BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Optimum Online Triple Play commercial is the most annoying currently played commercial on TV.

HaHa -- is that Head On commercial real?! If so, I've never seen it... which brings me to my point that the Optimum Online commercial has much more exposure than the Head On commercial, and therefore has the capacity to 1) get stuck in your head more easily -- which tends to annoy most people, and 2) become annoying more quickly. This is also because of the most important aspect of my rebuttal: the Head On commercial only lasts for thirteen seconds while the Optimum Online commercial lasts for sixty two seconds. That's almost 5x the length of annoyingness that television viewers have to endure at each showing. I would also like to remind you of the music content in the commercial, and how most people would find reggaeton music with corny lyrics about digital cable much more annoying than a short sentence being repeated three times in a row. Another reason why the music in this commercial is so annoying (it's hilarious too) is because the song being sung is not a 'real' song, but rather a song specifically created for the purpose of this advertisement. You have to see the commercial about a dozen times before you can finally sing along, and by that time you're so sick of the sing-song phone number (that you picked up after the first viewing) and weird sea monster (the fact that you can't tell for sure he's good looking or not is also annoying! hmph!) that you would rather change the channel entirely for the duration of the commercial rather than sing along with the TV. Re-Cap: 1) You admitted that seeing a commercial repeatedly would make it annoying... and nobody can deny the amount of times this freakin commercial is shown! 2) I did specify that I was referring to currently running TV commercials; I don't believe that the Head On commercial is still playing 3) My point about reggaeton not being especially popular in the U.S... 4) My point about people not knowing most of the words to the song... 5) The trashy/flamboyant costumes and how it makes the commercial appear low-budget rather than flashy or appealing... 6) My point about the juvenile, choreographed mermaids... 7) My point referencing the dancers' ridiculous coochie pop... 8) This commercial is so much longer than Head On commercial and most other commercials in general 9) Many people feel that this advertisement is racist and perpetuates a stereotype about Hispanics and Hispanic-Americans 10) DID I MENTION THE SEA MONSTER? Don't get me wrong -- this commercial is highly entertaining because of the fact that it absolutely sucks (was there a nicer way to put it?). But after awhile, it definitely gets pretty repetitive and definitely annoying. I personally love watching it and making fun of it; however, my personal point of view has nothing to do with the argument at hand. I think I've made good points about why many people find this commercial to be extremely annoying, even if I don't.
The Optimum Online Triple Play commercial is the most annoying currently played commercial on TV.

First, I'd like to get this out of the way: That commercial was awesome. Of course, I realize that it might annoy me, too, if I saw it repeatedly. Of course, this is true for most commercials. Regardless, I believe you have overlooked, or perhaps not seen, another commercial. http://youtube.com... Yes, it's HeadOn. I'm not sure if that exact commercial is still being played, but they do have other HeadOn commercials, as well as a few other products with similarly styled commercials. These commercials are still being played, however rarely. They're not all that common, but they're a whole lot more annoying than some awesome reggae with pirates and a catchy tune. Back to ye.
The Optimum Online Triple Play commercial is the most annoying currently played commercial on TV.

Before I make a few points as to why the commercial (seen here: http://youtube.com... ) is definitely the most annoying one that is currently played on TV, I must first specify that I am referring to American television number one, and number two, I am generally speaking about commercials on 'basic TV' i.e. on broadcast stations such as ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. Point 1: Although the jingle is quite catchy (who doesn't find themselves singing along to 877-393-4448?), a large part of why we know the telephone number so well is because this commercial is literally played every 5-10 minutes on quite a number of TV stations. The fact that this advertisement is played constantly only means that we'll all become annoyed with it sooner than we would if this commercial was played more sparsely. Point 2A: The advertisement contains music from beginning to end, and the genre of choice (reggaeton) is not exceptionally popular in the United States. In fact, if you look up the most popular genres of music in the U.S., reggaeton consistently never appears in the top ten. Point 2B: Due to its Hispanic roots and typically the use of the Spanish language, it is fair to say that many fans of reggaeton are of Hispanic descent. It is obvious that the marketing agenda of this commercial was aimed at certain minority groups, including Hispanics and other people of color. However, according to websites like racialicious.com (forums that discuss racism in today's pop culture), this commercial succeeds not only at targeting certain groups, but actually condescending and marginalizing certain demographics. Point 3: This commercial is flat out cheesey from beginning to end. If the flashy (trashy) costumes and choreographed dancing mermaids weren't enough, the ugly pirate and random sea-monster in the bad costume just completely sends this disaster over the edge. And finally, let us not ignore the girls' coochie pop; it's definitely the icing on the cake.
dogs or cats

Just having a dog does not insure that youre house is safe, ludicrous to think that but yes i agree that they offer protection. But i do not agree with you saying you can leave a dog, you cant. Dogs need attention, they crave it. A simple dog door is not enough to satisfy a dogs need, a cat can be let out in the morning and let back in at night. Dogs require attention throughout the day, they need to be walked a lot, to some people this is good but to others with stressful jobs and lifes, this is not ideal. Saying dogs are well behaved is very ineducated of you, they are well behaved after time and training. They are messy eaters, urinate in the house if they are not let out, they smell badly due to their natural scent and amount of fur. Not only this but they leave fur all over the house, fur is a nuisance to dispose off, so yet again that is another task you face with a dog. Cats can be trained to wee in litter tray, can a dog? no. Saying that the cost of replacing furniture because you own a cat makes no sense? Cats with the right toys can be easily distracted. Dogs need something to keep their attention, toys would rectify this situation as much as they would a cat. The facts show that actually a dog costs around 17,000 per annum while a cat costs around 16,750 per annum. So in fact the cost of a dog or cat is very similar depends on the products you purchase. A dog is not going to particularly prevent a robbery, when a man intends on commiting an offence like that, he isnt going to take into account the tiny chihuahua standing in his way.
dogs or cats

imagine walking into your home the place you live,sleep and eat and all your loved items are gone. stolen. what would you do. if you had it a dog it would scare away the person and maybe even attack if it needs to a dog can be alone without human attention and so cant a cat but a cat can and will scratch on the side of your furniture and walls. if you install a dog door then a dog can go in and out of the house and not make a mess on the floor and well away from the house not only will the dog be well behaved it will bark and alarm neighbors if there is someone trying to get into your house. a dog just need food to be a pet but a cat will need food a liter box and the sand the goes in it. this will not only keep cost down of fixing and replacing furniture it will also cut down on food and other items also it will protect your house from being robed
dogs or cats

Ill start off my arguement by claryfying the point that last year alone over 357 people were killed by dogs in Britain alone. 0 were killed by cats. Not only are they a threat to people lives but they can also have detrimental effects on peoples wellbeing. dogs have to be walked every day, they require large amounts of attention. To the normal person this can be a hefty challenge. A cat is able to fend for it self, obviously it thrives off huma attention but unlike a dog they can survive without. With a cat, you can let it out and not worry about monitoring it, a dog always has to be under your supervision. Not only because it may get lost, injure itself or anything like this. But it is a health risk to people around the area to allow a dog to roam, although most dogs are very friendly, they can turn at any minute. Dogs can be house trained and domesticated, never as well as a cat. They will instinctively chase down cats, other dogs and even chase a stick. This can be avoided through repetitive training, have you ever had to keep a watchful eye on your cat, constantly as it roams the street? Or on the other hand you could keep your cat cooped up in the domain of your house, house cats! can you have a house dog? no. Dogs are amazing pets but there requirements make them more hassle than they are worth.
If India and Pakistan went into another all-out war, Pakistan would be victorious.

Thanks for accepting, Con!KASHMIR CONFLICTLets take a look at the Kashmir region, where India and Pakistan have had conflicts in for the past 60 years. Now, why would they be fighting over this land? Mainly because India claims it, but over 60% of the population is Muslim [1]. So if they had a vote to join Pakistan or not, they would vote yes. This is the sole purpose of why Pakistan and Bangladesh split from India in the first place, Muslims and Hindis argued. Also, the region has a lot of natural resources such as oil that we know everyone needs.CHINA-PAKISTAN RELATIONSNow you may be asking, "why would China get involved? They wouldn't care!" Well, China wants some of that Kashmir land too, they've already took some of it, and in fact, Pakistan has already ceded China territory because of their close diplomatic relations, as you can see on the map.But, China would not join the fight as a separate party. They would most likely join Pakistan's side. Why? Because China and Pakistan have had close diplomatic relations for over 60 years. [2] They have traded with each other, and they have negotiated with each other to the point where they have become great friends like the USA and the United Kingdom. They even have an open highway to trade with each other. No border fences like with USA-Mexico. They are friendly with each other. INDIA-CHINA RELATIONSAnother reason why China would support Pakistan is because of their border disputes and conflicts. The India-China border dispute has been going on for a long time, where areas have been disputed by both countries. The two countries have had serious problems with each other, including border standoffs, and the border actually being guarded now and then by armed troops.Another thing that really angers China is that India secretly supports the Tibet movement, which the Tibet region is behind, called "Free Tibet." [3] China as a result has tightened border security, and blamed India for fanning seperatism. The article states: "India continues to secretly support separatist activities in the Tibetan Autonomous Region."IF CHINA DOES GET INVOLVEDIf China gets involved, they would win by themselves, let alone along Pakistani forces. [4]Manpower available:China: 749 million +India: 615 million +Aircraft:China: 2,800India: 1,900Tanks/AFVs:China: 14,000India: 13,000Not to mention China's economy is stronger than India's by a mile.Cites:[1]- http://www.defencejournal.com...[2]- http://thediplomat.com...[3]- http://www.hindustantimes.com...[4]- http://www.globalfirepower.com...
If India and Pakistan went into another all-out war, Pakistan would be victorious.

I'm sure most people have heard of a place called Kashmir, where Pakistan and India have been fighting for about 60 years in. Lets say, Pakistan and India do go in ANOTHER all-out war like they have before. Pakistan would be victorious for the following reasons.1. Pakistan is proven to have more weapons of mass destruction.2. China and Pakistan are friendly with each other. If India declares war on Pakistan, China is coming their way.3. Before anyone says, "Well if Pakistan-China go to war with India, the USA will get involved!" Most likely, no. The USA wishes to stay friendly with China for one reason: debt. Message me to accept.
The Arts have Value, in and of themselves

I will be arguing that the Arts have no Value. My argument will center around that "the arts" are not a goal. They may help certain people in their quest for a desired goal, but are not necessary. They are not a goal that would allow sacrifice of more desirable things in order to accomplish. The Arts include: Painting Music Theatre Movies Sculpture Any type of "modern art" TV Fashion We can debate whether these fall under this category as well (even though, I would not consider them "art") Philosophy Psychology Sociology No acceptence required... just get at it telling me why Art is important. In order to win this debate, each of us will have to show the following PRO: You must show that Art is an important goal that has value in itself. That simply creating Art is desirable. You can argue that Art is required for its effects on other fields, but you must show that it is, in fact, REQUIRED and not something that can be accomplished in another way. CON: I will be showing that Art is not important. There is no Value to Art itself, and that any effect that Art has on other fields of study that are important would be accomplished regardless of the effect of Art. Additionally, I will show that Art is unavoidable. Regardless of our societal desire for Art, there is a personal desire for Art and it will be created regardless of a societal effort to create it. For the later rounds, we can get into that more. Given that society no longer supports the Arts (meaning, copyright law is abandoned... you can still buy a painting, but you're paying for the Paint and the Fabric, not the person who came up with the idea for it) the quality of Art will remain sufficient. It would be possible to start a "jump starter" type website to support the Arts in that manner, but we'll just be discussing that if copyright law no longer exists, what the effects will be. I will be arguing that the Quality of Art would not diminish, and that it may even increase. You will be arguing that without copyright law to support the Arts, Quality of the Arts will decrease and thus have an effect on society. You can give any additional definitions or terms and we can debate them in and out, but I think we both know the general idea by now. Assuming you agree to everything, go right ahead and tell me all about why the Arts are important. Good Luck!
The Arts have Value, in and of themselves

I am kind of confused as to whether I am supposed to proceed or not.. It sounds like you're done with this, yet you presented a series of arguments before forfeiting. Anyways, I was never trying to upset you, but it seems I did regardless. Given your forfeit, rather than use this round for argument, I will use it for clarification only. And if you want to proceed, we can close in Round 5. I'm sorry if asking you for evidence is agitating. I thought that was a normal component of a debate. I would certainly not object if you asked the same of me. Yes, I read your quote. And I believe I see the point, but perhaps we have understood it differently, because I did not see the connection between the quote and your point. Again, not trying to be difficult.. just trying to get back on the same page. I was never insulting you, though I'm sorry if you felt that way. Rather, I was pointing out the dogmatic philosophy it seemed you were referencing (it is a FACT that the Puritans, Amish, and others still use temptation as a reason not to partake in the arts-- singing, dancing, painting, etc. etc.). If this was not what you meant, I apologize for the misinterpretation, but it was certainly not a personal insult. You say you want me to win you over but you refute rather than consider every argument I make. Yet at the same time, you expect me to buy into your philosophies unquestioningly. So I really do not see how I can possibly convince you. Though I was obviously trying. If you are genuinely done, I am really sorry this ended on a sour note for you.
zombies are better than vampires

Okay thank you for your rebuttal. REBUTTAL "who needs to heal if there a 6 billion of you. If one is damaged another will take its place And vampire can bleed out too" Zombies are slow and ineffective when it comes to fighting for their lack of intelligence. You stated in round 1 that there is 1 million vampire, but when you take into account how faster vampire can infect people into their own, number doesn't matter. "as we know from tons of horror movies 1 person of even 12 people with guns can not hold off a hoard of zombies. vampire are more effective with there claws and teeth than guns" You even said your self that 1 person or 12 person can hold off a hoard of zombies. Like that Vampires have the ability to yield a gun to fight. Also like you also stated they can also use their claws and teeth too. "Since zombies never stop moving cold should not be a problem. As for heat there are only a few spots on earth that are so hot that people die. Where will the vampire get the gas for the car." First of all zombies are dying bodies. They can't protect themselves in order to survive in these weather when vampires can. "since we are using new and old myths on vampires this applies. The myth goes that a vampire can only enter you're home on invitation. If any vampire tried to enter a humans home disguise, the human would ask the disguised vampire to eat garlic and we all know what happens from there (the vampire wont eat it and the human would shoot it in the chest)" Explain more pls. Zombies will die.
zombies are better than vampires

POWER TO HEAL who needs to heal if there a 6 billion of you. If one is damaged another will take its place And vampire can bleed out too "Vampire+sunlight=dead vampire" If a vampire covered himself completely he could not use his claws or his teeth and it would probably slow him down "And yes Vampires can use guns if they want to, while zombies are so clumsy and cant think to use tools." as we know from tons of horror movies 1 person of even 12 people with guns can not hold off a hoard of zombies. vampire are more effective with there claws and teeth than guns "Zombies can't function in the cold or the heat. Since zombies never stop moving cold should not be a problem. As for heat there are only a few spots on earth that are so hot that people die. Where will the vampire get the gas for the car. "vampire must ask to enter his home" since we are using new and old myths on vampires this applies. The myth goes that a vampire can only enter you're home on invitation. If any vampire tried to enter a humans home disguise, the human would ask the disguised vampire to eat garlic and we all know what happens from there (the vampire wont eat it and the human would shoot it in the chest) Vampires will definitely starve Thank you
zombies are better than vampires

Thanks for the compliment on the AK47 vs M16. Rebuttals "Vampire+sunlight=dead vampire" -Regarding the movie or the book Twilight, Vampire do move around during the day. Also Vampire can be dressed in a cloak covering all their body if needed. "vampire must ask to enter his home" - O.o? Clarify?? "vampires depend on their hart to survive" Well zombies need their brain to survive. Vampires are fast wile zombies are so slow, which makes their heads easy to pick off by a gun. And yes Vampires can use guns if they want to, while zombies are so clumsy and cant think to use tools. ARGUMENTS -STRENGTH AND POWER- Vampires are like ninjas on crack and steroid. They are fast and strong, while zombies are slow and clumsy. One vampire can take out a household of people before anyone knows whats happening, but Zombies need a horde to do something. If a group of survivors in a zombie movie hold out against so many zombies than how can zombies defeat Vampires who are stronger than those "survivor" Zombies are unthinking, weak, expandable and easily exploited. Temperature Zombies can't function in the cold or the heat. While Zombies are freezing and blowing up, vampires can actually stay alive during the heat and the cold. POWER TO HEAL Vampires can heal, while zombies can't. Zombies will get hurt one way or another, because of their inability to think. While zombies can fall off a building and break their legs or even kill them self, Vampires can heal and won't fall in the first place because they have a working brain. I don't know what else to possible say other then that Vampires will over power Zombies.
zombies are better than vampires

congrats on ak47 vs m16 nice piece of work First of all the kills per death for both sides are very different the vampires need a KPD of about 700 while a zombie need only kill .07 vampires vampires at a time like this with food scarce travel alone Zombies on the other hand just stick together when they find one another. since most cities contain over 100,000 zombies those feeding sites are off limits (this takes place in the USA) their are 87 zombies per square mile in the us their are .000233333 vampire per square mile their are .000233333 humans per square mile feeding statistics are bad for the vampires
zombies are better than vampires

I think that zombies are more of a threat to mankind and to vampires than the other way around zombies Definition Can be raised from the dead or spread by disease shuffle Infected zombies are killed as easily as humans. risen from the dead zombies only brain destruction. number of zombies= current population- 2 million life of 5-9 years Vampire definition super speed super strength, yes Vampire+sunlight=dead vampire vampire must ask to enter his home vampires depend on their hart to survive vampires need sleep 1 million vampires need full stomach for powers sorry about the tight rules thank you (you state yore case this round)