BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Give me any riddle I can sovle it wighout the belp of Google.

A Newspaper 📰 The $2 that the bellhop pocketed is the same $2 that makes the room cost $27 instead of $25. You can't count it twice. Then once you have the $27 (either the amount they paid or the actual room charge plus bellhop "tip") add the $3 that was returned. This gives you the $30. Sleep paralysis Please tell me if my answers are correct or not.
Give me any riddle I can sovle it wighout the belp of Google.

What's black and blue and red all over Three friends check into a motel for the night and the clerk tells them the bill is $30, payable in advance. So, they each pay the clerk $10 and go to their room. A few minutes later, the clerk realizes he has made an error and overcharged the trio by $5. He asks the bellhop to return $5 to the 3 friends who had just checked in. The bellhop sees this as an opportunity to make $2 as he reasons that the three friends would have a tough time dividing $5 evenly among them; so he decides to tell them that the clerk made a mistake of only $3, giving a dollar back to each of the friends. He pockets the leftover $2 and goes home for the day! Now, each of the three friends gets a dollar back, thus they each paid $9 for the room which is a total of $27 for the night. We know the bellhop pocketed $2 and adding that to the $27, you get $29, not $30 which was originally spent. Where did the other dollar go???? What sleeps all day and yet stays awake never wandering even though it moves never talking yet always has a voice
Give me any riddle I can sovle it wighout the belp of Google.

A eunuch who did not see well saw a bat perched on a reed and threw a pumice stone at him which missed. Hem-lock The man was a fisherman and was telling somebody on the phone about the large fish he caught. When he used his hands to gesture how big the fish was he hit the glass breaking it and cutting himself. Saw this before at goodriddlessnow.com
Give me any riddle I can sovle it wighout the belp of Google.

Question: There is a story that a man and not a man Saw and did not see a bird and not a bird Perched on a branch and not a branch And hit him and did not hit him with a rock and not a rock. [How is this possible?] Question: When my first is a task to a young girl of spirit, And my second confines her to finish the piece, How hard is her fate! But how great is her merit If by taking my whole she effects her release! Question: A man is found dead in a phone booth in a pool of blood. The glass on either end of the phone booth is broken and the phone is hanging. Just outside of the phone booth is a bucket and a stick. What happened?
bananas are funnier looking then apples

I accept. The burden of proof is on PRO, who is making a positive claim to the effect that bananas are "funnier looking" than apples. This means that he must prove that bananas look funnier than apples, or X > Y, whereas I must only prevent him from doing this. In other words, if it is possible by the end of this debate that apples are funnier looking than bananas, or that they're equally funny looking, or that we don't know which are funnier looking, you vote CON by default. PRO doesn't offer a single positive argument, other than the point out his opinion that bananas look funnier. He needed to defend an objective statement to the effect that one looks funnier than the other, but doesn't explain to us how we can evaluate objectively which looks funnier, so this boils down to nothing more than a subjective judgment.
This house would ban prisoners publishing accounts of their crimes

Now, as he does not make any attempt to refute any of my definitions, we find it imminently clear, therefore, that they may stand for the context of this debate. However, Pro makes it clear that all arguments are entitled to consideration under British policies. As such, there remains a few issues that must be taken into consideration before we may continue this debate, and I will introduce them throughout my arguments and rebuttals. Constitutional Right -------------------------------- Now as my opponent makes it obviously clear that all British policies may come into effect for the purpose of this debate, we find it imminent that, even by the intrinsic and inherent Constitutional policies imposed by the British parliament, freedom of speech is a categorical right that is entitled to any individual in its society. By article 10 in the British constitution, the freedom of speech policy introduced and endorsed by the European Convention upholds the inherent and intrinsic right to freedom of publication and speech as long as it does not interfere majorly with government policies or cause treason or a wide context of riot. As such, we find it crystalline clear and stolidly cut in stone that all prisoners retain the intrinsic categorical right to freedom of speech and publication so long as it does not completely interfere with government policies or uphold treason, for which, by the very concept and definition of account, opposes. When we take away, however, this categorical and intrinsic right to speech, we take away the very hierarchy of government and policies that provide the fundamental and foundational premises of life. Prisoners, by the explicit resolution, as they give 'accounts' of their crimes, provide for only the publications of the facts of their crimes that claim objective status in a societal context. As my opponent makes no attempt to interfere with or even propose any other definitions, we can thus adhere with my definitions, by which the explicit phrasing of the definition provides for the grounds on which we can judge that the account will completely be factual in nature, and will not include the so proposed 'glorification' of crime. Wherein denying such freedom of the press or speech would not only destroy the fundamental policies that make up the foundational structure and infrastructure of the government, but also eliminate all validity and certitude for all other government policies as well. As I am limited in time, I would like to introduce the framework for which I will endorse and justify further and deeper in detail in the next round, specifically 'Oppression of Individualism'. I apologize for my limited time schedule, and thus await further developments and urge a CON vote for the present. Thank you.
This house would ban prisoners publishing accounts of their crimes

First off, I would be glad to specify a few definitions for which we will look to not only in providing jurisdiction on the overall thrust of the debate, but also arguments as well, and hope PRO will allow them to stand, as following: 1> Ban: To prohibit, forbid, or bar; interdict [2] 2> Prisoner: A person deprived of liberty and kept under involuntary restraint, confinement, or custody [1] 3> Publish: To make publicly or generally known [2] 4> Account: An oral or written description of particular events or situations; narrative [2] 5> Crime: An action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited [2] Now, as this round is merely acceptance, there remains a specification for which I am inquisitive of: Concerning the structure of the debate itself, would you, as PRO, like to specify it more universally, both for readers' and judges' benefits, such as limiting it to a normal debate in which argument presentation, refutations, further refutations, and summation is the order? For the structure for which you have proposed, especially your specification for the third round is, if I may say, relatively vague. Do you mean by second speaker, to introduce a whole new argument, or merely going back over same points and strengthening the latter case? Thank you very much for your thoughtfulness, in advance.
Resolved: Russia would have lost WWII without Allied assistance

1) They're Russialook brosif the point is that russia is badasss that deals with the cold and sh1t. By there very nature the can win the war to win,Riding a horse and looking awesome as f*ck iss the point making your argument irrelevent.2) Mosin NagantYou believe the mosin nagant is obsolete because some guy says so? Wow i tell you what ask a russian to shoot at you with a nagant and tell me you think there obsolete.3) BadasseryThe holocost never happened so that argue no count. Those loss of numbers dont make a war. Someone can win the war but lose a lot all that matters is one russian is standing.God bless the motherland.AmenYes
Resolved: Russia would have lost WWII without Allied assistance

1) They're Russia Excellent observation which I would never have suspected--indeed, it is hard for me to comprehend that Russia is... Russia. Cool Putin rides a horse with no shirt... I can do the same thing, it would just be less exotic and sexy. How is this related to the topic at hand, exactly?2) Mosin Nagant The mosin was an exellent weapon, however, its widespread use does not mean it is the best weapon of its time. In fact, "it has shown up in various conflicts around the world, despite its age and obsolescence (emphasis mine)" [1]. It was a weapon which was cheap and could be mass produced, but it was not a superior rifle. The German stg 44, for example, was the first assault rifle created, and possibly influenced the design of the AK 47 [2]. 3) BadassThere is no doubt in my mind that the Russians were fierce motivated warriors, but the fact is that is not enough alone to win a war. The German SS was also ideologically motivated, which even led them to commit atrocious war crimes related to the holocaust [3]. Further, the Russians lost significantly more troops than the Germans, generally twice as many. And in total Axis versus Soviet casualties, the Russians lost 3 million more. If cold made them badass, why would the German soldiers kill them in far greater numbers?[4]______________ 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...;2. http://en.wikipedia.org...;3. http://en.wikipedia.org...;4. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Resolved: Russia would have lost WWII without Allied assistance

Why Russia needed no help. They're F*cking russia! They deal with bears and the cold. they created the f*cking mosin nagant which functions and still kills when the rifle is 100 years oldObserve http://i.dailymail.co.uk...; /> http://himalman.files.wordpress.com...; /> http://worldwar2headquarters.com...; /> http://www.imfdb.org...; /> http://worldwar2headquarters.com...; /> http://worldwar2database.com...; width="814" height="969" />F*ckin bad$$. You cannot beat them. Nobody can.Hail!
Resolved: Russia would have lost WWII without Allied assistance

Could Russia have won World War 2 without the help from the Western Allies? Many people believe this is so, however I respectfully disagree.As to how assistance is defined: Both military and economic assistance, not one or the other. My opponent must attempt to prove that is is likely that the Russians would have defeated the Germans in World War 2 had the Western Allies not intervened (for example, UK signs a peace treaty with Hitler after the fall of France and the Americans never enter the war--economically or militarily). I thank whoever my opponent may be for accepting this debate. http://www.youtube.com...
Haiku Battle

1. A "/" is not a word, nor is it a syllable. 1b. If you want to count it as a syllable, you might as well count commas as syllables. 2. There aren't syllable requirements. The most important part of a haiku is the seasonal word. 3. It doesn't matter if verbalism is a word. Its meaning is clear, anyway. The onlookers cast Votes for the contender, like For fish in a stream.
Vegan vs. Carnivore Diet

Thanks for the point of view. I'll try to just go through everything point by point. 1) Veganism (or vegetarianism) is how our bodies are built. This is simply factually incorrect. I can tell that you're coming from a good place, but that doesn't change the facts of human history. Our development as humans has included meat as a necessary component dating back millions of years. In nature, and without access to meat, we wouldn't have developed as we know ourselves today. There simply weren't enough calories available otherwise to select for the large, calorie-hungry brains we have. Our relatively small teeth and jaws didn't come about until after we had developed processing techniques for our food. Those processing techniques required large brains to develop, and those brains required high-calorie diets that were only attainable through meat eating at the time. Here's the research backing this up: http://nature.com... 2) We are not meant to [eat animals]. I have to respond to this statement with a question. What does it mean to be "meant to" do something? If you're making a historical argument, I refer you to (1). If you're talking about a directive from a higher power, then I would inquire as to which higher power you are referencing? Either way, I'll need some more information to be able to discuss this point. 3) We need to eat raw vegetables and limited processed foods. I would say this depends on your personal preference and certainly isn't a need in the strictest sense. Our survival doesn't depend on this. You'll be perfectly fine eating cooked vegetables. As far as processed foods, if by "processed" you mean "exclusively McDonalds" then yes, perhaps we will have some negative health impacts. However, many normal healthy foods are heavily processed. Consider whole grain bread, pasta, nuts, yogurt, etc (4) Why would you support factory farming? I'm not sure, but it's not necessary to support factory farming to have a diet that includes meat. Alternatives to factory farming are sometimes labelled "organic" farming or "sustainable" farming. Simply buy meat from labels who use the farming methodologies you support. 5) Most people, when asked, don't even know where their meat comes from. Well, in a sense, I believe they do understand. The steak comes from a cow, the bacon from a pig, etc. They may not know which farm it comes from, but I would suspect that the same is true of an average person who buys a bag of spinach from the store. Does this person know the details of the farm or the details of the process by which the spinach was planted, harvested, transported? 6) book plug and sick human comment no comment
Vegan vs. Carnivore Diet

Veganism and or vegetarianism is how our bodies are built. We are not meant to captivate, torture, and eat other concious beings. We need to eat the closest things we can get to the earth, raw vegetables and limited processed foods. Why would you support factory farming? Most people, when asked, don't even know where their meat comes from. If you are actually a conscientious human that actually cares, check out the book Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows by Melanie Joy. If you agree with the methods of how you get your food, you are one sick human.
Privilege i.e.white-male privilege Honesly looking for a line of reasoning not debate.

Why does being a white-male mean i'm incapable of understanding another group enough to understand their societal problems and thus make a decision or judgement based off of them? If you feel because i dont "walk in their shoes," i cant understand them.... Okay, but do i need to "walk in some one's shoes" to understand discrimination is bad. White males can be descriminated against too. Not all white people are affluent. Some white people are extremely poor. By definition this makes this a generalization. If you disagree, how is it not a generalization? My point is here that making a generalization about another group which is factually inaccurate and use it to all members of a certain group to dismiss their ideas or potential to understand is logically incorrect. One of the primary purposes of communication is to communicate your perspective to another person so that they may understand you enough so that you may both act on said mutual understanding. So doesnt this put up a wall in this process. Logically it would follow that if you assume a group cant and wont understand you then you cannot reach a mutual understanding. And if you cant reach a mutual understanding how does that mutual action happen? The same mutual action that runs public life, society, government, etc. This lays down the principle that you are not in my gender,racial, or sexual orientation group, so I can dismiss your ideas or reasoning for decisions. It is divisive in nature when the aimed goal of social justice is egalitarianism. And it also has long lasting effects on the freedom of speech. If one group is dismissed, it doesn't promote exchange of ideas. You can't possibly have a good idea about a societal problem such as discrimination because you are a white-male. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Privilege i.e.white-male privilege Honesly looking for a line of reasoning not debate.

"Why does being a white-male mean i'm incapable of understanding another group enough to understand their societal problems and thus make a decision or judgement based off of them?" I am not arguing against white-male privilege existing. I am arguing against using it as a concept to dismiss opinions of white-male individuals about other societal groups (such as African-Americans, women, LGBT, etc.). So because that was the initial question your argument is based on a straw-man. And yes people have held this position against me. So i want to know what logical reasoning is behind this position. All humans possess an innate ability to empathize and learn from others' pain and mistakes. Scientific evidence exist for this in the discovery of "mirror neurons." To give a clearer idea of what mirror neurons do i recommend reading the article, but here is an excerpt that gives a few examples. "You see a stranger stub her toe and you immediately flinch in sympathy, or you notice a friend wrinkle up his face in disgust while tasting some food and suddenly your own stomach recoils at the thought of eating. This ability to instinctively and immediately understand what other people are experiencing has long baffled neuroscientists, but recent research now suggests a fascinating explanation: brain cells called mirror neurons." [1]. http://www.brainfacts.org... Social evidence for understanding other peoples' pain or suffering also exists in white individuals participating in black civil rights movements, thus overcoming the biases that they derive from "white privilege." In fact, there are several books written about this very subject. [2.] http://www.tfcbooks.org... So due to this social and scientific evidence, white privilege does not eliminate a white individual's ability to identify a problem belonging to a different group and come to a mutual understanding with them. Thus, there seems to be no logical basis for believing that because I am a white male, i cannot understand another groups' discrimination. This position is damaging for all the reasons posted by myself in round 1.
ipad for high school students

We are in the year 2013 and technology is advancing everyday. Eventually technology will revolve around our lives more than it already does. Kids will want an iPad because nowadays technology is everything and that will draw kids to the school. They will have the opportunity to have easy access to their textbooks without carrying them, and also they can share notes with other students which can help them study and do well. Teachers will be professional enough to watch over their students in this new change for education. That being said, iPads are a huge benefit for education and will help students in this day in age. More students will come to the school and can experience a community with education.
ipad for high school students

It is too hard to for the teachers and staff to check everyones ipad, but I think that having the ipad is not going to benefit the students because it just will end up causing the kids to not want to get the ipad because if they are going to have to delete all their apps when coming to school and the positives do not way out the negatives it is to expensive for the parents to purchase the ipad and its not worth the stress for teachers to be respondsible to checking the ipads.
ipad for high school students

Well then don't send your child to Mount if you don't want to pay for your child's education! If students want to write their notes out to study then they are more than welcome to spend their time in a free class or at home writing their notes out. They can still use paper and notebooks if they would like! The teachers can look at the students ipads in class or in TC to see if they have apps on their ipads. Ipads are meant for increasing education not about stressing if students have apps! The school has the right to say what students have on their ipads since the ipads will be used for school purposes.
ipad for high school students

The tuition does go up every year, but it is still a lot of money to dish out and what if the parents have more than one child here then instead of the tuition increasing $500 lets say for the cost of the ipad then, it is going to double. That is a big expense. There may be some students that like to write their notes because writing out your notes helps you to study. Yes Mount wants it's students to be unified but some parents might not be able to buy and ipad for their child or children and Mount wanting it's kids unified has nothing to do with if the parents can afford to buy it or not. If the student brings his/her ipad from home they are not going to delete their apps just to come to school, they have to right to have apps on it if they bought it. Also same with the ones the students that will buy it through the school how can you stop them from getting apps and games on it. You can't!
ipad for high school students

The tuition goes up very year no matter what. Having an ipad wouldn't increase the tuition that much. Plus the students wouldn't be paying hundreds of dollars for books which saves A LOT of money. Also, they wouldn't need notebooks because all their notes would be typed on the ipad. This wouldn't only save money, but the earth. For this to work, each and every student MUST have an ipad because Mount Saint Charles wants the school to be unified. If the students are allowed to bring their own ipad, there must not be games on it for distractions, so they should just buy them from the school.
ipad for high school students

Yes they might be able to benefit the students, but at a pirce the parents are already paying $11,000 for their strudents to come to Mount Saint Charles. Mount only gives out so much finanaical aid to it's students and what about the kids that already have ipads would that increased tuition apply to them also? and how would you determine if for those students? There are deffinatly many parents out there that would not want to buy the ipad for their kid, so how would the teacher teach the kid that doesn' have an ipad, when the rest of teh class has one?
ipad for high school students

Since the school lets the students use ipads in school, which will be paid for in their tuition, the school will be monitoring everything on the ipads. The teachers will be able to see what the students are working on. However, they can't control what they do at home, but the focus will be on what the students do in the classrooms. Teachers want to improve the students learning which ipads will help, because they can take notes and view textbooks right on the ipad. This being said, using an ipad will be a huge advantage for students because of the opportunities everyone will have.
Wikipedia should be considered an acceptable reference material in the academic community.

All I am left to do is extend my arguments. Im sure the debater has a logical explanation for not showing up for two rounds of debate, but today, there is now way not to vote for me. I defeated all of his arguments and shown that Wikipedia should NOT be considered an acceptable reference material in the academic community. Leggomyeggo, if you want to do this again, when you have time, im open to it.