BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Answer random questions

1. "Stretch your left arm out as far as you can. What can you touch?" Well, I can touch a couple things if my body stayed still and my arm could range into a certain degree of farthest reach within my arm length. So if I wave my arm, I can touch: a green box filled with books, a bed, a white table with magazines on top, a wire of some sort, a futon, a black table with some statues, a water bottle, a cup, dirty clothes, a broken computer, and the wall. 2. "Grab the book nearest to you, turn to page 18, and find line 4. What does it say?" Well, what do you know? I reached into the green box and pulled out The American Pageant 14th Edition. On page 18, line 4, it says: "off-shore bases for the staging of the Spanish invasion of..." 3. "When's the last time you ate a homegrown tomato?" The last time I ate a homegrown tomato was the time when I ate a tomato. The last time I ate a tomato was three sandwiches ago. Three sandwiches ago, I was eating a homegrown tomato. 4. "If you could meet any one person (from history or currently alive), who would it be?" I would want to meet Slender Man. 5. Where were you on Valentine's day?" I was alone at my house. I was just sitting where I am right now with the computer screen in my face. I simply played video games for the rest of February 14th all by myself because I knew, at that moment, that my crush would be spending her entire day with who used to my best friend. YOUR TURN! 1. Where was I when I answered your first question of this round? 2. When was the last time you took a shower? 3. Touch the nearest object below you. What is it? 4. How do you do? 5. Who was the love of my life? (there are multiple correct answers for each of the questions)
Answer random questions

So we can post more than one question. Great! I'll do that next time.1. Is YOLO a lie?YOLO = You only live once.Is this true?Life - the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.Though I do believe in heaven, the time in there is not really life, as we do not grow or reproduce. Life is also classified as the time before death, so it is not possible to 'live' in afterlife.1. Is YOLO a lie?Yes2. Who lives in a pineapple under the sea?No one. Sponge Bob is fictional and I highly doubt that you would find a pineapple uder the sea (unless someone threw it in).3. Can you count time?Time= the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.or.....Time= a point of time as measured in hours and minutes past midnight or noon. "the time is 9.30" Before I can properly answer this question I need clarification on which definition my opponent implies. However, if it is the secong definition than the answer is yes4. Are you made of sugar?No.Though I have sugar inside me, my body is not made with it.5. Will you jump of a cliff to survive?No way. The chances of dying when I fall of a cliff are 99 out of 100 (unless you mean a tiny cliff with no rocks) so why would you jump of a cliff to survive? My questions.........1. Stretch your left arm out as far as you can. What can you touch?2. Grab the book nearest to you, turn to page 18, and find line 4. What does it say?3. When's the last time you ate a homegrown tomato?4. If you could meet any one person (from history or currently alive), who would it be?5. Where were you on Valentine's day?
Fast Food should be illegal because it is too fattening

I have argued my logic of people's right to choice throughout this debate and my opponent does not seem keen to dispute this argument. I re-affirm these points and will now offer a more light-hearted argument in keeping with my opponent's style of debate. This is not intended disrespectfully or as any kind of parody. When unhealthy fast-food type meals, (burger and chips etc. ) were taken off school dinner menus in England, the response of many furious parents was to pass junk food items through the playground fences to their already obese kids. See: www. dailymail. co. uk/health/article-479541/School-meals-service-meltdown-Jamie-Olivers-healthy-food-turns-400-000-pupils. html Banning an in-demand product never comes close to stopping people getting it; look at illegal drugs or at prohibition of alcohol. Creating a black-market network of health-regulation-defying renegade burger-vans does not strike me as a good idea. I think we're better off with maccy-dees, evil blood-sucking corporate monster that they are, at least people KNOW what goes into their junk food with big companies.
Fast Food should be illegal because it is too fattening

ok I see why so many of you are against what I am proposing. it's not the fact that every big mac we eat is going to bite us in the butts one day, it's that we should have the right to eat at McDonald's. But if we are to think along those lines why shouldn't we be allowed to do drugs, or kids be allowed to smoke and drink. shouldn't we be aloud to do those to? you will probably say no we shouldn't, but what is the difference between drugs/drinking/smoking and fast food. the difference I see is that drugs will hurt you faster than fast food will, trust me I know. my grandfather was a very active man. he played almost every sport you can name, but he loved hardy's. he had a cquadrouple bypass in his fifties. I have seen the effects of fast food in the long run: my uncle liked getting a milkshake and a burger at McDonald's. two months ago he ran a marathon. this month he had a triple bypass. what I don't think we get is; sure we can just let it be, but our life exspectantcy is dropping for the first time in history. how long can we wait? the interesting thing about my uncle is he is one of the skinniest men I know and he has heart troubles in his fifties. that shows you don't have to get fat from it to have problems resulting from it. If government doesn't ban it until it becomes one of the leading causes of death in Americans what of all those people who it is too late for? and if the health part isn't worth a fart doesn't this country have any pride? do we not mind being the fastest country on earth? would you mind being thought of as "those fat Americans" cause if we keep it up that is where we will be and I'll say " I told you so" then I'm going to china. I don't know about you, but I don't like being the world's fast eat country ore the land of the free and the home of the soon to be "supersized"
Fast Food should be illegal because it is too fattening

My youthful opponent's arguments are certainly humorous but I don't think they make his case any stronger. To quote: "To make room for the cows McDonald's cuts down some of the rainforest, and cow crap releases a lot of gases into the air contributing to global warming. It's the penguins or a cheese burger people!" While this argument might have some merit if we were debating: "Beef should be banned because of it's indirect negative impact on the environment" but that is not the subject of this debate. "Fast Food should be illegal because it is too fattening" clearly covers all kinds of fast food; chicken nuggets, kebabs, hot dogs etc. as well as beef burgers. It also stipulates that the reason for banning these products is because they are fattening, not because of any environmental impact or other reason. Unfortunately for my opponent, the way he has framed the debate means that, as Con I can provide any number of reasons why fast food should NOT be illegal but in arguing that it SHOULD be, Pro needs to restrict his reasoning to the health aspects and to proving my arguments wrong or he risks going completely off-topic. This may seem unfair but this is how my opponent instigated the debate. "if we get rid of guns we will get owned by the other countries with guns." This also belongs in another debate (coincidentally one I am having at the moment) but of course cars and guns are not a perfect comparison with fast-food in this case. Alcohol and cigarettes are a better one. Vote for an individuals right to choose. Vote Con. Thankyou.
Fast Food should be illegal because it is too fattening

Okay! hello all! :) Let me open with this non-sequator and I'm sure you all have heard it: NEVER ask a women how much she weighs EVER!!! She got all pissed off and called her 6 ft. 7 in. boyfriend over and he tried to KILL me!!! He chases me for a good 2 miles saying he was going to kick my tush the whole time, not a happy day :( okay now back to the debate! my opponent says that it should be ever ones' own responsibility about fast food, and I'm sure most of you agree with him. However please listen to me to. If you had to chose between a BigMac that will bite you in the butt when you get old and a salad you would probably choose the BigMac. But if the BigMac was out of the picture then you would choose the salad. Most people won't choose differently. the only way not to choose the BigMac is if there is no BigMac to choose. that is what the government can do to help. Getting rid of Fast food is good for the earth too. To make room for the cows McDonald's cuts down some of the rainforest, and cow crap releases a lot of gases into the air contributing to global warming. It's the penguins or a cheese burger people! also my opponent said that we would need to get rid of cars and guns as well. I agree they are bad but they are necessary evils. when was the last time you went to wallmart on a horse? And if we get rid of guns we will get owned by the other countries with guns. I think I have proved my point: fast food= fat people fast food=global warming=no penguins
Fast Food should be illegal because it is too fattening

Hello again. I strongly reaffirm the arguments I made in the first round; that making fast food illegal is not justified and would be contrary to an individuals basic rights and freedom. As my opponent has not responded directly to this assertion, I can only assume that we are in agreement. To take this point further, it is people's own responsibility to look after themselves and eat sensibly. If banning fast food one would logically have to ban all sorts of non-consumable products as well. Items such as automobiles and guns are clearly very dangerous if not used appropriately and are in fact much worse than fast-food as they can harm others just as much as they can harm the people using them. The issue of taxation my opponent raises makes more sense, although I would argue that the products themselves as well as the companies should be taxed, thus making the products less appealing. Yes, Burger King is tasty but more people go to McDonald's because it is cheaper. On the subject of the documentary 'Super Size Me' I would argue that as much as being an example of how unhealthy fast food is, it is a demonstration of the need to have a BALANCED diet. Man can not live by bread alone and if you ate nothing but bread or rice-crispies or pizza for a month, this would also be extremely detrimental to your health. All substances are poisonous, it is the dose that determines the effects. Thanks.
Fast Food should be illegal because it is too fattening

I am sure some of you people viewing this will think that Making fast food illegal is beyond, but think about it. Fast food is terrible for the body and you can really see That I'm the documentary super-size me, when Morgan Spurlock ate nothing but McDonald's for one whole month and Ended up seriously damaging his liver. He also ended up gaining 24 pounds that took him 14 months to lose Almost everyone knows that fast food is bad for them but they still keep going there. Informing them hasn't stopped them from eating and McDonald's Still has their "billions a d billions served" sign is up. It seems the only way to stop People from eating that junk is to get rid of it. There Are probably 2 ways of doing this: 1 tax the doo-doo out of them until they go out of business, or 2 making it illegal or close down their businesses so they can't give their product to the public thus eliminating a source for unhealthy food that is making America fat. if you do not. believe me go look up super size me and see for yourself.
Fast Food should be illegal because it is too fattening

Hi, I'll keep this brief. Fast food is indeed very unhealthy but should not be made illegal. If you begin banning individual foodstuffs you are at the thin end of a wedge. You would logically have to move on to things such as cake, fizzy drinks etc. then cigarettes and alcohol would logically also have to be banned as these kill people. This would gradually lead to an erosion of our civil liberties and would be a terrible example of 'the nanny state'. A country that values Freedom cannot justify making fast food illegal, whatever the health risks. Now go get a happy meal! (no disrespect.) Thankyou and good luck to my youthful opponent.
Fast Food should be illegal because it is too fattening

Fast food is not good for us and America is having enough weight problems as it is. Mc. Donalds for example: Mc Donalds has 101 items on its menu. Out of those items 74 are over 200 calories. The items under that amount of calories include Salad Dressing (which is still 190) 4 piece mc nugget, eggs, a cookie (1 cookie is 160 cal.) Yogurt, hash browns, ect. Not the really Big items. Did you know that 1 small order of fries has 210 calories in it. 210 calories in a small side order! That is over 1/10 of the amount of calories you are supposed to consume in a day in 1 SMALL side order! There are 540 calories in a large order, Which is alone without a drink or the actual meal. That 1 order of fries has about the same # of calories in it as a person should eat per meal. Source http://www.foodfacts.info...
Slavery was a beneficial institution for both blacks and whites in the south.

I'll respond to your points, and strengthen my argument: 1. You said Slavery is immoral because it involves forced labor. Forced labor is not immoral. Many prisons in the US use forced labor. Prisoners are required to work. It is not immoral or unconstitutional. Prisoner's do not have the same rights as citizens. And that is how the Penal system has replaced the slavery system. 2. Yes, Africans did not need Europeans to provide necessities. But all indicators show that Blacks as slaves fared much better than Blacks in Africa. The slave population was large, strong, and healthy. There was security, protection, daily work, and much positives to be found. Culturally and physically the Blacks in America flourished far beyond their African ancestors. 3. The South was a prosperous and cohesive region during slavery. After slavery it entered into a steady decline in prosperity and productivity. This shows that freed blacks in the South did not benefit the society. One can see clearly that society was thriving, and then was ruined. Were all Blacks happier after emancipation? The surprising answer is No. Freedom was not welcomed by all Blacks. 4. The penal system is a multi-million dollar system This is true. Prisons are built and run by private companies. Who pays for them? Taxpayers pay. The government pays all the prison expenses. And the private companies profit. Who are the prisons built to serve? The people making millions of dollars. They are in collaboration with the lawmakers to lock up as many prisoners as possible. More prisoners = More money. And lawmakers like to look tough on crime, so again more prisoners= more votes. Do prisons serve those who are imprisoned? Not at all. Prison life is terrible, a far cry from "rehabilitation". It is a jungle with the worst gang and street rules. .. Most prisoners upon release have a terrible time to reenter society because of prison life. 5. Did you know most slaved preferred their lives as slaves to freedom? It is well documented in first-person interviews done in the 30s called the WPA Slave Narrative. I own and read these books. . http://www.amazon.com...Years after slavery ended, thousands of former slaves were interviewed and asked to compare their lives. The majority seemed to prefer life under slavery to the hardship of having to provide everything for themselves. Their conditions were much worse, they were hungry, and didn't have work. Furthermore, many spoke glowingly of their former masters, and households, and remembered those as good times. . http://memory.loc.gov...
Slavery was a beneficial institution for both blacks and whites in the south.

Slavery cannot be considered a good system because any form of slavery is morally wrong due to the fact it involves human beings and forced labor. Slavery did not meet the needs of blacks because Africans did not need Europeans/Americans to provide necessities for them, when they where in Africa. Africans could provide food, clothing, and shelter for themselves, and often times these essentials were withheld. The agricultural South was successful as a result of slavery, and therefore the economic dynamic in the South was a result of slavery and cannot be used to justify or defend slavery. There is an inherent flaw in the statement "It also met their needs as humans," because slavery as an institution and slaveholders did not view slaves as human, but instead as property therefore they could not provide for the human needs properly. Although jails are overpopulated with Black inmates this system is a form of slavery, but not at the expense of society. The penal system is a multi-million dollar industry, and is very profitable. Also, the productivity of a minority cannot be assessed in the frame of the majority, because of the oppressive dynamic.
Slavery was a beneficial institution for both blacks and whites in the south.

American slavery was a good system which met the needs of blacks, and whites, and should have been kept. It was overthrown by Northerners who didn't understand the class structure, or economics of the agricultural south. Slavery gave black people work, and cared for them with plenty of food clothing and shelter. It also met their needs as humans. Now jails are filled with blacks, or they're on welfare and food stamps. The institution which replaced slavery is the penal system. Instead of contributing to society through work, blacks are now isolated in jail culture and crime culture, at the expense of society. Only a very small minority of blacks actually have productive roles in society, where they are integrated, and do positive work for the good of society and for themselves.
Why are liberals so stupid? Mentally incapable (Con) or just plain ignorant (Pro)

First of all, Con broke CONduct by calling me retarded. Second of all, I DID make an argument. "However, moreover is it true that some (liberals) are very mentally able. Moderate liberals are a shining example of this." I just added to the (master)debate with some witty humor. "Your move baby- I mean Con." Now who wouldn't find this funny? Probably a GAYtheist. Just saying.
Why are liberals so stupid? Mentally incapable (Con) or just plain ignorant (Pro)

It is true that many liberals are FRIKIN RTAAAAARDSSSS. However, moreover is it true that some are very mentally able. Moderate liberals are a shining example of this. Oh yeah oh yeah do it! So there probs ignorant imo. However, examples of mentally gay liberals include:Bill Nye the Science GAYAll GAYtheists.Your move baby- I mean Con.
Discrimination is unjust

So, my opponent claims that the entire system is corrupt. However, if the government guarantees a right to a man, and the only reason the man never managed to receive that right is discrimination on behalf of the jury, then that discrimination deprived the man of his right. The resolution never specifies where the right is coming from. It could come directly from the government. It could come indirectly from the jury. So, if there were no discrimination, everyone would be guaranteed the right to a fair trial. However, with discrimination, nobody would have the right to a fair trial. It looks as if the discrimination deprived everybody of their right to a fair trial. "However, this is avoiding the fact that the trial-by-jury system allows the effects of discrimination to be felt on the accused, which is a more fundamental issue than individual prejudices." However, if there is no effect of discrimination to be felt, then the system works. Thus, discrimination is what deprives the man of his right to a fair trial. "As I have said, if the government cannot actually guarantee a right, my opponent has no place to still claim that citizens are entitled to it." Again, if discrimination is the only thing stopping the citizens from being entitled to their right, then discrimination is what deprives them of that right. "If every right necessitates the existence of a subject and an object, in the case of a right to a free trial, there is no object if the government is unable to procure a free trial (since it is a government-guaranteed right)." What is stopping the government from procuring a free trial? Discrimination. Discrimination is what deprives the right from the people. Discrimination withholds the right from a man who needs it. "It is the responsibility of the court to ensure partiality, and thus the penetration of discriminatory dispositions into the court is the fault of the jury system itself, not the jurors who are but instruments to justice." And what is the cause of this fault that withholds the right to a fair trial from the people? Discrimination. We do legally have the right to a free trial [1], but discrimination is what deprives us of the ability to actually put it into effect. [1]http://theurbanpolitico.blogspot.com...
Discrimination is unjust

Thank you for starting this debate. http://en.wikipedia.org... If the jury has prejudice against the defendant, and this prejudice is what causes the defendant to be declared guilty, then the defendant is deprived of his right to a free trial. Sure, discrimination alone would not make someone be declared guilty, but if the jurors would be undecided, any prejudice could swing the decision in either direction. Now, for an example: A black man is brought to court for being accused of shoplifting. All members of the jury are racists, who get the idea that all black men are scum. There is some evidence against the defendant, but not necessarily enough to convict the man. However, the jury decides that it is sufficient evidence, because they hate the defendant. In the same situation, let's say that the jury is not racist. The jury decides that the evidence is not sufficient, and they declare the defendant to be innocent. In this case, discrimination deprived the defendant of his right to a fair trial, which affirms the resolution. Thank you again, and good luck with your response.
Discrimination is unjust

The resolution reads as follows: Discrimination is injust. The resolution needs additional explanation and definition. "Discrimination" is the "treatment of a person on the basis of prejudice", where "prejudice" refers to a preconceived preference or idea. The meaning of "unjust" used in the resolution refers to a normative judgment; that is, whether or not some action violates the rights of another person. Consequently, the resolution may be read as: Discrimination deprives people of rights. The crystallization point for the discussion as a whole revolves around the question of whether the practice of discrimination really deprives a person of the rights he or she would have if the discrimination did not take place. In order to win, he or she who stands in favor of the resolution must prove that discrimination does deprive individuals of rights. In order to win, he or she who stands opposed to the resolution must prove that discrimination does not infringe upon the actual, legitimate rights of individuals.