BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pizza is a Better Breakfast Than Pancakes

Pizza has ingredients from multiple food groups: dairy (from the cheese), grains (from the crust), and fruit (from the sauce, which is made from tomatoes). This is not true of a pancake. Pizza is more nutritious than pancakes, and nutrition is a crucial part of breakfast. Pizza is also more convenient than pancakes. If you have pizza in the morning, it is generally in the form of refrigerated leftovers. All that is necessary to eat them is to remove them from the fridge and whatever container that they may be stored in. To have pancakes for breakfast, you have to make the pancakes, make dirty a lot of dishes which will need to be washed later, and sit down to eat them. Pizza can be consumed on the way out the door to wherever it is that you need to b in the morning, whether it is school, work, or soccer practice.
Who is right USA or Russia

This has lead away from the question that was asked which is who is right being there. All the evidence and G20 was a later time. The U.S. has no right on being at Syria because it is not their problem. We as a country has a lot more to worry about and it is not Syria. We cannot waste more money on stupid things Syria needs to figure things out themselves as this civil war rages on. No one helped the confederate side during the civil war did they? Not to my memory did any country help them. Russia is there to tell U.S. to back off while they protect their ally. Completely off topic I would like to note one thing that I have noticed from my time here is that a debate can change to have the Con get the losing chance. As was noted in round 2 my opponent who was a good one mentioned the G20 summit. This was a day after the debate started. I guess ill have to get used to that. Thank you for a Great first debate
Who is right USA or Russia

As pro said:Until evidence is found (Which IS true) Russia is right This statement especially 'Until evidence found (Which IS true...)' supports my second argument. It is true that Syria had used chemicals to kill 1400 people. Russia must agree and fight with the Americans to defeat the Syrian governments. Why should we have a WW3 or even a cold war with the Russians. America was right all along. Russia though is an ally of Syria, they can cut their connections with them. For an example: In WW2 Russia at first was an ally of Nazi Germany. When Nazi Germany decides to invade Russia. Russia cut terms with them and joined the allies. If Russia is not going to help America for the right cause just to show America that they are better than them, this may lead to the fall of Russia. Nice debate.
Who is right USA or Russia

That"s what I was stating in my argument that they are an ally with Syria and will not tolerate seeing their ally getting crushed with missiles. On another note Putin does see that chemical warfare is going on and will not tolerate it. No, it would not cause WW3 it would be a Cold war, Russia does not want to use nuclear power at all they didn"t during the first cold war. Syria would just be another Vietnam. The reason for not using Nuclear power is a clear one it is because U.S. and Russia does not have enough financially to do so. Talking about Europe helping at all is a joke we all saw how Britain pulled out right away and didn"t want anything to do with Syria it will be just like that in all the others listed. Also Germany is a tossup on which side that country would go to but Europe all together would not go. While it seems Russia is still in the wrong believing they are right are still in full affect due to Syria being allied. Until evidence is found (Which IS true) Russia is right
Who is right USA or Russia

Russia will reply back if their ally is bombarded with missiles. But in the G20 summit this week, Russia has said to USA that they will agree on USA decision to attack Syria, if USA proves 100% that chemicals was used in Syria to kill 1400 people. It would be foolish to start a war , because this will be a WW3 if this happened and a Nuclear one. This will affect them both a lot. Russia will be affected a lot because France, Australia, Germany and other countries have nuclear weapons or sharing with other countries whereas there is only Iran and China that has nuclear weapons on the Russian/Syrian side. As I end this argument, I would like to say that I have no grudge for Russia or the Syrians but I feel Russia is not in the right side and is not fighting for justice. P.s I am a Canadian Citizen, so I am not supporting USA since Canada is supporting America.
Who is right USA or Russia

First off I would like to say this is a GREAT argument. Now moving on. This is going to be tough to say but Russia is in the right because they are allies with Syria. What do you expect them to do sit back and watch a ally get bombarded by missiles? No, They will come and go up against one of the top navy's on the planet to help them out. The only bad outcome of this and it is sad to say but it is looking like the Cold War all over again. Also before I am done I would like to say I am a U.S. citizen I do not hate my country but I wanted to see what it is like on the other side. LOVE TO HEAR BACK!
resolved: hobos appreciate chicken taquitos

My opponent's rebuttal reduces down to an ad hominem. One's arguments are not fallacious based on a property of their face. My opponent's contention which he labeled 156 has has no conclusion and does not affect this debate at all. My opponent's contention labeled as 7 does not follow either. The motif for hobos running in front of the car has not been proven, and even if it were proven, it would not demonstrate that they did not appreciate taquitos because the property of a part does not necessarily indicate a property in the whole, especially when that part is hand-picked. http://www.nizkor.org... My opponent's contention labeled as 9 is true, kind of. I have not proven that a single hobo likes taquitos. However, that is not the topic. I am required to prove that hobos (plural) like taquitos, and my opponent conceded my argments in round 2. While the definition of appreciate might somehow help the CON case potentially, it has not. The definition of "hobos" has insured that the resolution cannot be negated, as conceded in round 2. My opponent's contention labeled as 8 is an argument from authority (http://www.nizkor.org..., http://fallacyfiles.org...), but also an example of quoting out of context (http://fallacyfiles.org...). My opponent's last quotes do not negate the resolution. CONCLUSION My opponent has not negated the resolution. Further, I have affirmed it. My opponent conceded my affirming arguments in round 2. My opponent also conceded that the resoluton could not be negated in round 2.
resolved: hobos appreciate chicken taquitos

I would like to start off by saying why my opponent is a meanie-pants. First of all, he repeatedly says "O, boy" which is a slander to the female gender. Also, his face is a hominem. My opponent is accusing me of quoting out of context. But who would you rather believe: a nice child who loves rainbows and unicorns and sunshine or a baby killer who eats bunnies? I thought yes. My opponent's only argument is that my contentions are fallacious, but as I have already proven the fallaciousness of my opponent's face, none of his arguments count for anything. Now on to my arguments. Contention 156- DON'T YOU HATE PANTS?! . I SURE DON'T HATE PANTS!!!!! (http://www.fazed.org...) Contention 7 - Steph Berger reportedly stated on twitter that she "accidentally killed a few hobos on my [her] drive to taco bell. 5 words for them: I want some f***ing taquitos." This shows that hobos do not appreciate taquitos, as they attempted to get in Berger's way as she went to buy them. Contention 9- My opponent has not proven that a single hobo likes taquitos, yet I have given many examples of hobos not appreciating them. He has also not given a single argument. Also there is the definition of appreciate, which clearly helps the negative case. Contention 10- According to Yo Gabba Gabba, (http://www.gabbafriends.com...) Brobee Cake: "You want a piece of me?" Muno: "Razzle dazzle!" Muno is clearly referring to hobos not noticing the "pizazz" and "razzle dazzle" in foods like taquitos, meaning that they don't appreciate them. If Muno says it, it must be true. Lastly I would like to give a few quotes to clear up some questions about something. Wait, how about CLOWN Taquitos? (http://www.fanfiction.net...) Don't be a mickey mouse clown in the hands of society- Mrs. Butermore I would appreciate it if you did not read my opponents last argument as he will probably write lies and pro-baby killing propaganda. You're welcome. nuclear genocide
resolved: hobos appreciate chicken taquitos

O, boy. Contention 7 is fallacious, like the others. Even if my opponent could change the definition of hobos(. http://fallacyfiles.org...), one's eating of taquitos does not indicate their appreciation of them. For example, a poor african farmer incapable of purchasing a taquito would still be capable of appreciating it. The argument is simply non sequitor. Contention 8 is ad hominem . http://fallacyfiles.org.... It is also non sequitor: -Logical structure does not indicate one's habit of eating children. -Chances are not realities. -One's winning of a debate moves forward their advocacy, not external and unrelated factors. My opponent's source is an extreme example of quoting out of context. . http://fallacyfiles.org... To the real debate, my opponent conceded my contentions a few rounds back and all of his arguments have been proven fallacious.
resolved: hobos appreciate chicken taquitos

I wold like to start off by saying that your face is fallacious, and since this is "not a fallacy debate", nothing my opponent says can be trusted. Contention 7- Here is a better definition for hobos: " Hobos are a Latvian rock group formed in 1991 by Rolands dris (vocals), Burk Vics (bass guitar), Egons Kronbergs (guitar) and Vilnis Krievi. As they are Latvian,and wouldn't eat taquitos, this is one of the billions of examples of how hobos don't appreciate chicken taquitos. Contention- If you look closely at my opponent's typing you can tell that he is the type of person that eat little children. There is also the chance that he has microwaved small animals sometime in the past. If he wins this debate, that will encourage baby-eating around the world. According to barackobamaeatsbabies.com, wjmelements "eats babies." Since my opponent hasn't rebutted a single one of my arguments but I have proven he can't be trusted due to his baby eating and fallaciousness, I win........,,/,/
resolved: hobos appreciate chicken taquitos

I'm trying to avoid stooping to this guy's level. Because this was not started as a fallacy debate (http://ddofans.com...), I will continue to argue without intentional non sequitor. My opponent drops all of my contentions and therefore concedes them. The resolution is affirmed. He also drops all of his original contentions. Now, to my opponent's (new) contentions. The first argument that hobos would not appreciate chicken taquitos because something else would is a false dichotomy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org...). The second argument relies on the premise that "A person who does not eat normal food does not have the ability to recognize the quality of chicken taquitos." This premise is false. One conditioned to weaker tastes would find an especially tasty food delicious, while one conditioned to extremely tasty foods find that something slghtly less tasty is bland. Therefore, the hobo would appreciate a chicken taquito more than anyone better fed. Also, because the hobo is in a constant state of hunger, he will appreciate any tye of food, as my opponent has conceded. The third argument is the result of composition. My opponent argues that because some hobos don't have teeth, no hobos have teeth and therefore no hobos can appreciate taquitos. Besides the fact that chicken taqutios can be tasted without teeth (http://www.medicinenet.com...), the fake syllogism is exposed where it can be found that not all hobos lack teeth. The fouth argument has a false premise. My opponent has provided no specific examples. Further, I have provent that every single hobo would appreciate a chicken taquito (and my opponent has conceded this). The final argument is quite the mess. -First, the premise "Killing bunnies eventually leads to the murdering of babies." is unwarranted and, further, absurd. -Second, the first two sentences obtain a conclusion from one line, which is invalid (http://www.thelogician.net...). -Third, because hobos only kill bunnies out of hunger (my opponent's source), the feeding of chikcen taquitos to them would actually save bunny lives. -Fourth, one's endorsement of a theorectical statement does not mean that one is acting on it. -Fifth, the argument that people should not vote for someone because they are a baby killer is an Argumentium ad Hominem and invalid (http://www.fallacyfiles.org...). -Sixth, one who does an action does not necessarily mean that they endorse or enjoy that action. So, there are 6 logical errors in 4 sentences, which is rather impressive in a fallacy debate, but not here. My opponent has conceded my arguments and dropped his originals. His new arguments are fallacious. Thank you.
resolved: hobos appreciate chicken taquitos

My opponent has talked repeatedly about my contentions not "following" something, but has never specified what they aren't following. Follow is defined as to go after in or as if in pursuit (dictionary.com) I bet if my contentions were following chicken taquitos, they would appreciate them, unlike hobos. Secondly, appreciate is defined as to recognize the quality of (thefreedictionary.com). If hobos are used to eating poop, as stated in my opponents own source, how will they recognize the quality of chicken taquitos, as they will just seem like another poop sandwich to a hobo. A person who does not eat normal food does not have the ability to recognize the quality of chicken taquitos. Also, many homeless people do not have teeth, stopping them from eating the taquito in the first place. You can't appreciate a food you can't eat. Fourthly, my opponent hasn't given a single instance where a hobo has enjoyed a chicken taquito, but I have given 74 examples where one has not. You're welcome. Lastly, homeless people kill bunnies (http://www.thaindian.com...)/ If my opponent thinks that hobos can enjoy chicken taquitos, then he likes to kill bunnies. Killing bunnies eventually leads to the murdering of babies. Therefore, my opponent is a baby killer, and any vote for him is a vote for the death of babies. Nuclear genocide.
resolved: hobos appreciate chicken taquitos

Oh, boy. My opponent has kindly provided a definition of "hobo", but not one of "hobos". Hobos- plural (more than one) n - people who wander from place to place without a permanent home or a means of livelihood http://www.medindia.net... NEG: My opponent's first contention does not follow because whether one deserves something or not does not affect thier appreciation. See my first contention. My opponent's second contention also does not follow because one's appreciation of a cup does not affect their appreciation of taquitos. My opponent's third contention also doesn't follow. A "contaminated" taquito can still be appreciated. See my first contention. Also, not all hobos have dirty hands, as this is not directly follow from the definition of hobo and is not included in the definition of hobo. Now, for the AFF case. Contention 1: Appreciation A hobo would appreciate any kind of food. http://meurte.com... http://www.food.gov.uk... http://www.medindia.net... Taquitos are a kind of food. http://en.wikipedia.org... Therefore, a hobo would appreciate taquitos. Contention 2: There is no practical way to negate the resolution. My opponent would have to prove that either that zero hobos appreciate chicken taquitos or that only one hobo might appreciate a chicken taquito. My opponent cannot supply this proof. The resolution can not be negated and also easily affirms. Thank you.
resolved: hobos appreciate chicken taquitos

There once was a time when hobos enjoyed the deliciousness of the taquito. That time is long gone. For this reason, my partner and I must negate resolved: hobos appreciate chicken taquitos. This will be a public forum style debate. Hobo is defined as one who wanders from place to place without a permanent home or a means of livelihood. Contention 1- hobos don't deserve taquitos. They are not part of society and contribute nothing. If they realize they don't contribute to the U.S. economy due to their hobo status, they will come to the realization that they don't deserve the chicken taquitos anymore than the hard working citizens do. Because of this, hobos are unable to appreciate said taquitos. Contention 2- Dr. Seuss once stated that "cup, pup, pup in cup". The pup represents the hobo hiding in his/her temporary residence, the cup. As expressed in the illustrations, the pup does not appreciate the cup that it is given. How can a hobo appreciate chicken taquitos if they can't even appreciate their home? According to answers.yahoo.com, 32 because ice cream doesn't have bones. Also, it was stated that I have a clowns hand in my pants. These quotes clearly refer to the demise of appreciation in hobos as a people, therefore proving that hobos do not appreciate taquitos. Contention 3- since hobos are dirty, they have dirty hands. This will then contaminate the taste of the taquitos. I ask you, how can a hobo fully appreciate a chicken taquito that is dirty? The answer is. For all of the above reasons, my partner and I urge strongly that you vote for the negative side. Think of the children.
logix

NO NO NO WE MUSN'T INSULT SHREK HE IS OUR SAVIOR AND HE BECAME FAT BECAUSE OF US IF YOU INSULT HIM HE WILL BELLYFLOP YOU TO DEATH. IN ORDER FOR YOU TO REPENT, YOU MUST GO TO HIS SWAMP AND GIVE A MESSAGE WITH OLIVE OILOLIVE OIL+SHREK= HAPPY SHREK
Should they come out with a MW4

Lets look at this from a purely sales perspective. (http://www.digitalspy.com...) The latest call of duty failed to outsell the last 3 call of dutys."Arvind Bhatia of Sterne Agee reports that although Black Ops 2 made $500 million dollars in day one, it still a decline from last year's Modern Warfare 3. Checks from the retailers at Sterne Agee report that Black Ops 2's opening week was down "as much as 20 percent" when compared to Modern Warfare 3." The series is in decline.Modern Warfare 3 also sold less than its predecessor, Black Ops. The better step for activision would be to make a new game and milk that to the ground as they have with call of duty, tony hawk, and guitar hero. You say it is the best selling but creating a different game than MW4 would create more money from big time developers like those who created game like call of duty. It was a great game but the yearly release schedule made everyone tired of it. Zombies have never been in any modern warfare game making that not a point. Survival mode is played less than any other game mode so that point is irrelevant.
Popular Vote Should Replace Electoral Vote

My questions: Wouldn't you agree that having your voice heard through the senate would make your vote less chaotic and more balanced? Don't you want balance between large and small states? Wouldn't you want recounts confined to a few states and not the whole country? Where would the justification be in spending over 2 billion dollars per candidate just for campaigning? Electoral vote provides organization, wouldn't you agree that order is needed for everything? Electoral vote allows smaller states with a smaller population to have an equal pull to a larger state. Does popular vote allow this or any kind of balance? I await your questions and answers. :)
Popular Vote Should Replace Electoral Vote

Well. Hopefully this will be a fun debate. ==ARGUMENTS== --FLAWS OF ELECTORAL VOTE-- 1) Under the Electoral College system, it is possible for a candidate to lose the nationwide popular vote, yet be elected president by winning only in the key states. The majority may not want this candidate, yet they are ignored. 2) Many states get forgotten as candidates rush to campaign on "battle ground" states.Most of the 2008 campaign events occurred in just 19 closely divided "battleground" states. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com... http://www.nytimes.com... 3)The current voting system disfavors against candidates with broad-based support. Here are some examples. ...A)In 1948, Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace both got about 1.1 million popular votes, but Thurmond got 39 electoral votes, since his vote was concentrated in southern states. However Wallace received nothing....B) In 1968, George Wallace only received 46 electoral votes out of the total 538 electoral votes, with 13% of the votes. http://www.archives.gov... In 1992, Ross Perot got 0 electoral votes with 19% of the national popular vote. http://www.archives.gov......C)If presidential elections were decided by popular vote instead of the Electoral College, Al Gore would have been elected president in 2000. 4)The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and a candidate would win the Presidency if a he/she gained a mere 51% of the vote in these 11 states. This calculates out to only be 26% of the nation’s votes. 5) During October 6-9, 2011, a survey of 1,005 random adults found that 62% of Americans would say that they would amend the U.S. Constitution to replace that system for electing presidents with a popular vote system.However, little over a third, 35%, said that they would rather keep the Electoral College. America’s government is a government for the people, and this clearly shows where the public’s loyalty lies. http://www.gallup.com... 6) Since 1994, polls have shown that the majority of Americans would prefer a popular vote system over the Electoral College. http://www.gallup.com... 7) A more extensive poll found that more than 70% of Americans support a nationwide vote for electing the President. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com... 8) Here’s an example. In Utah, the majority of voters vote Republican. A person’s vote for a Democrat candidate will do nothing to help make him/her president, since all of the electoral college votes will go to the Republican candidate. The electoral college simply decreases and discourages voters, since the minority voters will not be represented. --BENEFITS OF POPULAR VOTE-- 1)The National Popular Vote means that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states wins the presidency. Every vote would be equal in presidential elections, regardless of where you live. This would increase voter turnout, while promoting fairness and equality. I await your questions :D