BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States should sell Texas to the highest bidder

Thanks to the greed and incompetence of the investment banks, the United Sates has been forced to run up a national debt of almost $13 trillion. [1] America needs to raise some serious cash to pay it off but the question is "how?" The country could increase taxes on the rich but that would meet with fierce opposition from conservatives or they could scrap the stimulus program and slash the health and social security budgets but that would be strongly resisted by liberals. With this being the case, the United States' only option is to sell something off, and what better than Texas? There are a growing number of Texans that no longer want to be part of the Union [2,3] and even the governor of Texas has suggested that secession is a possibility [4] so why not give the good people of Texas what they are asking for and cut them adrift? At an international auction, there is no doubt that Texas would fetch a very good price becuase there would be no shortage of bidders. Here is a list of potential buyers: Mexico -------- Texas used to be a part of Mexico and they would be very keen to have it back, and with loans from Mexican drug barons, they might just be able to raise enough cash to place the winning bid. South Africa -------------- Almost six million people are living with HIV and AIDS in South Africa and the South African government would love to transport them overseas to stop them spreading the disease any further. Texas would make an ideal AIDS colony and with the wealth generated by their diamond mines, South Africa could possibly afford to buy it. China ------- With over a billion people, China has the largest population in the world. What it lacks, however, are natural resources and Texas could provide them with valuable agricultural land and mineral supplies. Since China has the largest foreign exchange reserves in the world, they would not have a problem financing the winning bid. Saudi Arabia --------------- Perhaps the most likely to outbid the others though is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis would love to take control of the Texan oil industry to further increase their dominance of the world oil market. In addition, Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of the Prophet Mohammed, whose mission it was to spread the word of Allah across the entire world, and with the introduction of Shari'a Law in Texas, Islam would gain it's first territory in the Americas and thus enable the Saudis to discharge a huge religious duty. Furthermore, the fabulous wealth oil has brought the Saudis should enable them to outbid the others. In the final analysis, the sale of Texas should raise enough cash to avoid having to increase taxes or cut budgets in order to pay off the federal deficit and, for that reason, I urge you to vote Pro. Thank you. [1] http://www.federalbudget.com... [2] http://www.texasnationalist.com... [3] http://www.texassecede.com... [4] http://www.cbsnews.com...
Give me riddles

1). Diamond, jewel, gem, snatch, master These point to robber Bright shade of red = pink Bold, beautiful, art Reknown cat = panther ensures answer The answer is "The Pink Panther" criminal organization. 2). The entire thing points to serial killer "a FISH that was an eater of men" The answer is "Albert Fish" who was a serial killer and cannibal. He targeted children. 3). Destroys darkness? What does that? Light? Never fades, lights don't fade when they are on. They are the lights of the world ^^^ This was litteral In their presence we can be unfurled Know how at night we wrap up in blankets? Answer: "lightbulb" 4). Countless lights What has this? Think hard. Electronic screens. For building friendships or having fights Games, websites. Especially this one. Anything referring to an electronic device was a valid answer for this. 5). Answer: "food" First line: Food tastes good. We have masters of exploiting this called chefs. And it is preferred we would because we would doe without food. Second: We have to get it and is instinctual and stuff. We will get it any way we can. And it isn't really easy to make food. And undispared may not be in the dictionary but it os obviously valid as an english word and you knew very well what i meant. And i was just trying to makeit rhyme. Third: It isn't easy + most food not being cake. Fourth: We have to make or obtain it to live. Fifth: It is an endless struggle, this food thing. 6). First line: valuable object Second: Talking about the earth Third: Nation seer, you see nations with it Fourth: Nice decoration. If you've ever seen a teacher with one you'll know what i mean. Answer: Globe 7). The answer is fire First line: I am the great consumer/fire. This is the most common and most destructive "perussi" on the planet, fire. Second: Don't be near me. Being close to fire is bad. Third: You can make fire anywhere. Summon is a good word for this. Fourth: It is seriously like magic if you think about it.
Give me riddles

Time to answer the riddles. 1) "No diamond, jewel, or gem can hide from this cat This one is a particularly bright shade of red at that It's hunt is a bold, beautiful, art of the catch It is a master of the snatch" Carmon Sandiego? I vaguely remember that cartoon. She goes around stealing ancient artifacts from various location of Earth, and wears red. 2) "A fish that was an eater of men Taking souls around the age of ten A deceiver that struck again and again A monster that rid many of their amen" A giant catfish? Haven't heard of the exact story. 3) "Destroys darkness with brilliance Never fades in resilience They are the lights of the world In their presence we can be unfurled" Stars? 4) "Countless lights for endless delights For building friendships or having fights" Pillow Fights? Not much information to go off of here. 5) "Although good, it is preferred use we would Although to obtain is hard, for it we chug on undispared (<<< read that a as ā) Although it very usually isn't a piece of cake For life we still have to make An endless struggle god did bake" Undispared isn't a word, according to the dictionary. Anyways, I think this one is talking about Faith. 6) "This I hold dear A gigantic orb shrunk I hold here With this I am a nation seer It is quite pleasant to be near" I feel like the majority of your riddles are references to old cartoons and TV shows. I can't even make a guess here. 7) "I am the great perussi Near me don't be I can summon anywhere Magic, say I dare" I don't think this is a riddle. I think you're just talking about yourself.
Give me riddles

No diamond, jewel, or gem can hide from this cat This one is a particularly bright shade of red at that It's hunt is a bold, beautiful, art of the catch It is a master of the snatch A fish that was an eater of men Taking souls around the age of ten A deceiver that struck again and again A monster that rid many of their amen Destroys darkness with brilliance Never fades in resilience They are the lights of the world In their presence we can be unfurled Countless lights for endless delights For building friendships or having fights Although good, it is preferred use we would Although to obtain is hard, for it we chug on undispared (<<< read that a as ā) Although it very usually isn't a piece of cake For life we still have to make An endless struggle god did bake This I hold dear A gigantic orb shrunk I hold here With this I am a nation seer It is quite pleasant to be near I am the great perussi Near me don't be I can summon anywhere Magic, say I dare
Give me riddles

I'm going to do something a little different. The Contender must give me at least 6 riddles for me to answer correctly.All riddles must have a true answer. No presented riddles can contain a paradox (like saying "This statement is false. Is it?). If I do catch a paradoxal statement, I automatically get a point. If the question has no true answer (Can't really come up with an example), then I automatically get a point. I'll try to answer the questions the best I can, as to not abuse this rule.The minimum riddles is 6, the maximum is 10. I win based on whether the points I earn is half of the total amount of riddles, rounded up (If I answer 5 out of 9 riddles correctly, I win).I promise to not look up the answers. In round 1, the Contender will state their riddles. Round 2, I answer the riddles, and my opponent states the correct answers. Round 3 is whatever.
When Liberals say minorities they don't mean Asians

Con: While I totally agree that racism against Asians is real, that has little to do with your topic. The topic is whether Asians are included in the narrative of equality. Not whether there is racism against them. There is racism in the college process for Asian Americans, it is harder for them to get into elite colleges--but that isn't the topic. I think when most liberals say minorities, they mean all people of color. ------ 1)Con admits racism against Asians by Liberal colleges is real. 2)Con says that by "minorities" Liberals "probably mean people of color". This proves my point that Liberals don't see Asians as minorities, which was the topic of the debate. And this is rather sad seeing that Liberals even refer to gays and women as minorities, neither of which is necessarily "of color" and in most cases are not.
When Liberals say minorities they don't mean Asians

While I totally agree that racism against Asians is real, that has little to do with your topic. The topic is whether Asians are included in the narrative of equality. Not whether there is racism against them. There is racism in the college process for Asian Americans, it is harder for them to get into elite colleges--but that isn't the topic. I think when most liberals say minorities, they mean all people of color.
When Liberals say minorities they don't mean Asians

In recent years, many studies have uncovered overwhelming evidence that Ivy Leagues Universities and other selective schools have been engaged in systematic and continuous discrimination against Asian-Americans in the college admissions process. he dominant narrative promoted by SJWs almost always divides everyone into 2 camps, black and white, and makes no allowance for individualism, to say nothing of ignoring the fastest growing race in the nation, which is Asians. The Asian American Coalition for Education cited the following: --Detailed Evidence and Specific Laws Violated-- In its federal lawsuit against Harvard, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. has provided detailed evidence which proves that Harvard has (1) intentionally discriminated against Asian-Americans; (2) employed racial rebalancing, a de facto racial quota; (3) used race to an extent well beyond its being merely a "plus" factor in admission decisions. In particular, Harvard"s Holistic Evaluation Approach disproportionately penalizes Asian-American applicants by using stereotypes and racial biases during the admission process. Harvard"s admissions officers often unreasonably perceive Asian-Americans" academic strengths as weaknesses. In addition, they unjustifiably give Asian-American students low scores in non-academic criteria. Specific laws violated: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Fourteenth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. http://asianamericanforeducation.org... In a story by "The Federalist", the headline reads: "Race-Based Admissions Have Asian Students Hiding Their Ethnicity To Avoid Discrimination" http://thefederalist.com... It even happened to Jeff Sessions"s granddaughter at his confirmation hearing on January 10. When MTV News writer Ira Madison III saw an Asian-American girl, the child of John Walk and Ruth Sessions Walk, sitting in her grandfather"s lap, his first thought was to write, "Sessions, sir, kindly return this Asian baby to the Toys "R" Us you stole her from." In a story recollecting the Loving vs Virginia Supreme Court case, sadly the headline read: "Please Don't Ever Call Me Or My Family 'Basically White'" http://time.com... https://www.nationalreview.com...
When Liberals say minorities they don't mean Asians

Pro is just mixing up everything here. Their topic clearly says "When liberals say minorities they don't mean Asians". Thus the topic should be about whether Liberals include Asians in their narrative. The topic is NOT ABOUT whether racism against Asians is real or not."1)Con admits racism against Asians by Liberal colleges is real."This has nothing to do with the topic of the debate. Don't try and act like me admitting this means ANYTHING."2)Con says that by "minorities" Liberals "probably mean people of color"."You misquoted my sentence. This is what I actually said: "when most liberals say minorities, they mean all people of color."I never said "probably" which implies I am not sure of my answer. I am."This proves my point that Liberals don't see Asians as minorities, which was the topic of the debate."NO IT DOESN'T. Me saying that Asians face racism doesn't prove your pint on the topic at all. Your 2nd round argument was about racism in the college system which is about Asians not liberals as the topic states. Your topic is talking about what Liberals define as minorities, not whether there is racism against them. I have already stated that most Liberals include all people of color as minorities. You haven't adequately refuted this which means you're the one who dropped my argument, not the other way around."And this is rather sad seeing that Liberals even refer to gays and women as minorities, neither of which is necessarily "of color" and in most cases are not."I don't get what that is supposed to mean. A minority does NOT have to be of color. Gay people are a minority, women are not a minority so I don't know why anyone would say that but women definitely suffer sexism. You don't have to be of color to face discrimination.
Communism is better than capitalism. Please agree to opening argument before accepting.

Pro Communism-(from Latin communis " common, universal)[1][2] is a socioeconomic system structured upon common ownership of the means of production and characterized by the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state; as well as a social, political and economic ideology and movement that aims to establish this social order. I argue that this system is better for humanity than the capitalist system. By 'better' I mean: More sustainable Happier population Healthier population Better technology, science and art Less crime Better for the worlds environment Capitalist system- Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit.[1][2] Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets and wage labour.[3] In a capitalist economy, the parties to a transaction typically determine the prices at which assets, goods, and services are exchanged.[4] It's argument is about the two idea's, and their impact on society. Not about whether Stalin was a bad guy or not! Please no Stalin references! Thank you
Christians should not try to logically prove God exists

Well! That was unexpected! LOL. I'd like to thank my counterpart for the debate. I wanted to make a comment before I wrap up. I pointed out that the Gospel writers "Borrowed" pagan terms. I do not mean that the Apostles made up Christianity out of Pagan religions. I do mean, that God speaks to human beings in ways they are capable of understanding. This means using imagery and words that might be pagan in origin in order to make a point. Even Hebrew does this in a limited way. The Hebrew word for Sea is yam. This is also the name of the Canaanite god of the sea. Their language had a shared root. Human beings are foolish and fallen. God stoops to speak with us and uses our fallen and corrupt tools to speak with us because that's what we have.
Christians should not try to logically prove God exists

1) The Bible never argues for God's existence, but affirms it (Gen. 1:1). The Hebraic concept of "knowing" God is far different from our modern concept. Quoting from William Barrett "irrational man", he notes the following: "The distinction"arises from the difference between doing and knowing. The Hebrew is concerned with practice, the Greek with knowledge. Right conduct is the ultimate concern of the Hebrew, right thinking that of the Greek. Duty and strictness of conscience are the paramount things in life for the Hebrew; for the Greek, the spontaneous and luminous play of the intelligence. The Hebrew thus extols the moral virtues as the substance and meaning of life; the Greek subordinates them to the intellectual virtues"the contrast is between practice and theory, between the moral man and the theoretical or intellectual man." (1) The Hebraic concept of knowing God is focused on a relationship, not on his existence (2). We often hear terms such as "blind faith" implying that you simply believe in a God whom you don't know exists, but that's not what the verb means in the ancient Hebrew. Faith (Aman) means "to be secure" (3). Greek philosophy has greatly influenced how western civilization thinks, hence that is why we are far removed from how the ancients saw the world. The Hebrews didn't care about such concepts of "existentialism" because it was irrelevant, God still acts upon the world whether we believe it or not. Those who reject God are doing so out of rebellion of his ways. With that being said, i move on to explaining why the arguments for God simply cannot prove his existence 1) First cause argument - The first cause argument states that everything had to have an origin and that origin is God (see link below for the rest of the arguments). No where in the argument does it actually prove that God is the first cause as it could also be unknown. Same goes for the argument from design. 2) Moral argument - this argument attempts to tell us that God exists based on the existence of morals, however morality is entirely subjective. Romans 2 makes a distinction between the Torah given to the Jews and the inner conscience of the gentiles. While yes there is a universal code of right and wrong, there is a difference between the two mentioned in Scripture. Secondly, it's critics can argue that morality is simply a societal construct based on evolutionary factors making man to decide what is right and wrong. 3) Ontological argument - This argument already assumes that God is perfect and therefore exists. In reality, we don't know what "perfection" would consist of. In conclusion: God should not be treated as an object, but rather as a being who desires a relationship with mankind. Just as we assume the existence of other individuals without evidence, we should also assume the existence of God and discover who God is on a personal level. Sources: 1. http://www.amazon.com... 2. http://torahresource.com... 3. http://www.ancient-hebrew.org...
The Christian God is more likely than other gods

For anyone still interested in proof of the christian God, the Ark of the Covenant will soon be revealed. It was found by Ron Wyatt in 1984 http://www.youtube.com... Also, the bible predicts a coming one world government and one world monetary system; (referring to the anti-christ) Revelation 16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. 18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six. have a look around and see if these things are coming to pass, predicted by the christian God 2000 years ago. In Jesus name, amen.
The Christian God is more likely than other gods

"The bible contains thousands of fulfilled prophecies un-paralleled by any other book or collection of books in history." Evidence?"The christian God has utterly destroyed the Egyptian "gods"" Thus, Egyptian Gods are just as likely as Christian god."The christian God continues to fulfill prophecy daily that he has given us in the book of revelation." Evidence? "The christian God came to earth, lived as a man and declared himself to you through the words of Jesus. He is the living God." Evidence that Jesus isn't a liar?
The Christian God is more likely than other gods

The christian God is the God of the bible. The bible contains thousands of fulfilled prophecies un-paralleled by any other book or collection of books in history. Thus The God of the bible is likely to exist. Why are other "gods" less likely? To quote from "The Story of Roland" "The gods that ye worship live not, they understand not, they see not. They are the works of your hands. They can help neither you nor themselves. Wherefore, the only true and good God, having pity on you, has sent me unto you to warn you of the trouble which shall come upon you unless ye put away your false gods." The christian God has utterly destroyed the Egyptian "gods" (read Exodus). The christian God continues to fulfill prophecy daily that he has given us in the book of revelation. (read revelation) I'm sorry but this is going to require you to actually read some of the bible. I'll leave you with a quote by C.S. Lewis "And out of that hopeless attempt has come nearly all that we call human history"money, poverty, ambition, war, prostitution, classes, empires, slavery"the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy." and one last point; The christian God came to earth, lived as a man and declared himself to you through the words of Jesus. He is the living God.
The Christian God is more likely than other gods

I shall now answer the questions he posed before addressing his argument.If Jesus did not die for our sins then how will you obtain salvation?By not sinning, but I will inevitably sin ever so often enough to end up in hell and meet Satan after a lifetime's wait.Do you just expect God to forgive you with no punishment?I wasn't aware one could punish for something they have forgiven them for doing.Do you hope to be a good enough person from now on that God will forgive your past transgressions?No. I want to meet Satan and become his advocate.Now let's get to the real deal."False gods are gods that are not real, but invented by men or inspired by demons." The Christian God was made by 12 men who followed a delusional suicidal bread and wine addict named Jesus Christ. It is thus man-made and according you to the Christian God is therefore false."living God." God has no body and cannot die, therefore god is not alive.I am yet to see explanation of why the Christian God is likely to begin with and then further justification as to why other gods are less likely.The burden of proof lies on you.