BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A Tomato is a Fruit Not a Vegetable

A Tomato is a fruit. "Scientifically speaking, a tomato is definitely a fruit. True fruits are developed from the ovary in the base of the flower, and contain the seeds of the plant (though cultivated forms may be seedless)." http://oxforddictionaries.com... According to several sites that I have done research to, THe main question one must ask when desiring if it's a fruit or vegetable is, "Does it have Seeds" If we take a potato for instinct that is a vegitble. It has no seeds. And according to the site you cited, if you scroll down on the page it says that a vegetable is herbaceous... Which i don't know about you, but i certainly know that a tomato is no a herb. Finally here is a source that states this : "A fruit is actually the sweet, ripened ovary or ovaries of a seed-bearing plant. A vegetable, in contrast, is an herbaceous plant cultivated for an edible part (seeds, roots, stems, leaves, bulbs, tubers, or nonsweet fruits). So, to be really nitpicky, a fruit could be a vegetable, but a vegetable could not be a fruit." http://ask.yahoo.com...
A Tomato is a Fruit Not a Vegetable

I agree to your rules, and debate format.I will not be argueing that a tomato is not a fruit, but that it is a vegtable regardless of it's status as a fruit.Vegitable- 1 a: of, relating to, constituting, or growing like plants b: consisting of plants : vegetational 2 : made from, obtained from, or containing plants or plant products <vegetable soup> <vegetable fat> 3 : resembling or suggesting a plant (as in inertness or passivity) http://www.merriam-webster.com...Now under any and all of these definitions a tomato would be considered a vegitable.
A Tomato is a Fruit Not a Vegetable

The debate topic is that a Tomato is not a vegetable, not that a Tomato is a fruit, which has already been established. In round one you said: "I am for, that a tomato is a fruit and not a Vegetable." Here you say that you are for a tomato not being a vegetable, I say I am for that a Tomato fits both definitions. Vegitable- 1 a: of, relating to, constituting, or growing like plants b: consisting of plants : vegetational 2 : made from, obtained from, or containing plants or plant products 3 : resembling or suggesting a plant (as in inertness or passivity) -Meriam Webster Would you say that a Tomato relates to , constitutes, or grows like a plant? I would say that it does. Would you deny that a Tomato is obtained from a plant?
We are in the matrix

My oponent presented a link to everything science.com, I have no idea why. He says that the film "the matrix" is not reliable source because it's science fiction. However of course it's science fiction! The people who made the film were manipulated by the malevolent beings that control us all! When a coder sees a flaw in his code he tries to plug it up, but in the case of the movie it was too late for the coders, so the plugged it up in the only way they could. They slapped "science fiction" on the genre tab! Con states that all I will say is that "I am just trying to stop us from seeing the truth" However if I make a logical argument he will just say I am a fanboy, So we are at a standstill. Con states that I am brainwashed because I watched the Matrix "from birth" and then began to explain his theory on "why I think the matrix is real" which involves me telling a "person" and being told I am wrong and then coming to debate.org. He cannot prove any of this, he is simply making assumptions. With that being said my oponent still has not proven that he is not a robot, so we have to assume that he is. Because my oponent is a robot we cannot take anything he says seriously because robots are controlled by the malevolent beings who coded the matrix. Thus none of the arguments he makes can be accepted, and my points still stand. For all of these reasons I hope you accept the logical conclusion that we are in a coded computer program controlled by malevolant beings who are using the human race as an energy farm.
We are in the matrix

OBJECTION!The pro does not know anything about physics. Here you go.http://www.everything-science.com...And uses an un reliable source subject "The Matrix" as evidence. Becuase it said that the film was science fictionPro says that im a mere robot though if i do give him reasons why im not then he has the thought of a cod fanboy who give the worst possible reasons for example as pro's response "HIS JUST TRYING TO STOP US FROM SEEING THE TRUTH" and he would say this again on this.This is the same way a call of duty fan boy acts when someone say that their game sucks.So now we know that pro thinks like a fanboy. What does a fanboy do though?A fanboy plays their fanning game continuesly so the PRO THINKS DOES THINGS LIKE THIS:Since most of us think the matrix is wron then here,Pro, from born was watched The Matrix. He was that much of a fanboy he watched it so much that he thought is was true.This is true in human anatomy and is known as brain wash or mind control.http://en.wikipedia.org...He has said to a person that The Matrix is real but that person denied pro so he asked others then he found "Debate.Org"SO WE KNOW WHY HE THINKS THE MATRIX IS REAL and why he think it is.I have proved that he is believing things his not supposed to believe...................
We are in the matrix

Now on to my points: 1: the world has so many flaws. Consider rain, it doesn't make any sense! Water shouldn't fall from the sky because water never should be in the sky! It shouldn't travel upward, but it does because of a glitch in the computer code. Now consider grass, it looks good and seems nice, but it's a weed! This is clearly a glitch in the code of the language. 2: no one on the internet actually exists. Allow me to elaborate. You cannot prove that you exist, you cannot prove that you are real. All that I see of you is a bunch of text on a screen, and because this is the only evidence presented about your existence we have to trust what it says. It doesn't say anything about you existing and thus you do not exist, you are simply a robot on the internet. This is proof that the lines of code put into creating the matrix have transferred onto a computer and created a talking robot that denies that we are in the matrix even though he is proof that we actually are. 3: the fact that the movie "The Matrix" exists proves that we are in a computer simulation. It is proof because if we weren't in a computer simulation no human would be able to write the story, the script would be too outrageous to exist! No man could write a story without some form of proof that it is true. He clearly saw this proof because the movie exists! I have presented proof through the existence of things that we are in the matrix, my opponent hasn't presented any arguments at all. True he may not have had his turn yet, but the fact that he has said nothing and that he is a robot (as I proved in point 2) is proof that: WE ARE IN THE MATRIX! !! ! !
Equality of Communism

The lack of a lower class (due to a lack of currency) instigates far lower crime rates, eclipsing many other "safe" communities. This, combined with the increased employment rates, increases overall productivity by ludicrous amounts. Though America, one of the most renowned capitalist countries, suggests that every man is created equal, still some people make next to nothing while others make hundred of millions of dollars a year. In communism, the state actually abides by this statement. Goods are divided equally throughout the community, despite the job they are doing. Every job is important, whether it is physical labor of ruling over a company's production. Many capitalist countries have seemingly forgotten this.
Equality of Communism

Communism supports no unnecessary spending, in that help is not so frugally given and divided amongst to foreign countries. This both decreases chances of being sent into debt and allows for more chances to divide spending amongst in-country resources, like schools, roads, and other miscellaneous places and objects which are public property. The Soviet Union may not have fallen if it was not for the eventual reckless spending of Leonid Brezhnev. Contrary to popular (though ignorant) belief, communism was not originally intended to create an autocracy, as some have depicted it to, but rather to create a government that ran through a mutual agreement between the government and the people. In the communist ideology, even politicians are of no greater standing than the "common" man. Can you say the same about a capitalist system? Obviously, some men are bound to work harder than others, but can you truly convince yourself that any CEO is working three-hundred times harder than a man who is bound to manual labor? Not only are all of the distributed goods equal in a communist community, but in general approximately 0% of the populace is unemployed. One other up-side to this political format is that no one is able to be denied healthcare, despite condition. This means that if a capitalist family would be denied treatment due to low funds and/or a checkered past, the communist version of this scenario could save a life.
Dream act

What is a human right is very relevant because you are using it as a basis for your claim for giving illegals the Dream Act. I need to know what you mean by a right so it isn't a way of trying to inject a nice sounding mystical like word in order to obfuscate from the relevant information. Even establishing what a right is with reasonable justification does not automatically entail that rights should always supersede economic utility, aggregate happiness, or other factors. On to your next statement, most of the founders of the United States were Natives, meaning they were born in North America (12). The vast majority did not immigrate from Great Britain, continental Europe, or other overseas territories to the thirteen colonies in North America. The founding of the colonies in what is now the US was done by pioneers, not immigrants. They did not immigrate and live in Amerindian societies but built their own largely separate societies based on largely European ideas. A descendant of an immigrant is not the same as an immigrant. The United States and its majority European population are NOT immigrants, they are almost entirely natives of a country whose governmental institutions, legal codes, societal norms, common language etc were created by Europeans. Again the "Founding Fathers" helped to pass the First Immigration Naturalization Act of 1790 that restricted citizenship to "free white persons" (see above source 10). Before the Immigration Act of 1965 the previous immigration policy was designed to keep and strengthen the at that time 90% European majority (see above source 11) (13). My claim about Mestizo's more likely to join a gang than any other group in the US along with their greater likelihood to commit violent crime than European Americans is true (see above source 4). Being "oppressed" does not negate their violent and organized crime record. I would argue as well that them being "oppressed" is exaggerated and if you actually start giving evidence as well as sources I will respond to your claims of "oppression". Suffice to say for now this "oppression" is not bad enough for them to want to leave the country or for others to stop coming here illegally. Though "oppression" or current manifestations of problems with the white majority is not an argument in favor of the Dream Act. Quite the contrary, it demonstrates a weakness for the United States by adding more Mestizos to our population. What you said about them getting educated without financial assistance is completely false. Firstly, universities are subsidized by Federal and state tax payers (14). Primary education (K5-12th grade) is completely paid for by tax payers (15). Secondly I have no idea where you harvested the claim that "most educators stand" with you on the Dream Act and frankly it is just a majority appeal with little reasoning. If you could please start citing some of your claims. 12. http://www.archives.gov... 13. http://www.census.gov... 14. http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com... 15. http://www.heritage.org...
Dream act

What is a human right is not relevant because its defenition and notion is too broad, however it is false that the students who would benefit from the Dream Act are not an asset to this diverse country. In fact the founders fathers of this country and the decendents of today's successful americans were immigrants. Your claim about them joining gangs and comiting crimes shows your lock of knowledge on the oppression that monority communities faced and still face today. To suuport my claim, I stand were most educators stand, that this children deserve the opportunity because they are getting educated without any financial assistence, I would also like to make a deductive argument. If you in the United States elegal, there fore anything you do is ilegal. They are here elegal so whatever they do to preserve their life is also erelevent, and the fact that in order to qualify you most have some education, shows their merit.
Dream act

I agree the immigration system is broken, but probably not entirely in the same way as you. It is true that the children of illegal immigrants are more likely (though less than the native population) to know English than their parents (see above sources). However, the children of illegal immigrants are more likely to commit violent crime, be in a gang, live in poverty, etc more than their illegal Hispanic parents. They actually go backwards in the 2nd and 3rd generation (see above source). Is increased poverty and violent crime a benefit to the United States? Not to mention that a majority of illegal immigrants are from Mexico where over a majority of them actually have treason like positions about the US Southwest (see above source). Again what benefit is this to the United States instead of scaring them out with laws and deporting those who stayed like was done in the 1950s and is being done now (and has succeeded) in AZ and AL where most self deported (8,9). They were and would educated at the taxpayers expense. What is a human right and how do you define/justify them? How and why should it be a right to stay in a country which didn't invite you to stay and live. That makes borders meaningless. No other country in the world is as liberal as the United States on immigration as the US (in fact way too liberal I would argue since the 1960s) yet Mexico for instance throws, robs, beats, and sometimes kills its illegal immigrants from people that speak the same language and are of a similar racial group! What does a child's brain and its lack of certain abilities have to do with if the Dream Act is beneficial to the United States or not verse other alternatives? Lastly, this is not exactly a "nation of immigrants". The nation was founded by pioneers with some conquest, not immigrants. The vast majority of people in the US are natives and did not immigrants from somewhere else. And the amount of immigration was severely restricted, especially before the 60s. The first Immigration Act passed in 1790 restricted citizenship to "free white persons" (10). Up until the 1960s the immigration policy put severe limits on the amount of immigrants from non European/white countries (11). 8. http://www.tshaonline.org... 9. http://www.cbsnews.com... http://www.reuters.com... 10. http://www.enotes.com... 11. http://www.thenagain.info...
Dream act

There is no preamble rational enough to explain the notion that a comprehensive immigration is not beneficial for the United States. We know that the immigration system is broken, and I am acknowledging that alot of people broke the law. My argument for the Dream Act is the following. Once you come to this country as a child, learned the english language, get educated in the country, you should have the human right to legaly preserve your life by having the opportunity to employment and education. Furthermore, children's brain is not rational to understand that they infact were breaking the law. Is only just for them have an apportunity to contribute to this diverse nation made of immigrats.
Dream act

The Dream Act would not be beneficial to the United States because most of the "illegals" in the US are of Mestizo origin (1). Mestizos are more likely to use a form of welfare proportional to their population size than whites or even blacks (2). Mestizos are the most likely demographic to drop out of high school and the children of Mestizo immigrants are more likely to commit violent crime, be in a gang, live in poverty, and be single parents than European Americans (and blacks in terms of gangs) (3,4). The majority of Latinos in the US, legal and illegal, are of Mexican origin. 58% of Mexicans believe the US SouthWest belongs to Mexico (5). This means that the US would be legalizing individuals that very likely support ceding portions of the US to a foreign power. It is hard to think of a worse group to give US citizenship to. People of Mestizo origin on average bring a diverse language with them. This type of a diversity is a weakness and causes disunity within a country. Belgium and Canada are two examples of where two competing languages, even within the same racial group, helps to cause extra tension (6,7). Why should US taxpayers subsidize universities for people with these types of averages and afford them certain temporary and possible permanent benefits of citizenship such as voting? 1. http://pewhispanic.org... 2. http://pubdb3.census.gov... 3. http://www.pewhispanic.org... 4. http://amren.com... 5. http://www.wnd.com... 6. http://onlineessays.com... 7. http://www.independent.co.uk...
Students should wear school uniform.

We should be focusing on the performance of the students rather than the way they are dressed. Uniforms provide almost no benefits whatsoever. The only valid benefit for school uniforms is the safety they bring. They prevent outside intruders from entering the school unannounced and they make it easier to spot a student that is lost. Even so, most schools have scanner machines so that students can use their school district ID's to sign in. If someone that was not a student at the school happened to trespass, they would be caught immediately. Personally, I think dress codes would be better. They allow students to wear want they want and to be creative, but still restrict students to wear only school appropriate attire.
Students should wear school uniform.

I agree with you that allowing students to wear whatever they want helps them in their creativity and teaches them how to make their own decisions. But doing learning journeys, whenever a student gets lost, what if a teacher that the student does not know happens to walk past him? And if the teacher also does not know the student is from the same school? If the student is wearing school uniform, then the teacher would know that he is a student and help to bring back to his class. But if the student is not wearing school uniform, then the teacher would not know he is a student. Bullying does happen in schools if the students wear school uniforms or not, but at least for schools with uniforms, the victims of bullying will not have to worry about the clothes they wear which is one less thing to worry about as long as they keep their uniforms neat.
Students should wear school uniform.

I will be taking the Con side (students should not have to to wear uniform). Firstly, uniforms restricts a student's individuality and identity. Forcing students to wear uniforms constricts their creativity and freedom of expression. Clothes do not detract from a student's ability to learn. School uniforms are completely unnecessary. Secondly, people tend to believe that if everyone is wearing the same clothing, it will decrease the chances of getting bullied for what you wear, but this is totally not the case. Bullying is a huge problem that effects many students whether they are in schools that require uniform or not. Forcing children to wear the same uniform does not make issues such as this magically disappear. Schools want children to make good decisions and take responsibility for their actions, but how can we expect the children to do so if we do not give them decisions to make in the first place?
Students should wear school uniform.

I think students should wear school uniforms. It is because in schools where students are allowed to wear whatever they want, there are school bullies that make fun of other students who may not have a good taste in fashion. But if they all wear the same school uniforms, they can't make fun of one anothers' fashion senses which prevents this type of bullying from happening. And also, if students can wear whatever they want, they might take a longer time to leave their houses for school due to taking too long to choose what they want to wear which may cause them to be late for school.
I will not break a rule.

My opponent has broken quite a few rules that i must make a list, and it would be good if you did not break them, i insist. Elvis Presley would be ashamed of you when Pro is through. 1.Con failed to write three sentences in his story about Arthur in Round Two, Elvis disapproves. 2.In my preset rule A3 which says "Rules cannot be exceedingly difficult, for I consider this debate to be fun not tiresome" is broken by Con's Round 3 Rules 1 and 2, for doing so is incredibly time-consuming and quite out-of-the-blue. 3. Con failed to provide The lyrics of an Elvis song, for The PART of a song he posted (Wop-bop-a-loom-a-boom-bam-boom tutti frutti au rutti tutti frutti au rutti tutti frutti) is not an Elvis song but originally created by Little Richard and is not officially an Elvis song, and apologies for this sentence being so long. Side notes: My opponent, i must suggest you read My Rule 1 Round 2 again for i thought that it states quite clear that you must use three sentences in your story, my debating guest with the bare chest. Again, you have not shown me evidence of a rule that states that Pro is prohibited using the word "and", and Elvis Presley finds your evidence of this quite bland. Pro is not a "he" and if you took the time to click on my profile, this would clarify whether your opponent is a ‘he or a ‘she". Pro, who is the Santa Clause, wants to deliver presents to Chuck Noris, all involved in your Youtube videos, Elvis Presley, Arthur and his parents, The eraser, blue pen and The index cards and present them with a barrel of lard. Pro is the Santa Clause, and delivering presents is his cause. Pro is the Santa Clause who worships Elvis every Sunday, and listens to his albums every Monday. 1.Con must make his sentences rhyme and endure the torture Pro is having by wasting all this time. 2.Con now must post a Japanese video that is over two minutes that contains no people, only animals, or else Con will lose and Elvis will become a cannib