BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Which Youtuber is better? Tessa Violet or Jenna Marbles

Ok, so I watched the first video. It proves that Jenna Marbles would suck at being a Mom. Fortunately, it linked me to this video of people actually being awesome. Tessa Violet will probably be a good mom, because she has a good role model, as seen here. As far as video #2 goes, Do you really want people to stop talking to you? I just want Jenna Marbles to stop talking to me... So.. I... pressed the stop button. And I think she stole that face from Tessa Violet. I have actually never wondered what boys are like in the shower, or in the car, or on the internet. I wish Jenna Marbles could come up with something new, they all seem to include "fap, fap, fap" I like that Jenna Marbles is featured in other videos, but does she feature other youtubers on her account? Here's a video of Tessa featuring WeezyWaiter and giving an honorable mention to MysteryGuitarMan that also showcases her skills as a video editor, and her imagination. http://youtu.be... Also, Let me go ahead and link you to WeezyWaiter and to MysteryGuitarMan, Hot girl in a bikini? more like an overly self conscious skank who let's her dogs lick her face. You might as well skip fantasizing about her and just think about Marbles and Kermit. They're the stars of the show. I mean watch the drunk make up tutorial, all she talks about is people judging her. Young girls need a role model that talks about the things they want to know about, but isn't so vulgar and dingy. Tessa Violet is that role model. (shout outs to Mike Falzone and Ze Frank).
Which Youtuber is better? Tessa Violet or Jenna Marbles

Jenna Marbles, also known as Jenna Marbles, is pretty freaking amazing! Her YouTube channel has over 13 million subscribers and she easily gets over a million views on pretty much every video! She also sidelines as a "professional dancer". Her videos are also full of humor, sarcasm and some very helpful tips like this one for example: I mean who DOESN'T want to know how to mildly annoy their dogs? or this one: The "Face" can come in handy in cases of those weird guys or girls in the club who just annoy you to know end. Ever wonder what its like to watch a drunk person put on makeup or maybe one day you sat down and thought "Hm I really wonder how guys take a shower?" Well don't panic because she has got some good videos for you!! Like: Jenna marbles has also been featured in plenty of YouTubers videos such as TotallySketch: PrankvsPrank: Mike Diva: ERB( Epic Rap Battles of History): She has also traveled many places such as Singapore/Bali, Australia and Ireland. She is the comedy queen of YouTube and constantly comes up with new video ideas and keeps everyone laughing. Also who doesn't want to see a hot girl in a bikini? Jenna Marbles is amazing and never disappoints!
Which Youtuber is better? Tessa Violet or Jenna Marbles

Tessa Violet, previously known as MeekaKitty (before the google takeover), is AWESOME!She is a High art fashion model from Oregonhttp://www.debate.org...a great dancer http://www.youtube.com...and makes awesome music videos. My personal favorite is an All Caps song "Dont Unplug Me" http://youtu.be...But "Wonderland" is a close second http://youtu.be... And she is a huge nerd to the extent that she goes to "Leakycon" http://youtu.be...is a world trafveler going places like Japan, Tailand, India, and Disneyland http://www.youtube.com... And she has has shared channels with several other awesome youtubers including:Ray William Johnson http://youtu.be... Rhett and Link http://youtu.be... Nanalew http://youtu.be...Jason Munday and Luke Conrad http://youtu.be...She sings beutifully http://youtu.be...;Actually, you are probably going to want to watch this whole playlist, seriously because Tessa Violet is that awesome. http://www.youtube.com... She has an album is on Itunes. https://itunes.apple.com... I hope you've noticed the crazy faces that she makes. It adds to her likeability and personality. She plays the guitar and the ukulele http://www.youtube.com... When I watch Tessa Violet, I know that I'm not just getting her amazing talent, but a plethora of other talented and amazing youtubers. As you can see from the number of videos I've posted she doesn't just sit in her room. Tessa Violet is a person who is worth subscribing to and hands down is WAAY better than Jenna Marbles.
Which Youtuber is better? Tessa Violet or Jenna Marbles

Tessa Violet is WAY better than Jenna Marbles. First round is for acceptance. Round 2 is for original argument Rounds 3 & 4 are for rebuttals and refutation Round 5 is for Conclusions only- No new videos added. Voters expect to see a lot of AWESOME videos from these two fantastic youtubers. Let's see who can take home the gold.
only now is true

without time experience cant exist, so experience is time I am me=space time being I am an all knowing creator, the only one that has ever been worshipped time is matter, as matter is space and space is time, like the invisible thing I breathe there is no time in the future and past, only the time of now is true you don't need to know what time is to know you experience it, because you cant experience anything without it information is antimatter, like negative is anti positive i don't know any slight delay, the human body is the most advanced existence i know if you close your eyes you cant read these words, therefore your eyes are real as you have to open them to read on till the end of this sentence, and thus you know that is reasonable to do
only now is true

"without time there can be no experience, so experience is time" Our experience and consciousness is just a byproduct of matter and time. Time wasn't created specifically for our experience. Time probably wasn't created for any reason, actually. Experience is just a perception of time. "i am being now, i am now" You exist now, therefore you are now? Unless you are an all-knowing creator of existence, you can't make a claim like that. "now, the balancing point between future and past" Again, we aren't quite sure as to what time is. If time IS a straight line, then every instant of the present is truly the balancing point between future and past, but you can't make a claim like that because we don't know time is! Time could be going all over the place. It could be going forwards, and backwards, and even skipping over itself. It may even have wrinkles or creases. We don't know, though, so you can't make statements like these until we have any evidence supporting in which way time is moving. "matter is space, and space is time, and matter is only now" No, that's not true. Matter TAKES space. Space AND time HAVE VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH EACH OTHER AS FAR AS WE KNOW. Lastly, matter HAS EXISTED THIS WHOLE TIME. "the opposite of matter is information, so information exist beyond space and time, future and past, false and truth" The opposite of matter is antimatter, not information. Also, why does information get to break the laws of physics? Information is physical, too. "even if there is slight delay i have to imagine it so its irrelevant, i am one is true, and information is separation" A slight delay means EVERYTHING. That slight delay makes you live in the past, even if you're only back by a fraction of a second. I don't get the second bit. It makes no sense. "only the time of now is true, personal physical experience is matter, like my eyes perceiving physical light" Please actually have support for your "Only Now is True" point, okay? Nothing that you say really relates to that. Also, someone's experience is information, which by your claims would be the opposite of matter, but now you say that information is matter? The light that you see is physical, and your perception of that light is information stored as a thought or memory. As I've stated earlier, none of your sentences relate to the claim that only now is true. You say that something is something, (i.e. Personal experience is matter, the opposite of matter is information, etc.) but give no support to your claims, nor do you say why these things are relevant. Your arguments are extremely difficult to decipher. They're just riddled with fallacies and missing connections which you don't take the time or care to explain.
only now is true

without time there can be no experience, so experience is time, i am being now, i am now, the balancing point between future and past matter is space, and space is time, and matter is only now the opposite of matter is information, so information exist beyond space and time, future and past, false and truth even if there is slight delay i have to imagine it so its irrelevant, i am one is true, and information is separation only the time of now is true, personal physical experience is matter, like my eyes perceiving physical light
only now is true

Humans aren't really 100% sure on what time really is. It could be a a straight line, or a wibbly wobbly timey wimey thing. No matter which way time goes, it will always seem to be moving forward. So, since no human being really has the comprehensive skills to truly understand time right now, I don't think that we should be allowed to call one instant of time true, and the other false. Also, we are technically living in the past, for it takes a little bit for our mind to process images and sounds and whatnot, so would that make our perceptions false?
Jesus was a Socialist

Despite many exploitative, decadent, highly capitalist societies use jesus and religion as propaganda, as well as an excuse to marginalize the majority of the workers, I believe the facts as well as his teachings prove that Jesus was a Socialist, here is why. He clearly disapproved of wealth inequality, one of his quotes was "Assuredly, I say to you it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." Jesus clearly had an understanding of the corruption and inequality that comes from aristocratic wealth. As well as the unfairness of the whole feudal Imperialist system that was going on in his time. He strove for equality and harmony between the classes. Ever heard of the story of the rich young man came to jesus and asked what he could to to enter into heaven, Jesus responded by saying "If you want to be perfect, give what is not needed to the poor, and there will be treasure in heaven." This is a sign that jesus was an advocate for equal distribution of wealth and resources, a belief that sounds very similar to...hmmm....marxism perhaps? Also Jesus was a firm believer in sharing, and always having enough for everyone, a very socialist belief. Ever heard the bible story when Jesus was delivering a sermon in front of thousands of people and managing to feed them all with five loaves of bread and two fish? This type of equal distribution seems very socialist to me. As well as his belief of Loving your neighbor, and caring for the poor, the sick, and the oppressed. Jesus appears to me like the original marxist.
Jesus was a Socialist

You have an interesting, controversial, and in my opinion, incomplete view of Jesus. I do not fault your logic(at least that much) though. I think you have might have overlooked of what Jesus truly is. I believe he was an autistic savant for the most righteous religion at the time(Judaism) and he did put emphasis on sharing what you have much like Marxist did when he created the premise for socialism. However, taking into account that Christianity/Judaism is still based on righteousness, complete equality between all subjects is unpractical for true competition. That being said, that doesn't mean that we derive a better socialism than what Marxist proposed. However, if we assume that another autistic savant can be born and complete the journey of the Christ(which can be interpreted from the second coming of Christ), then I believe yes, that individual can become King considering the whole religion should be expecting him to arrive. In doing so the most efficient economy should be based on phi. Think of the numbers of phi. 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 , 13, 21, 34. Now those are constants adding in sequential order which if you look at in a different way, it could represent the rise of demand. Say you take an item "A" and then sell it for 0 dollars. The next person who would want another of the same item "A" would need to pay the next price which is the next constant of phi being 1 cent. Now that implies that the 7th person would always pay 8 cents for the item "A". Now let's add into the economy item "B". The first person would get it for free and so on and even the 7th person would still buy item "B" for 8 cents. Now say a person "1" that bought item "A" for 34 cents wanted to trade with a person "2" that bought item "B" for 5 cents. Person "2" would pay the difference between the two items 32 cents and each item would still maintain its original value. Person 1 then has the item "B" worth 5 cents. This type of economy can inherently control supply as well, constricting items being made due to the use of trade. This example only implies to reusable items however I would offer a light recommendation to has non-reusable items to be absolutely free such as food and water. This assumes that only one person can produce the items and would need to have absolute apathy towards the money he/she would make. I would assume the second coming of Christ would be able to stand such a temptation. This also still supports competition which is necessary for growth by giving you the motivation to still make the money to pay for as many items as you want. You can also do a lot of things with this theory, such as constricting the supply to different specific groups of people so that the price remains relatively low for each group. I haven't really thought about it too much, but hey, if you have any ideas to improve this theory, go right ahead. Actually, I just thought about it, you can sell non-reusable items for that type of mini-socialistic groups.
Jesus was a Socialist

While your points are valid and logical, they are slightly inaccurate for these reasons: When is says Jesus was the king of Kings, it did not mean he was meant to rule over everyone as a king. It meant that one day all other kingdoms and empires (like Rome, at the time) would fall and crumble away into nonexistence and only Jesus and the kingdom of god would remain. Jesus was never meant to rule as a King, he was meant to teach people the proper way to live so that they could rule themselves and each other properly, by a socio-economic philosophy that would be considered socialism today. While I acknowledge that there are always shortages and surpluses, there is a way that socialism deals with shortages and surplus (trust me I'm a marxist) Regardless of feast or famine, everyone will still get the same amount. Whether that means everyone gets 5 loaves of bread or everyone gets 10 loaves of bread. Lastly, with the Phi system that you are proposing, you say it requires a perfect moral code. It could possibly work during Jesus's lifetime, but once Jesus died, even if the next ruler was a good person, it would be impossible for him to be a one hundred percent moral person. And without perfect morality, the system you proposed would fail. Socialism also requires for the leaders to have a pretty good moral code, not perfect, but they have to be good people. This is why it wasn't able to work in places like Cuba or north Korea when the leaders take WAY more than their share.
Jesus was a Socialist

Even though I accept the premise of the spirit of what you say, I would still disagree with the conclusion solely on the fact that Jesus is meant to be King of Kings. As a King, Jesus would not use the economic system of socialism to distribute wealth to his subjects. The problem with modern day economics is that there are shortages and surpluses which always inherently causes waste whether its from time or from physical uselessness. However, I would postulate that Jesus would build an economic system based on phi. It provides constants and variables that can inherently provide perfect supply and demand. The only caveat with this economic system is that it requires a perfect moral code(Let's assume that Jesus has it) and one leader to distribute all goods and services to his/her people. But this is all conjecture, I'm not really worried about proving my argument right now.
Solar Electic Power

This is a challenge based off of discussion between Roy and myself. The complete resolution: Solar electric power can currently provide energy to the average American home owner at equal or lower cost than the current US grid rate. Solar electric power - Any power source derived directly from solar radiation (as opposed to coal, oil, wood, etc which come from organic material that got energy from solar). Since both Roy and I understand that the effectiveness of solar greatly depends upon the amount of light a house gets over the year, and this light can vary from an average of 8+ hours a day to as low as 2 hours a day pending location in the US, we've both agreed to use Lexington KY to do our solar power calculations on. Standard rules apply, no new arguments final rounds, no insults, and all that jazz, voters can use their reasoning to determine if something steps too far. The first round is for acceptance, however, if my opponent wishes, he may start his arguments in the first round, or pass and I will begin R2. Regardless of what he decides, this should not affect voters regarding conduct or anything. The heart of this debate is to focus on the costs of using solar energy as a power source for your home (we will be looking at individual home scales, not massive city scale projects). We are also DISMISSING governmental subsidies on all fronts (be they state, local, or federal), this is to be based upon the actual cost. I'm not uber good at crafting perfect resolutions, so I hope that by expressing what the heart of the debate is, we can avoid any semantics, though with this particular opponent, I don't see that becoming an issue anyway. Thank you,
incestual marriage

Sorry, but think about parent-children relationships, there will always be the power imbalance at play. A parent is meant to educate a child, love their child as their child. What about a question for you? Would you have sex with your mum, your father or siblings? Would you then marry them? And yes, I agree that you can't help who you fall in love with but seriously? If you can only find an intimate relationship with someone in your own family then perhaps that indicates problems fitting in with society in general? And look at the royal family, they've been doing each other for generations. This could be why they're so screwy. And you're telling me to get a life? I'm sorry but anyone who doesn't see the ickiness in marrying and finding intimacy with their own family, well...
incestual marriage

well there are gay incestual couples and those who have undergone surgery so that they cant have kids. should they be banned from getting married? i think most of the stigma stems from the ickyness rather than the effects. if children of 2 green eyed parents were more likely to have birth defects, would you ban green eyed couples from getting married? and do you really want the government deciding things like that rather than the couples themselves?"I also think love between family is a different thing as any other kind of love."no offense, but get a life. if they really want to be together, let them marry. i dont see how you could see an extra level of love as a negative. if you were in love with someone and wanted to marry them, think of how you would feel if everyone wanted to hate and discriminate against you just because you happen to share some arbitrary connection with your partner? not to mention we are all relatively closely related anyway. life is short, so who gives a damn? if that is what makes them happy, then more power to them.
incestual marriage

I disagree, I think incest is wrong for these reasons. *Having sex with close blood relations can cause birth defect to unborn childeren. Close blood relations getting pregnant to one another can cause the child a short life span. This information is stated here, and was scientifically reasearched. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... I also think love between family is a different thing as any other kind of love. Scrolling down this page http://en.wikipedia.org... there's a table showing which blood related relationships are allowed and which aren't, i agree with this table.
Cats Are Useless Dogs

Dogs are annoying and in the way they do nothing but bother everyone. For instance say you have guests over dogs are tackling guests runing their pants by clawing on them and asking for attention. When they bark it's very noisy and unwanted. Plus dog are also embrassing in pblic say your talking to someone your dog starts humping your new commers leg making it awkward for everyone. You don't have to worry about that with a cat. Cat's nicely hide away from new comers and ispect them nicely
Cats Are Useless Dogs

Nice starter....The Canine. Man's best friend. For thousands of years dogs have been used to protect mankind. They teach responsibility, they protect along with love their master uncontrollably (something you need to learn!). On the other hand, cats lay around all day doing nothing. What has a cat ever done for their owners? Yea so what there's a couple of extraordinary cases in which cats somehow saved their owners lives, but dogs have never stopped providing.
Cats Are Useless Dogs

Sam it doesn't matter your dog has humped me on a number of occasions it it was weird. Not all dogs train easy fso you saying that you can train a dog to not do that is not nessarily true. You told me to me to say something that cat's can't do that dogs can do well...cats can use the litter box you never really have to let them outside less struggle. And plus cats can catch mice and dogs can't fit into the small places or have the patience to sit there and wait for the mouse to show up.
Cats Are Useless Dogs

Are yous serious? What kind of argument is that?! If you train your dogs you shouldn't have to worry about them ruining guest's pants. My dog has never ever humped someone's leg while I was taking him on a walk. Train your dogs and you should have no worries. Cats are useless. Waste of money. You might as well just throw it away. Tell me Jalinne, name one thing cats can do (that's good for their owners) that dogs cant.
Human Personhood Begins at and by Human Conception (fertilization)

This debate will focus on the (U.S.) LEGAL requirements for personhood. I am taking the PRO side of the debate as I will argue that our laws should and to some extent already do recognize the fact that human 'personhood' begins at conception. My opponent will be taking the position of Con and will try to argue that personhood does not and or should not begin at conception. This debate is significant in that our Constitution under the 'equal protections' clause of the 14th Amendment is by way of it's own wording, an inclusive establishment. "... nor shall any state deprive ANY person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to ANY person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." ~ 14th Amendment (emphasis mine)http://www.law.cornell.edu...Cornell Law says: "By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights. See Civil Rights."http://www.law.cornell.edu...The common English definition for the word "personhood" is:Personhood;1.the state or fact of being a person.[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...The current Legal definition for 'natural person' isNatural Person;1. A Human Being; the Body of a Human Being[2] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...;[3] http://dictionary.findlaw.com...Round 1 is for opening remarks and for my opponent's acceptance. Round 2 & 3 will be for debate, the introduction of references and new argumentsRound 4 for closing arguments and summary.