BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Robert downey Jrs incarnation of Sherlock Holmes is the best incarnation of Sherlock Holmes yet

I just realized that in spite of the utmost care I have left several typing errors in my previous argument. I'll be trying to do better this time around. As for my opponent: I'm not quite sure I understand everything you typed, brief as it was, but I'll do my best to reply properly. You claim Robert Downey Jr.'s height doesn't matter. Yet you agree that height generally matters in movie adaptations like "Jack Reacher" and is addressed by giving actors the illusion of height. Hence, size does matter after all. And while you are right that this could have been resolved in the way you described for Tom Cruise, the filmmakers chose not to give Downey's Holmes this treatment. Judging from the title motive (see here: http://ia.media-imdb.com... ) one might be led to believe the topic had been addressed, but in the actual film, no measures whatsoever where taken to make Mr. Downey appear the proper height: http://whatculture.com... So while it would have been possible to give Mr. Downey the proper height and the filmmakers were aware of the problem, as evidenced by the title motive in which Mr. Downey was enlarged by Photoshop or comparable software, they chose not to do so in the film, making your argument invalid. As for your assumption that the height of the actor doesn't have anything "to do with what him being a good or bad incarnation of Holmes": would you care to explain? I think differently, and I took my time to argue that from a certain angle - that of faithfulness to the source material - size does indeed matter. Just stating that you disagree is not leading a debate, for which you explicitly asked. It is true that in "The Blue Carbuncle" Holmes did use his deductive methods to identify the owner of a hat. However, that hat is not "random", it is the first crucial clue that leads Holmes on the track of the criminals. There is nothing ridiculous about his findings, he just comes up with a very detailed description of appearance and personality of a man. I cannot follow your next sentences. I'm sorry you are "sighing" but I have no idea who "Goos" is. I believe what you wanted to tell me was "Good bye, I'm signing off for good." This would then mean I won this debate already? What a pity. Have a nice time, take care and goodbye.
Robert downey Jrs incarnation of Sherlock Holmes is the best incarnation of Sherlock Holmes yet

RDJ being shorter than Holmes in real life. Has nothing to do with what him being a good or bad incarnation of Holmes Tom Cruise is only 5 feet 7 inches yet they make him appear much taller on Mission Impossible Oblivion Jack Reacher ect. As for Holmes methods Sherlock Holmes in the Blue Carbuncle figured out who owned a random Hat and is SH and game of shadows he. Good bey I'm sighing off for Goos
Solarman1969 v.s vi_spex

Despite my opponent conceding, I will still post a scene. vi_spex v. s Solarman1969 debate: cause+effect=logic Round 1- vi_spex: cause+effect=logic now = matter can you read these words on the screen with your eyes closed? Solarman1969: VI_SPEX **** **** **** (Insert more offensive language) your argument is invalid. . the future and the past also matter. of course I can't read the words on the screen with my eyes closed you (************************) that's not the point! That is impossible and does not relate to the topic at all. (*********************************************) Round 2- vi_spex: please improve on your comprehension, as there is a total lack going on impossible=possible=logical Solarman1969: ********************************* Your arguments are invalid. impossible is not the same thing as possible. they are in contrast to each other, so they are very different you ********************** Round 3- vi_spex: i'm taking a stroll :] Solarman1969: What kind of *********** argument is that? You sir are **************. Verdict: Solarman1969 wins 3-0. S/G: Tie. Neither of the debaters have good grammar. Conduct: Tie. It could have gone to vi_spex for not being mean and rude, but since he basically forfeited, it's a tie. Arguments: Solarman1969. He actually used reasoning rather than just using nonsensical claims. Sources: Tie. Neither would use sources.
Solarman1969 v.s vi_spex

So I have several different points to make: 1) Solarman1969 uses reasoning and explains his arguments, while vi_spex refuses to do so. http://www.debate.org... Yes. Solarman1969 is very mean and rude, however, he will frequently explain his points and supports his arguments using his own reasoning and examples. This is why he is winning this debate. vi_spex on the other hand, only makes bare assertions about his claims. He also just makes up random nonsense as he debates his opponent. http://www.debate.org... If vi_spex were to debate Solarman1969, he would get destroyed due to his lack of reasoning and common sense. 2) vi_spex can get off topic sometimes. This would dearly cost him in this debate. http://www.debate.org... "i'm taking a stroll :]" is completely irrelevant, thus, he would lose because of this. I don't have to say much here, this is very self-explanatory. 3) His maximum performance in debating is still incredibly flimsy. http://www.debate.org... "please improve on your comprehension as there is a total lack going on" and asserting that "God can't change absolutes" is the closest he gets to being a professionally good debater. Even at his best, he still makes bare assertions and doesn't explain his points well, (warranted he does at all) which would cause him to lose this hypothetical debate.
Solarman1969 v.s vi_spex

This is a debate about analyzing who would win if Solarman1969 were to face against vi_spex in a debate today. Note: Solarman1969 hasn't been on here for 6 years in a row. Rules: No kritiks/semantics No getting angry Round 1-Acceptance Round 2-Arguments Round 3-Rebuttals Round 4-Scene played out (This will be interesting. We will pretend that they are debating each other, and based on my reasoning, I will attempt to create the situation that they would be in. You will see. Then, we come up with a conclusion for our verdict.) I think Solarman1969 would win.
multiply=combine sides

5+5*5+5=100 5+5=5*2 divide=share multiply=combine sides all math equations are triangles square or circles etc.. 1=circle 2=double 3=triangle 4=box because a sphere is 1 and it has only 1 side.. so 10 multiplied by 10 could be balls or spheres put togeather but a box is 4 balls put togeather.. so 1 can mean points that allow for something to exist any equation is 100 percent.. so to diviede an equation it must be equal.. which is to say it has a shape, wheather its a box or triangle or ball/sphere
multiply=combine sides

"a sphere has top and botm, its 1.." Spheres don't have a top and a bottom. A sphere is equal from any given point of view, so you can't tell what's bottom and what's top. Anyway, having a top and a bottom does not mean a sphere is one. "a=1=something=soda bottle in my hand"There's no explanation on this..."there are no other shapes then lines or curves, straight or bent, 1 or 0"Lines are not shapes, lines form shapes. "the sphere is also an example, it can be points that allows for 3 sides to exist.. so a triangle is 1+1+1=3 circles"I don't want to sound rude but this is none sense. Saying 1+1+1=3 circles implies that circles are lines or side. Like a triangle has 3 sides, then it has 3 circles. This is not true. A circle is not a side, a circle doesn't even have sides."you cant multiply with 0 and 1"Come on!! 0*1=0. However if what you mean is that if only zeros and ones existed we wouldn't be able to multiply, that's false too. In the binary system you can multiply. " see it as a ball has 1 side, you dont kick no sides of the ball"Again, a sphere has no sides but one surface. You kik the surface of the ball.I don't really get Pro's point here. He says in the title "multiply=combine sides" but he doesn't explain this claim. So far, he just posted some misleading math, full of errors.Hope to have a better explanation of Pro's point. Cheers!
multiply=combine sides

you are right i did it backawrds, but its not about the equation, its just an example a sphere has top and botm, its 1.. 2=1+1(double) a=1=something=soda bottle in my hand there are no other shapes then lines or curves, straight or bent, 1 or 0 the sphere is also an example, it can be points that allows for 3 sides to exist.. so a triangle is 1+1+1=3 circles you cant multiply with 0 and 1, its seams you might have over looked the headline i see it as a ball has 1 side, you dont kick no sides of the ball
multiply=combine sides

Pro's reasoning is kind of a mess. Let me clarify some things here."5+5*5+5=100"First line first error. 5 + 5 * 5 + 5 = 35 It's a matter of order. In that kind of calculation you first have to do the multiplication and then the addition. So you would multiply 5 times 5, that is 25 and then add up 5 plus 25 plus 5. That will give you 35, not 100."all math equations are triangles square or circles etc.."That's not true. Actually, if you had the opportunity (or burden hahah) of studying math you would know that most equations are lines, curves."1=circle2=double3=triangle4=box"This is wrong. A can't be 1. If with one you mean sides, a circle has no sides, just a surface, so a circle would be 0 instead of 1.Then, double is not a geometrical figure. "a sphere is 1 and it has only 1 side"Spheres are tridimensional bodies, so they don't have sides at all. They have edges. Anyway, a sphere don't have edges. Spheres are just a curve surface."but a box is 4 balls put togeather.. so 1 can mean points that allow for something to exist"I feel that there's a confusion going on here between values and shapes. Values don't have a shape, values are completely abstract. Points are dimensional things, but 1 is just a value. You can't mix things like that." to diviede an equation it must be equal"Well, an equation is always equal. If an equation is not equal, then it is not an equation but an inequation.An interesting way of looking at maths, but a wrong one.
Some video games are bad for kids

Yes. And out of all the places I've been, I've met a lot of kids who prefer the sports games. And most kids take alot of interest because most of them like the sports that they play on video games. And after they're done, they usually want to go outside and play some more. All we really need to do is step up the propoganda and make more sports games than we're getting. Than more people would become interested.
Some video games are bad for kids

You're right, kids do need to be more active, parents don't care, and most games are bad. But not all games are that way. Sure, there are games that give kids an imagination, but there are also games that help you exersise, and teach you important life skills. For instance: the tycoon games teach you how to run a business, strategy games teach you how to think quickly and make good decisions, while games on the kinect or wii help you exersise. With those you're moving some or all of your body, and now that they made wii fit portable, kids can play the game where every they go and not rot their brains out infront of the tv. Plus there's that one quiz game that tests you on your knowledge. Some people who play those might want to work on what they didn't know, and then try again for a better score.
Some video games are bad for kids

Millions of people spend hours on video games. That is cold stated fact known by all in this century. All in all is it beneficial for us in moving forward? Many people believe that video games are harmful to kids. Others may say it"s builds creativity in our mind. Although Video Games can be beneficial if appropriate .Video games helped me build a strong imaginary. It opens your mind to possibilty most positive but also negative. For instance Super Mario, amazing story line gives kids a super hero and a creative mind set were not all bad guys are not bad. Which is great and positive thing but not all kids play Super Mario or super hero games. Now as we go with increase technology more play video games it"s easy to get to. With increase technology and low amount of parents of watching what activity kids play in their games more filth can be in taken. Many kids can download "inappropriate" games without parents being verified.Due to all of this kids are playing wrongful games brought up by friends who let borrow games, downloaded games etc. Yes Kids are rotten kids minds as we go one. I"ve had experienced this effect even now playing video games as a 16 year old. I played a game where you put a chip in somebody"s phone and when you call them it blew their brains out. After I"ve seen that I freaked out for a lil bit knowing that can really happen in life. That was my reaction to it imagine a child"s response to that like your lil kid, or nephew they would be scared, terrified etc. In conclusion kids shouldn"t be playing so much video games. It helps but very little it mostly destroys the mind. By personal experience more kids have to be more active before the 40 or 60 not being able to run due to joint damage. All in all make our kids active today for a better much more active tomorrow
The trade embargo on Cuba is harmful

"Cuba has a thriving tobacco industry which we make a lot of money off of. Quote world cultures and geography text book"Seeing as how smoking bans in public places are on the rise, that cigars are horrendous to your health, and that only a fraction of Americans even smoke cigars (2%), it can be concluded that Cuba's cigar market would impact a very very small proportion of Americans that is shrinking year by year.http://www.webmd.com...http://www.webmd.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...On another note, Cuba isnt the only place in the world that manufactures cigars.... There are hundreds of cigar brands made in over a dozen countries in the world that already saturate the market, adding a handful of Cuban brands wont change anything. http://en.wikipedia.org...Its also worth noting that America isnt even the top cigarette consumer per capita, that title belongs to Greece. The United States ranks just 39th.....http://en.wikipedia.org...Long story short: Cuba isnt the only place that makes cigars, there are already a ton of cigar brands that exist to meet demand, the number of Americans who even smoke cigars is miniscule to begin with, smoking bans have drastically reduced how profitable tobacco companies can even be, the health risks associated with cigars will further drive people away from them and those that smoke cigars will likely become a burden on the economy in terms of healthcare costs, and pro drops all arguments relating to oil, military cooperation, and diplomatic support that Cuba would give the US.
The trade embargo on Cuba is harmful

I accept this debate and will argue that the trade embargo on Cuba overall has no effect at all on the US economy due to 1) Cuba's downtrodden economy as it is right now, has little to benefit the US2) Its lack of resources, 3) The likely animosity that the cuban government will still hold against the US if we lift the embargo4) The US is so massive, wealthy, and consumes so much that anything Cuba could 'offer' wouldnt put a dent in anything5) We might have to pour money into THEIR economy to fix it before we could even begin to benefit from it at all. ==========================================================================To counter the Pro's arguments"Cuba has Oil"According to Opec, the CIA world factbook, and oil companies themselves, Cuba only has 0.18 Billion barrels of oil reserves. To put that into perspective:Venezuela has 290 Billion in reserves,Saudi Arabia has 260 Billion,Iran has 175 Billion,Canada has 154 Billion,Iraq has 143 Billion,Kuwait has 111 Billion,Russia has around 77 BillionNigeria has about 37 BillionAnd even the US has around around 20 Billion. http://en.wikipedia.org...Cuba only has 0.18, which ranks just 62nd in the world. Cuba has a little bit of oil, but it is close to nothing compared to how much oil the US already gets from countries like Canada and Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, sine the US consumes so much oil, the oil that CUba has wouldnt even put a dent into gas prices if we lifted the embargo, and thats assuming they would even trade oil with us at all. They might keep it to themselves for all we know. On another note. If lets say there are a lot more oil reserves to be found offshore underground, we can safely assume that CUba would not have the technology or knowledge to prevent against a potential oil spill or rig explosion should one happen. Millions of barrels of oil pouring into the ocean and ending up contaminating Florida's beaches? Ill pass. "We also need support from other countries, even small ones like Cuba"Now im not sure if pro is referring to diplomatic support or militaristic support, but I can safely say that CUba wouldnt give us either of those, and heres why. Militaristically, Cuba has almost no military. Theyre military support would be close to useless in conflicts like Afghanistan or Iraq, in fact they would be useless even in Mediterranean affairs because their military is not only unfunded, but technologically ancient as well. In military affairs, Cuba's support wouldnt be worth a thing..... And I could even go further into explaining why they wouldnt even give us military support too. As for Diplomatic support, Cuba has no incentive to agree with the US over any international policy issue, and since they hate us I dont see why they would coordinate with us either. Seeing that the US has a history of trying to kill off their leaders, I can safely say that Cuba doesnt want anything to do with us. Thats all I can say for now, 3000 character limit
1+1 is not always 2

In your case, yes, rounding would be needed, but it is not exact. It is more of an estimation, not solid fact. 1 is just 1, no decimals after it. If there were decimals then the equation would be something like, "1.26+0.74=2," and would not be, "1+1=2," because in the equation you stated it is, "1+1=2," and by all technicalities, all the ones would just be ones. If you are talking about rounding sense "1" is still 0.8. Saying if 1 were 0.8 that is rounding up, and if you DO round up you would still get 2 because if you round up you use the new value. When you were saying that it could equal 1.6, well, that is 0.8+0.8, NOT 1+1. If the numbers were rounded down and you still used the original value, it is not the same equation. You would use the new numbers, and yes, that would still be 2.
1+1 is not always 2

this is where you are wrong, in accounting and statistical data collection, figures and numbers need to be rounded up or down. You know that fact, "the average family has 2.4 children", tell me how you can have .4 of a child? therefore rounding is necessary. 1.01 - 1.49 must also be classified as one, you are taught that in primary school. 1.49 itself can be presented as either 1.5 or 1, and if it you wish to use 1.49 as 1.5, it will be collected as 2. that was just an example of why u cant take numbers for granted. in cricket, they say a player needs an average run rate of "8.6 runs per over" to maintain the target, can u get 8.6 runs? uh no, u can get 9. WOLFY OUT
1+1 is not always 2

The equation 1+1=2 would always be true. In the equation 1+1=2, each of the ones would just be one, because 1 is basically a simplified form of 1.0 or 1.00 and so on. If it had decimals beyond that it would show, but since it is just a 1, it is just a one. And the argument that says, "1 can be 0.5 or 0.6" is rounding up. Rounding up is estimation, not exact fact. In this case, 1+1 would always equal two.
1+1 is not always 2

1 can be anything from 0.5 to 0.9 as well so if 1= 0.5 then 1+1 is 1 if 1= 0.6, then 1 is 1.2 if 1=0.7, then 1 is 1.4 if 1=0.8, then 1 is 1.6 if 1= 0.9, then 1 is 1.8 comprande obviously 1+1 can be 2 as well, but still try prove me wrong
Should youtube go back to what it used to be

the newer version of youtube is much better than the old version of youtube firstly beacuse 1. it has bug fixes and improvement which makes it way better than the old version 2.the update is very easy and convenient to use. 3.the new phones will not be able to open the old version of youtube. 4.it has a lot of improvements and customization's made to it that any person would m=not be able to resist it.
Kids should not believe in Santa Claus. (joke debate)

Me resting me case!- Cookie MonsterLet's very resting case.-EngrishArrr! The case I shall rest! -PirateWhy did I rest my case? What problems did I face? If I rest my case, my debate goes to waste. -Cat in the HatLet's resting case! Me rsting very case! Vote for me eveen dough it not an Erection. Your are not going to very dissapoint. -Engrish
Kids should not believe in Santa Claus. (joke debate)

This debate challenge is issued to imabench and is a troll/joke debate. If he is unable to accept this, it will become an open debate challenge. First, Santa Claus is a poor role model for kids as jumping into a chimney is going to cause third degree burns and also damage the chimney. We do not want kids to be exposed to this kind of poor role model. Second, Santa Claus creates fear in children as he somehow knows all their names. That is an unnecessary scare to children. Third, Santa is EVIL. He chops the heads off the naughty people, and also has a too high standard for the person to enter the nice list.[1] Forth, Santa uses midgets as slave labor. That is a poor role model![2] Therefore, kids should not believe in Santa Claus as he is a poor role model. [1]http://futurama.wikia.com... [2]http://www.rateitall.com...