BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The egg came first, not the chicken.

Logically, the chicken had to be in existence before an egg could be hatched, as their eggs require a mother chicken to keep an egg warm in order for it to hatch. A chicken egg is the egg that only a chicken lays. A chicken egg will hatch a chicken and was laid by a chicken. Therefore, both the chicken and egg must have always existed. "If there has been a first man he must have been born without father or mother -- which is repugnant to nature. For there could not have been a first egg to give a beginning to birds, or there should have been a first bird which gave a beginning to eggs; for a bird comes from an egg." - Aristotle (384-322 BC)
Les Miserables is the Best Musicaql in History

I say that Les Miserables isn't the best musical in history. First off, who says that interesting villains and all that stuff is good? How does it make it the best? It's all about opinion really, which means that Les Miserables is not the best musical. it may be in someone's opinion, but that doesn't make it fact. I think I've already won the debate simply from that.
Les Miserables is the Best Musicaql in History

Les Miserables is the best musical in the history of musical theatre. Never before has a musical had such a rich plot with such developed characters. The songs are incredible and written by two musical geniuses. You are attached to every character in the show and you realize that, even though they are both enemies, Valjean and Javert are both trying to do the right thing. This can give you a different outlook on the show and makes for quite and interesting "villain". Overall, Les Miserables is by far the best musical of all time, beating Wicked and Phantom of the Opera, as well. Those are both great, but cannot compare to Les Miserables in any way.
Les Miserables is the Best Musicaql in History

Yes, but it's all about opinion, so Les Miserables isn't the best musical, which means that I will be victorious in this debate. Sophisticated people such as moi (getting clever with the French language there) hate things such as developed characters, instruments and plots.Also, what do you mean by 'mostly'?, 100% or something over 50 that isn't 100%?
Celebrities are overrated

my opponent has forfeited this round. Surely it is because of my bold statement left him awestruck. Now I will just recap what i have said before: True they have things other people dont, but they are still just people (unless your alien theory is true) Sure they are better looking then your average Joe, but still, they are made from average Joes who make themselves good-looking with plastic surgery. Anyone can be a celebrity really, all you have to be able to do is read lines. Bottom line, the writers should be more famed than the celebrities, because without them, celebrities would not have jobs because all the do is read lines. Just look at the writers strike, now that they arent writing, celebrities are mad. This is what i said before and there are plenty of other good looking people in this world. There are also people who can act and sing just as well as celebrities if not better. What say you now?
Celebrities are overrated

As my opponent (refered to as "he" from now on) said, that they are just normal people, yet we go crazy about them. They are not normal people. They are aliens trying to control the world! Sorry about that. They have money, power, and fame, all things that the average person does not have, but they want to have it. They might think that idolizing celebrities will make them closer to what they cannot be. " Is that really what you think of me as? "He"? That is very rude, i prefer to be called by my full name; Pabloricardojuliosaffordomartinez. (that is not really my name, but it is what you shall address me as) Wow, for a Ninja, you are NOT wise beyond your years. I expected better from a ninja. Well here i go: True they have things other people dont, but they are still just people (unless your alien theory is true) Sure they are better looking then your average Joe, but still, they are made from average Joes who make themselves good-looking with plastic surgery. Anyone can be a celebrity really, all you have to be able to do is read lines. Bottom line, the writers should be more famed than the celebrities, because without them, celebrities would not have jobs because all the do is read lines. Just look at the writers strike, now that they arent writing, celebrities are mad. Sincerely, Pabloricardojuliosaffordomartinez
School Uniforms Should not be Required

I apologize profusely for forfeiting. That was unacceptable behavior, although it's true I did not have enough time.Rebuttal to your Rebuttal"...hours of decisions of what to wear." This is not actually an exaggeration (1) because research shows that, on average, most women spend nearly one year trying to decide what to wear. If parents help children decide what to wear, then the parents will also be wasting their time, and uniforms will benefit both parents and children."...Clothes can often be used to define social statuses..." You agree that North Face can make you seem richer than others, and it is sometimes true that people wear different clothes to school (2). An experiment shows that people are more influenced by people who wear "cool" clothes."people will have to rely on personality rather than the outfit they are wearing." You may argue that wearing uniforms may destroy individuality, but on the other hand, uniforms may make people behave better because they no longer have to depend on clothes. "High social status", which is popularity, probably consists of people with cute clothes and "low social status" will be made up of people with less pretty clothes. Poor people may be able to afford the school uniform because uniforms are a lot cheaper than normal clothes. (3) Uniforms cost nearly twice as less as normal clothes and, therefore, poor people can go to school just like others and not be worried about having bad clothes." I said uniforms do not really affect how bullies harm kids and a person's normal clothing does not affect a bully's insults either." Therefore, as you said so yourself, uniforms will not have a negative impact either. And according to my argument, uniforms will have a positive effect.Uniforms do not go against the US constitutional beliefs of freedom of expression because most people actually like to wear them. Usually, most people like me will not have any problems wearing uniforms. Also, parents will like uniforms too, and the parents of the majority will overpower to minors and uniforms will be appreciated.Good job, pro! I apologize once again for forfeiting. Sources(1) http://www.telegraph.co.uk...(2) http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu...(3) http://www.examiner.com...
School Uniforms Should not be Required

Wow! This "noob" is good! She might even be the first to beat me in this topic! Now, for my rebuttal.... "...hours of decisions of what to wear." That is a total exaggeration. No one takes hours to decide what to wear. And if they do, their parents will teach them to be faster, training their children for later jobs that do not require a uniform. School uniforms remove the training needed. If a person wears school uniforms all the way until work, and they don't know what to wear, they WILL spend hours of decision on what to wear. :P "....Clothes can often be used to define social statuses...." Not really. While famous brands such as North Face can make you seem richer than others, nobody wears rags to school or sparkling jewelry. Normally it is hard to tell how rich a person is based on their clothes if you do not know the brand. "people will have to rely on personality rather than the outfit they are wearing. " People usually don't depend on what they wear to "rise in social statuses". No study has shown that people with "high social status" wear amazing designer clothing. "poor...have ragged clothes..." So....what makes you think that they'll be able to afford the school uniform? Parents are shown to complain about prices in source [1] above. " There really isn't really a way to express yourself using clothes. Clothing is only something you wear and, in no way, can be used to define yourself." Wrong. As an example said by source [4], "Some people who have a very conservative personality won't wear low cut clothes they will wear long sleeves and professional clothing." In addition, as said by source [5], "Clothing choices are rarely neutral, and our inner secrets can be read in our choices. " These two sources clearly show that clothing can express personality. While wearing a uniform, the only ways to express oneself is with measly bracelets and necklaces, both which are barely visible compared to normal clothing. And I didn't say uniforms do not affect how people act. I said uniforms do not really affect how bullies harm kids and a person's normal clothing does not affect a bully's insults either. I extend my argument concerning the fact that school uniform going against the US constitutional beliefs of freedom of expression, which she failed to refute. Oh, and my opponent has yet to cite a single source. Onto you, con! [4] http://www.ask.com... [5] http://www.psychologies.co.uk...
School Uniforms Should not be Required

School uniforms should be required because they encourage discipline, help students resist peer pressure to buy new clothes, and diminish economic and social barriers between students.First of all, school uniforms encourage discipline by making students focus on studying and homework rather than new clothes. In the morning, instead of worrying on different outfits, students can do school related activities like organizing their backpack, double-checking their homework, or studying. Students spend a lot of time thinking about clothing, but now, since they have uniforms, they no longer have to go through tedious shopping or hours of decisions of what to wear.School uniforms also help students resist the urge to buy designer clothing. When everyone is wearing the same uniform, the only time new clothes are nexus are weekends, holidays, and summer break, which is a lot less clothes than the entire school year. Clothes can often be used to define social statuses, but if there are no different clothes, people will have to rely on personality rather than the outfit they are wearing. In schools, some students are poor while others are rich. Poor students may have scholarships in order to afford school and have ragged clothes, while rich students may be supported by very wealthy parents and have expensive, fancy clothes. These completely different types of clothes make a huge difference in their popularity at school. Instead of comparing each others clothes, students can compare each others personality and intelligence, which makes a much larger difference. Although you argue that school uniforms destroy individuality, there really isn't really a way to express yourself using clothes. Clothing is only something you wear and, in no way, can be used to define yourself. You also insist that school uniforms create robot-like unity and decrease independence and creativity, but this is not accurate at all. Uniforms cannot affect the way you think, except for in productivity and usefulness. I also do not understand how wearing the same uniform creates "robots", because "robots" are defined as 'a machine resembling a human being and able to replicate certain human movements and functions automatically', but simply looking the same does not force them to somehow act the same. And since you also agree that uniforms do not affect how someone acts; this proves that uniforms will not harm how someone acts.Your turn, pro!
School Uniforms Should not be Required

In the adult world students have to make their own choices and school uniforms exclude that "training excercise" of having to choose what clothes to wear. [1]School uniforms send out a sense of anti-individuality that goes against our personal liberty and freedom of expression. A nation should not go against its beliefs. It would not really matter if this was not in the constitution in the first place, but seriously--the constitution is the basic belief of America, and breaking it is a big blunder! [2]Although school uniforms can bring a sense of unity among students, the unity is too robot-like! As shown in source [3], a parent openly states "I believe we should...advance independent, creative thinkers -- not standardized, uniformed thinkers." Frudden said. "To do anything less is to do our children and our society a disservice."As shown from source [1], parents are unsatisfied with the school uniform prices, indicating that school uniforms don't exactly save parents money. They would not complain if the school uniforms actually saved money!People usually judge other people based on the clothes they wear, I agree, but a person's clothes really have nothing to do what goes on. If someone isn't very smart or physically capable they will still get bullied regardless of the fact that they look the same as everyone else. In other words, bullies can still persist, teasing other students concerning their mental ability instead of physical. Furthermore, not everyone bases people on their clothing. Sure, nobody's like the Beauty from "Beauty and the Beast", but everyone can see some desirable traits underneath the ugly face! (No offense, Mr. Beast)Onto you, con! ALL SOURCES IN MLA CITATION[1]Brosnan, Peter, and Alexis Brindley. "What Not to Wear: A School's Dress Code Limits Clothing Styles and Colors." Current Events, a Weekly Reader Publication 28 Mar. 2011: 7. Opposing Viewpoints in Context.Web. 10 Feb.2014." [2]Fetzer, Kent J. "School Uniforms Stifle Freedom of Expression." Salt Lake Tribune [Detroit] 18 Apr. 2002: F2. Opposing Viewpoints in Context.Web. 10 Feb.2014." [3]Dolan, Maura. "CALIFORNIA; Court Rejects School's Shirts; Judges Say Requiring Students to Wear the School's Motto Is a Free-Speech Violation." Los Angeles Times [Los Angeles] 15 Feb. 2014: AA3. Elibrary. Web. 21 Feb. 2014."
Rap Battle XXIV

The reason i have 2 friends is because I have a life, I don't spend 2 years on this stupid website, because this place isnt that nice, its full of crappy people, Like mr. Ice. If you know who he is, Im sure you do, hes the guy who thinks indians are doo doo You see this website is full of $hit, with so many trolls acting like a b1tch but maybe it can saved, if we get rid of those men who live in caves Now you see I do not plot with the orange man up on top. No, I don't do that, because he is basically a piece of crap. now who would want to plot with that? Now the rest of your rap is a bunch of nonsense, so I guess ill just end it here, to spare the people of this very queer*, nonsensical - rap. * Queer is used as in odd.
Rap Battle XXIV

Had the English homework, But I took the 0 Can't resist to roast this twit just right over here, Yo Profile pic shows that he's plottin' with the Donald Trump Rap skills show that his knowledge in the McDonald's dump People call you gay, Yeah, That is all they say, Yeah When you fight me, You just stall, You afraid? Yeah 4 months in, And you only have 2 friends So many requests for me, No choice but refuse them It's obvi that your wit is dumb, Nothing but a brittle crumb This is done before I even had go and spit the 1 No challenge, Isn't fun, Bjtch I'll make you listen up I am neva givin' up, Tay Keith, Fvck this njgga up! Bjtch, This aint trap, This 'aint mumble rap Quit with that 'Lanta shjt, Take it fvcking back Cook up dope with Migos like a fugly twat And OD so I don't have to use my lucky gat
Rap Battle XXIV

$hit $hit $hit $hit My rhymes are so Lit or are they $hit who knows, I could be wrong, but one thing is for sure, you have a small dong ay, Ay, Ay, fortnite, Ya, Ya. play it everyday, Day people call me gay, Gay, but it aint true, No, No, yeah i gots a life, Yo yo, my life is doing rap battles on a website called DDO, yeah yeah, My rhymes are fire, each time i rap i go higher and higher spitting crap and doing that. YEAH, MMM, YEAH, MMM DDO, its the worst website ever, but who cares, Cause will i leave, Never! nah, Nah, Ill stay here yeah cause its time, time to rap battle on a website, and we all know, that im gonna win, Aight?
Rap Battle XXIV

https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=XbJzPcogIZQ Tay Keith, Fvck these nigg@s up! I snatch up my lighter, Burn you with the fire Even when your skin turns black, You are not a fighter You is just a tire, Rolling down the hill, I'm rolling up the hill with the skill, No one higher List you on my hit-list, With the other bjtches 9 are in the ground, Shjt I am not kidding, Bout to make 10, So will away your riches Cause when they ask for you, They gon' here them tiny crickets Hop up in the six four, Turn on all the switches 12 gauge in the door, Just for getting traffic tickets Roll up to your block, Feeling somewhat anxious feeling dangerous, No patience, And I'm fvcking happy with it Pump a couple in, They go through the window Can't see shjt through this motherfvckin tint, Though Bust out the car to bust you like a pimple Load a slug in, Cause I wanna make a big hole! See you in the house, Begging with the pleas "Bjtch, Like you suckin djck, Get down on you KNEES! " Make sure no one looking-from behind the trees "This is what you get when you fvcking with me! " BOOM! --- You think this is prose, But everybody knows Not to fvck with Jimmy who's the pro of DDO I'll take you all out, What y'all coming for? I'll take you all out, You'll be number twenty four. . .
ClassicWho Is Better Than NuWho

I agree so much both eras are and will forever be great pieces of television. However the new era of doctor who is and (will once again(in my opinion)) the best version of doctor who. i do however believe that the new era is more relatable to the new audiences that will grow up with it. But the process will continue, the children growing up watching Dr Who will pass it onto their children and so on. So in hindsight I beg to differ that Doctor Who will ever be forgotten. i thank you for listening to my opinions it has been a nice debate, i hope you have a great christmas and whoever wins i shall be happy.
ClassicWho Is Better Than NuWho

Doctor Who will still be forgotten eventually. It is terrible to think, but yes, it will eventually. I hate endings. I suppose that it will be forgotten later, because the series has been updated, but this has nothing to do with the fact that ClassicWho is better than NuWho. Yes, NuWho does have great scripts, and so does ClassicWho. I mentioned this in round two. ClassicWho showed a half hour episode once a week instead of a fifty minute episode, which you mentioned, but each STORY (or serial, whichever) was at least four episodes, making each story at least an hour longer than most NuWho stories. After reading what you said in round one, I'm guessing you haven't seen many ClassicWho episodes. You say that the comedy in NuWho is hilarious. So it is ClassicWho. Just watch any episode with Tom Baker or Sylvester McCoy. Jelly babies and the Doctor's annoyance at being called "Doc". Funny stuff! You like Eleven, Amy, and Rory? Try Four, Sarah Jane, and Harry Sullivan. I suppose in the end the two eras are both brilliant, in their own ways. We could argue for years and never get anywhere. Thank you for joining this debate. I like to read peoples' different opinions.
ClassicWho Is Better Than NuWho

I take into consideration that the older ones are (obviously) the first of their kind, however if it werent for the new series Dr Who would have been forgotten, eventually. and yes even though the new series use all these special effects and CGI, this is not what makes the nuWho good it is the amazing script written by the great stephen moffat and Russell T. Davis. these scripts that they write are some of the best storys to be told on saturday night T.V. Another reason that the NuWho is better is that they last just under 50 minutes, this is 20 minutes longer than the original episodes. The comedy that is written into these episodes is sublty yet hilarious. The 3 actors that have taken up the helm have been great and portrayed the character well but still bringing it into the 21st century making the character more relate able. also Matt Smith and Karen Gillan, NUFF SAID!!!! ooft good luck.
ClassicWho Is Better Than NuWho

ClassicWho is my choice to debate for only because there is more of it to enjoy. Maybe after NuWho is on for forty years, I will change my opinion, but for now I am going with ClassicWho! The older episodes, admittedly, have some pretty embarrassing special effects (bubble rap used for some strange space disease and a cardboard TARDIS in the earlier episodes), but the stories are brilliantly written. The ones written today are as well, but they have all the special effects to help them out. ClassicWho is great even without all the computer-animated monsters and digitalized laser shows. It is quality entertainment. Also, ClassicWho was first. It set the stage for the new series today, which would never have existed without it. Half of the story lines in NuWho relate to (aka, steal from) older episodes. It also lasted for a good forty years, so that has got to count for something! Oh, and two words: Tom Baker. 'Nuff said.
ClassicWho Is Better Than NuWho

This is a debate discussing whether the classic series of Doctor Who is better than the new series of Doctor Who. This will be based on opinion. No need to show off and use big words if you don't want to. This is just a friendly discussion. I will take the position of pro, meaning I believe ClassicWho is better than NuWho. Not that I don't like both. To me, Doctor Who is Doctor Who, no matter what year it's from, but I want to know what other people think about the two eras. Here is how it will work: Round 1: Fan ranting, mostly. This round is kind of off record, so talk about whatever you want. For example, I personally think that Spongebob Squarepants should finally be cancelled already! I mean, that show used to be great, but now it's just embarrassing... Round 2: Debate actually starts. List some facts to support your position. You know the drill. Round 3: Rebuttal/final statements. This debate is open to anyone, although I would prefer to debate with someone who actually watches the show. Of course, I don't think anyone would be interested if they weren't. Anyway, as my math teacher always says just before a test; "Good luck, be careful, and have fun!"
You cannot solve this riddle

I actually considered that answer, but discounted it for multiple reasons. It is your riddle--so I guess you could be considered the final authority. Although, I wouldn't consider my mind (or any human mind) to be effectively "limitless". I still don't know what "minuteless" means, unless it means "timeless" as I suggested--in which case, I'm not sure how to apply that as an attribute of my mind. So perhaps, the voters will be the final authority. Let me list a couple of the other attributes I had trouble applying to your answer, "your mind": - continuous - adj. marked by uninterrupted extension in space, time, or sequence. - Merriam-Webster - has no form All of the attributes I listed would seem to depend on the truth of my mind being something more than the 100 billion nerve cells (neurons) that make up my brain--something more than the electrochemical transmission of signals taking place physically inside my brain. I happen to hold to that belief, but many do not. Some would argue that our minds are nothing more than an advanced, although severely limited, nerve center "fizzing" away with electrochemical activity--in which case, the attributes that suggest "no physical/temporal boundaries" would not apply. I came up with "a riddle" as my answer for the following reasons: - A riddle can be directionless, though, ever flowing, continuous and limitless in the sense that it may abound in possibilities and wonder - A riddle is limitless in the sense that it is not bound to a single solution - A riddle may certainly be "timeless" in its relevance - A riddle is certainly "without form" - A riddle must be born in the sense that someone must conceive of it - A riddle certainly exists in the conceptual sense - A riddle "listens" (metaphorically), awaiting an answer - A riddle hints by its very nature