers in the familiar territory of Politics. Those who agree the Witch should take a back seat vote for me. Those of you who want her name plastered in your Cereal boxes and mentioned in every news headline from now till the year 3000. Vote for the kid he'll probably still be around then. . . להתראות בשמחות