BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Peanut Butter And Jelly

"Curran is doing fine."Do you like Curran, Illinois? "There is no "Icing Sugar" in peanut butter"You've shattered my world view!!!"I don't know what jelly you are eating, but in America we don't sell jelly with gelatin. Also it contains fruits, which are good for you. Fruit are very well known for containing many vitamins and yummy bits. Which if I remember correctly, I have seen you eat fruit. I bet you liked it. Mangoes."Oh... You are talking about Jam... As in Jelly fruit preserves...Well jelly also, has a lot of.. Stuff in it... That's bad... Mmm kay? "I have eaten PB&J together more than a few hundred times, and I am perfectly fine. In fact if anything, they helped me. When I came home from a hard, hungry day from school the sandwich served as a perfect snack to fill my belly and keep me satisfied." My B'obo! How did you survive!! http://www.mexreport.com...http://naturalsociety.com... http://www.greenchipstocks.com... http://voices.yahoo.com... "[Citation Needed]"Here: http://rense.com...More reasons peanut butter is not a good pair with jelly:Peanut butter and jelly can not survive with each other and has low efficiency!exposed jelly needs to be refridgerated (refridgeration ruins peanut butter) and will go bad and ruin the otherwise perfectly fine peanut butter!What kind of pair has a counterpart that prevents it from staying good?There is a reason this product has a short shelf life and is no where to be found in stores!http://www.neoseeker.com...Next~ Lets examine this heterogeneous mixture:These substances have very dissimilar properties, this is not a trait of a pair, which has corresponding or similar parts!Peanut butter is thick, has very high viscosity, has high opacity, and has low miscibility with jelly as well as other high viscous substances!! Besides the other properties of peanut butter, it is immiscible with jelly because of its high oil content and the fact jelly is made with juices, WATER, and sugar. Its a known fact that water and oils are immiscible and require emulsion to mix!Jelly (a type of fruit preserve) is thin, has low viscosity, high translucency, and is immiscible with peanut butter!!!If you were to mix peanut butter and jelly, you would get a cloudy emulsion with un-dissociated particulates because of the unsoluble nature of the heterogeneous solution. (not to mention it will cause an explosive chemical reaction!)Imagine the difficulty a stomach has trying to mix the resulting bolus and digest these two substances at once!!If these two substances can not even form a homogeneous solution, then how can they be called something that pairs well?!I rest on my case! ~quite comfortable actually :)
Peanut Butter And Jelly

Curran is doing fine. "Peanut butter usually contains a large amount of icing sugar, high fructose syrup, and saturated fats, both of which are bad for you. "There is no "Icing Sugar" in peanut butter, also high fructose corn syrup and saturated fats are not usually found in the natural brands of peanut butter, and are always found in artificial peanut butter, which is in fact unhealthy. This makes the Natural peanut butter an ideal choice since it is both tasty, and healthy. "Jelly has gelatin in it (well is gelatin)! Gelatin has no other nutritional value than protein and is vegetarian racism!" I don't know what jelly you are eating, but in America we don't sell jelly with gelatin. Also it contains fruits, which are good for you. Fruit are very well known for containing many vitamins and yummy bits. Which if I remember correctly, I have seen you eat fruit. I bet you liked it. Mangoes. "both not good pairs! Not acceptable under B'obo standards!"Well that's fine, B'obo himself favours the cheese sandwich anyways. "Pb + J + 2Bread → PbJBread2"When I put the two together I got.....A PB&J Sandwich! "...let their PB&J sandwiches sit for multiple hours, and the sandwiches detonated..."I know what you mean there. Eric lost a burrito under the car seat, and man that thing exploded with the worst stick ever."When a young child was pulling their PB&J sandwich from a lunch box, the sandwich violently exploded from air contacted." [Citation Needed]I have eaten PB&J together more than a few hundred times, and I am perfectly fine. Infact if anything, they helped me. When I came home from a hard, hungry day from school the sandwich served as a perfect snack to fill my belly and keep me satisfied.
Peanut Butter And Jelly

Hey Darian, Hows Curran?Argument 1~Peanut butter usually contains a large amount of icing sugar, high fructose syrup, and saturated fats, both of which are bad for you. Jelly has gelatin in it (well is gelatin)! Gelatin has no other nutritional value than protein and is vegetarian racism!both not good pairs! Not acceptable under B'obo standards!Sugary gelatin products and processed mushed peanuts = stomach disaster!argument 2~The PB&J is unattractive and evil:This is the chemical formula for PB&J sandwhiches: Pb + J + 2Bread → PbJBread2 This is not a chemically safe combination! The compounds used in the processing of the peanut butter and the jelly in the sandwich are acidic and lethally toxic. Alone, there is no threat. Yet, when these constituents are coalesced, they create a hazardous, corrosive chemical. Many people have been fatally injured when they let their PB&J sandwiches sit for multiple hours, and the sandwiches detonated from to the chemical reaction of the precarious mixture. Most injuries and fatalities have been to exposed children. When a young child was pulling their PB&J sandwich from a lunch box, the sandwich violently exploded from air contacted. This child, and others, at the same lunch table were taken to a hospital and had severe burns and even fractured bones as a result of the blast.
Peanut Butter And Jelly

It is apparent from what I have read on your profile that you believe peanut butter does not pair well with jelly. I find this to be an outrage and completely disagree with this fact.You, Yuiru, my opponent once again shall argue the point of Peanut Butter and Jelly, otherwise know as PB&J. The usual rules apply here: No arguing when hungry Integrate B'obo
Liberals ought to be more optimistic about opportunities for success in the U.S.

I used to be annoyed by liberals and their deeply pessimistic attitudes with regard to one's chances for success in this country. It seems to me that, for the most part, they have a contempt for our capitalistic society and believe it stifles opportunity rather than offers the most access to it. I do not wish to argue whether liberals are correct in their critiques of capitalism. It's just that I've become acquainted with some very bright liberals on this site, and I'm starting to worry that their own prospects for success are being compromised by their despairing outlooks. If it is true that we get what we expect in life, I'm not so sure the liberals are on a path to economic advancement.
We should not have price controls on consumer items and ATM's

Thanks! Really appreciate it! :)Alright, in this round, I would like to point out only one argument from my side: 1. How price controls provide the best for both worlds. But, before I move on to my arguments, a few forms of rebuttals.Rebuttals.Both examples that pro tried to present to you inherently has the idea that a company needs money to develop and sustain itself. Our side acknowledges that yes, it is true how a company does need money. Although,considering how both examples came for the distinct fact that there were other parties involved, I can provide 2 responses.1.These companies rely on customers and consumers to actually buy the product itself. In both examples where there are some form of oppression by the people because of the presumably high prices, it is safe to say that the company had to take action because they needed to.Why? Let's have a case study. It is safe to say that if the customers were unsatisfied and ultimately never comes to the shop again, what happens is the company starts losing income in the end. I believe it is very flawed to say that these companies might have an increased income when the opposite might as well happen. 2.It is also very flawed to say that these oppression by the people should go unheard of. Because, what really happens is these people are trying to survive in an industry which is unacceptably exploiting them. I believe that we do need to respect the consumers as well as the industries. Argument.1. Price controls provide the best for both worlds.What happens when there is price controls existing is, exploitation never happens. Because, in our side, the price control is a lever that always comes with a price when there is leverage. So, for example, as you have pointed out as well, the state cannot simply set price controls to such a range where it becomes difficult for companies to survive, therefore making it less incentivized for companies to even invest in the first place. Therefore, the it is in the state's best interest not too set too high price controls.Looking at it from another perspective, you can find that the companies as well will do extremely well by following the price controls. Price controls act as a form of guidelines for companies to work their way through developing their income. Our side believes that companies should always be based on the products that are being sold not the price of the product. Because, what we believe is, companies should earn income through the sales of many innovative and creative products, not the unnecessary extortion of people's income. Conclusion For This Round. I have established to you why there is and will always be a price system that is ultimately beneficial for the people, the industries as well as the country as a whole. Side pro must prove to us what are the benefits that can be obtained through free price controls. So far, pro has not established how both the examples that were given were ultimately in effect.
We should not have price controls on consumer items and ATM's

Hello! You are a very polite man and I think you will make a fabulous debater! Argument: ATM's example: A little while ago citizens in California were complaining about the ATM prices. They decided to contact the government who then lowered the prices to use an ATM. This caused the ATM companies to not want to provide ATM's for California because they were not making a profit. If anything, they were losing profit. It costs certain money to attain ATM's and the companies need a certain amount to provide them for us. Consumer items example: Let's say we want to buy a roll of toilet paper for $2 okay? And you complain that the cost for the paper is too much, you then complain and they lower the prices (I know that's unrealistic but it is just an example). The toilet paper companies notice the 1$ difference (let's say the store lowered it by 1$ and that the companies need $1.50 to produce a roll of toilet paper). The company is then not making a profit. In fact, they are losing money. Conclusion (round 2): These examples show how the companies that manufacture these things need a certain amount of money to produce them.
We should not have price controls on consumer items and ATM's

Well, two things I am going to conclude in this round. Firstly, a few responses and then my closing statements.Side Pro argued that companies does not need a purchase to make money and then follows it up by saying that a purchase needs a certain amount of money to be effective. 2 responses.1. There is a minor contradiction there because you have already admitted that companies do make some form of revenue through purchases.2. But more importantly, purchases are the 'bread and butter' of companies. These companies manufacture products and provide services which can be used by the general society. So, in return, the society must always purchase something as a return for all this goods and services. In fact, this whole debate is ultimately based on 3 parties, the state, the people and the companies. The people play a huge role in companies and there would never be companies without people who purchase from them.Conclusion.In today's debate, side pro has failed to prove some tangible harms as to why we should not allow price controls. I have already rebutted on my side, how both examples given by pro was ultimately one-sided and ignored the other party. My policy provides the best for both worlds. And with that, we take the debate.Thanks For Debating!! Really enjoyed it!
Are unicorns real

The unicorn is a legendary creature that has been described since antiquity as a beast with a large, pointed, spiraling horn projecting from its forehead. The unicorn was depicted in ancient seals of the Indus Valley Civilization and was mentioned by the ancient Greeks in accounts of natural history by various writers, including Ctesias, Strabo, Pliny the Younger, and Aelian.[1] The Bible also describes an animal, the re'em, which some translations have erroneously rendered with the word unicorn.[1]
Are unicorns real

There are a few reasons why unicorns are not real. First, the horn on their head would hit low hanging objects like tree limbs, which at the speeds they would be able to run, would likely knock them down and break their neck or legs. Second, having only one horn means that if it is broken somehow, then the unicorn would have no way to defend itself. Lastly, unicorns would not be bale to hide from predators or blend in with their surroundings since the horn would reveal where they are. Also if they were real then they would've got eaten by the rainbow trolls.
The Death Penalty should be abolished

This challenge is issued to The_American_Sniper. The debate will be structured in the following manner. 1st round acceptance2nd round arguments3rd round rebutalls4th round defense.Definitions - From Oxford DictionariesDeath Penalty - the punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime.Abolish - formally put an end to (a system, practice, or institution): Life Imprisonment - a punishment in which somebody convicted of a crime must remain in prison for the rest of his or her life, or for a very lengthy period.
DEATH PENALTY is better than NO PENALTY

Good arguments. I will argue that it is unethical to kill anyone even if they commited a heinous crime. Lets run through the major religions of the world to see what they think: Christian/Jewish: In the hebrew scriptures (also known as the old testament) Moses comes down from a mountain with the ten commandments for his people that he rescued from Eygpt. One of the ten states, "Thou Shall Not Kill." Muslim: The Quran states, "Do Not Take Life, Which The Allah Has Made Sacred..." Hindu: The Veda states, "You must not use your God-given body for killing God's creatures, whether they are human, animal or whatever." Buddhist: The Dhammpada states, "Do not kill or cause kill." Just those five top religions in the world make up seventy-four percent of the world and none of those promote killing any humans. In fact I don't know any religion that promotes killing humans. Only 16 percent of the world is atheist meaning that there is only 16 percent of the world that MIGHT promote killing other humans. I look forward to your rebuttal.
DEATH PENALTY is better than NO PENALTY

1. The death penalty acts as a deterrent of crime.Most people fear death and strive to avoid it; death is the consequence of heinous crimes; therefore, most people would refrain from heinous crimes.This saves innocent lives and decreases crime. 2. The death penalty accelerates criminal cases. The threat of using the death penalty quickly can help solve cases.3. More people support the death penalty than oppose it. A majority of the people supports capital punishment and vote for those politicians that take a strong stand against crime. Four. The death penalty is just.Our moral status as human beings allows us to deliberate about moral significant actions and consequences. When someone steals an old lady's purse, for example, we feel a moral outrage at the incident. This is called, "moral aggression." Our moral aggression obligates us to use retributive justice in response to heinous, violent crimes. Therefore, the concept of justice is achieved and upheld by sustaining the death penalty.Five. Without penalties for crime, misconduct, and rule breaking chaos would occur. My opponent will have to argue that anarchism is okay, and that people would be incapable of retaliatory tactics when they are raped, their family is murdered, and when their chattle is thieved away. If the car you desperately wanted was sitting in a parking lot running without an occupant, and there was no penalty for stealing it, would you steal it? Most likely, yes. For most actions, there is a risk and a reward. If I want to rape a young boy, my reward is sex and the risk is many years in prison. Depriving the natural order of justice in this manner results in chaos: absolutely obliterated economic systems; skyrocketing theft, murder, rape, and rights infringement; starvation, die-offs, and environmental mayhem; sports would cease to function properly; violence would escalate; family relations and social relations would deteriorate. Therefore, instituting a death penalty is better than instituting no penalties.Any sane person reading this debate will likely agree with my side. Thank you, masha'Allah!
Gun control. Obama, keep away from my gun.

Wow you didn't even try to make an argument for your point Alright let's look at a common argument among pro-gun supporters > Guns can be used to prevent crime Except in states with less gun ownership it has been proven that there are lower homicide rates, even when Socioeconomic factors are considered "States with the highest gun-ownership levels (Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, Arkansas, Arizona, West Virginia, North Dakota, Idaho, Mississippi, and Alabama), meanwhile, had 6.8 times the rate of firearm assaults, 2.8 times the rate of firearm homicides, and twice the rate of overall homicides than states with the lowest gun-ownership levels." " the study found that states with the lowest rates of firearm ownership (Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, California, Florida, Illinois, and Maryland) had significantly lower rates of firearm-related assault and robbery, firearm homicide, and overall homicide." - http://www.thetrace.org... - https://www.nber.org...
The scientific method can apply to God

I never said that the scientific arguments for God are invalid I said that you can argue for the existence of God without necessarily using scientific arguments. Now I agree that many scientific arguments can be better arguments than philosophical arguments however the question "Does God exist?" Is not a scientific question it's philosophical since God exist outside of nature and science only studies nature and not things outside of it. That's why God is not a scientific theory it's a philosophical theory since it stems from philosophy.
The scientific method can apply to God

I just want to say that I use to feel the same way that my opponent felt about God potentially being a scientific hypothesis. However, this was back then when I was scientifically illiterate. After listening to why many atheists believe God can be tested and personal research, I have to admit that atheists are right at least on this point. It really comes down to one fundamental point my opponent alluded to. Although God's immaterial self obviously cannot be detected, but In theory, His actions could still be detectable. Remember, the scientific method is inherently inductive by nature where scientists evaulate the effects to find out what the cause is. Quantum phenomna are perfect examples of this because many of the particles can only be seen indirectly through their effects, such as neutrinos. Since my opponent did not tackle the reasons I presented that demonstrate how the scientific method can apply to God, there is not much else I can respond to as a result. His only objection is that since thiests crafted philosopical arguments God's existence over the centuries, this somehow automatically renders all my scientific arguments ,that show how God can be tested, to be invalid.This must be a non sequitur since it does not seem to follow at all why this is the case. Therefore, I am just going to finish this round with a summary of why God can be tested. Here is a powerpoint presentation I obtained from wikipedia that shows the steps of the scientific method, which I will be using to make my final case:1. Make observationsA. Origin of the UniverseB. Fine-tuning constants2. Define a QuestionA. What caused the Big bang?3. Formulate a HypothesisA. There is a eternally existing personal cause with unlimited abilities who created and sustains the universe to bring about life.4. Develop testable predictionsA. If my hypothesis is true, we should find a polarizing light within these gravitational waves from inflation.B. If my hypothesis is false, we find variations among the fine-tuning constants from any part or time of the universe.5. Devise an experimentA. Experiments such as BICEP2, POLARBEAR, SPTPOL and SPIDER, have the potential to detect a positive signal from these waves.B. The Fermi telescope and the Planck satellite are the experiments that should reveal any variations among the constants.
The scientific method can apply to God

My opponents case for the "God hypothesis" I can agree with. Everything he said in his last argument I can agree with since those are verified expiramnets and laws that are true. What I argue is that the God theory is philosophical rather than scientific. We may find scientific evidence that only the God theory can account for however the God theory itself is not scientific but philosophical since there are many philosophical arguments for God that are not exclusive to science. That's why most theist say that God is a philosophical theory however scientific evidence can be used to support the God theory.
The scientific method can apply to God

I will be arguing that the scientific method cannot be applied to God since science studies the natural world and since God is by definition outside of the natural world then we cannot do an expirament or show observational proof for God using science alone. I believe that if we use natural theology to see if God exist that would be more logical on a philosophical standpoint since science cannot be proved using science. Or in other words you cannot prove the scientific method using the scientific method it's nonsense.
A breakdown in communication create segregation within our existence creators name.

im the smartest man on the planet because i have an astrological IQ, metaphysical IQ and so called philosophical IQ i dont need to have the highest traditional IQ for me to be the smartest man on the planet because everyone has there own intellectual style no?? no?? my intellectual style is better and i have a higher IQ than Marilyn Vos Savant because ima GAHHHDD!!! LMFAOOOOOOO HAHAHAHA LOL LML ROFL!! >> XD << and i know i didn't master every intellectual craft but i know for a fact that i can do every intellectual craft i want because im god LMFAOOOOOOOOOOO XD no?? no?? i even exposed Albert Einsteins philosophies like how he said "darkness doesn't exist" meanwhile some government on this planet created invisible tanks composed of dark matter LMFAOOOOOOOO HAHAHAHA LOL LML ROFL!! >> XD << so i dont know who you think your philosophically testing i know your not talking to The Conscious Narrator ME!!!?? ME!!???.......LET'S PHILOSOPHICALLY GO MUTHAFUCKA LET'S GO LMFAOOOOOOOO HAHAHAHAHA LOL LML ROFL! >>>> XD <<<<