BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pie is Better than Cake

Cultural importanceI will start with the cultural importance of pie. There are many common phrases which depend entirely upon pie, and these phrases are important for teaching wisdom to younger generations. Examples:"You're always as polite as pie to them."[1] - Mark Twain teaches us one of the great pie-lessons of being polite. A pie never insults anyone, it just waits patiently, hoping to please with not only the external beauty, but the internal treat that is hiding just beneath the surface(in the case of covered pies). "Pie in the sky." - Some would say that it is bad to look after the pie in the sky, the unreachable dream. However, happy people know that having dreams and desires is not a bad characteristic, as long as it is used as motivation, rather than an unachievable benchmark. Go chase your pie in the sky, every day!"Easy as pie." - How else could we so strongly present the opinion that a task was not only easy, but even pleasant?"A boy doesn't have to go to war to be a hero; he can say he doesn't like pie when he sees there isn't enough to go around." - Edgar Watson Howe successfully used pie as a lesson in being an every day hero. For a boy to sacrifice pie and ala mode for family and country... there is no greater calling.Aside from the lessons learned from saying and quotations such as these, pie is used as a symbol. Indeed, as we reflect on the Thanksgiving celebration recently in America, the pumpkin pie has served faithfully as the symbol of freedom, community, prosperity, and gratitude for hundreds of years.Ease of speakingPie is an easier word to speak than cake. From a resting position with lips closed, only a slight opening of the mouth, and slight movement of the tongue are needed. Cake, on the other hand, has two 'hard' consonants that must be pronounced in rapid succession, causing unnecessary wear and tear to the tongue and roof of the mouth.Health benefits It is easy to make a healthy homemade pie. Indeed, an apple pie can contain 8 apples[2], yielding 1 serving of fruit in each of the 8 slices[3]![1] The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn [2] http://allrecipes.com...[3] http://www.cnpp.usda.gov...
No "E" Debate

READ THE RULES CAREFULLY BEFORE ACCEPTING.ROUND ONE, we can use any words we wish, you accept, and then type in a topic you want to debate about. If there are any unclear semantics, you must define them within round one. I will pick my position. Naturally, you will be on the opposite side of the position. The topic cannot be a truism, such as "1+1=2".ROUNDS TWO AND THREE, neither of us can use any words that contain "e", nor pictures where "e/E" is visible, in our argument. You cannot censor out words normally carrying e's (th*, b*ing, fr**, etc.). However, you CAN use words such as "mr." (abbreviations), and numbers such as "5", "1", without typing the words and successfully fulfilling the rules. The first one to violate this rule automatically losses this debate. You cannot translate your entire argument into another language. Your sources may contain "e", of course. Good luck and have fun.
No "E" Debate

I will allow halo's pick of pro on his topic; on account of halo saying "this is my first". BUT, halo still MUST follow what I said in round 1 for 2 and 3, or halo will auto-fail. Con's topic thinks that pastry has nothing that tops "flat food consisting of flour and sugar". But our paragon pastry man, [], has shown 0 of con's food. I trust that you think our top pastry man in our world has ability and familiarity topping con's. Con also thinks of "millions of flavors", but this is just bloating. No location shows "millions of flavors". [http://carolscookies.com...]; [https://cookietakeabite.com...]; [https://www.berries.com...]. Good luck on your round, I’m hoping you know my laws I put in round 1!!
Resolved: Tom Brady is a better quarterback than Peyton Manning

Contention 1: Tom Brady is a better winner than Peyton ManningUndoubtedly, football is a team game; however, the quarterback (especially in the 21'st century) has the greatest on the game compared to any other player on the field. We can see this for a couple reasons. Firstly, the quarterback touches the ball more than any other player on the field (except the center). Unlike the center, however, the quarterback has to decide what to do with the ball. This combination of decision making and amount of times touching the ball puts a tremendous weight on the QB's shoulder. To back this observation up with evidence, only twice (2000 Titans and 2008 Titans) since the 2000-2001 season has a team with the best regular season record not had a season QB rating in the top 10. There have 17 teams that have had the best (or tied for) the best regular season record in that period. So we can see that it is hard to win without a good QB and because of this, winning should be considered in the criteria for judging who the better QB is.This was gathered via http://www.pro-football-reference.com... I went into each individual season starting with the 2000 season and found the most wins by team and then the highest team QB rating.This leads me to my first subpoint:C1 Subpoint A: Tom Brady is the better winner in the regular seasonThis is pretty straight forward, Tom Brady's winning % in the regular season is .775 compared to Peyton Manning's which is .696.[1] Tom Brady was also the fastest QB to 100 wins. He did it in 131 starts compared to Peyton Manning's 154 starts [2][1] http://www.footballdb.com... [2] http://msn.foxsports.com...C2 Subpoint B: Tom Brady is the better winner in the post seasonTom Brady's playoff record is 18-8 compared to Peyton Manning's 11-12. [1] Tom Brady also has more Super Bowl rings (3 compared to 1) and both of Tom Brady's Super Bowl losses were incredibly close (both under at 4 points or lower) while Manning's were not close (lost by 14 to the Saints and 35 to the Seahawks). [2]So we can see that Tom Brady is the all around better winner than Manning.[1] http://www.footballdb.com... [2] http://espn.go.com... Contention 2: Tom Brady is a more efficient passerIt's true that Peyton Manning will have the bulk stats when both Brady and him are retired, but that doesn't mean he was the better passer. Tom Brady has a TD % of 5.5% compared to Peyton Manning's 5.8% (a difference of .3%) [1]. Tom Brady has an INT % of 2.0% compared to Manning's 2.6% (a difference of .6%) [2]. Brady also has a slightly higher yds/completion ratio (11.8 compared to 11.7) [3].[1] http://www.pro-football-reference.com... [2] http://www.pro-football-reference.com... [3] http://www.pro-football-reference.com...
The Harry Potter Books are Better Than The Films!

I do like watching films and things happening in it, but I love picturing it more. It was only about a year ago my parents said I was old enough to watch the films, and since the age of four (when I read it) I've been picturing it. There are many things I hate about the films; the fact that they changed each and every image I had in my mind. For example, in my mind, Hermione was a girl with bushy hair and large teeth (up until the fourth book), and in the films, she has (almost) perfect hair and perfect teeth.
The Harry Potter Books are Better Than The Films!

The Harry Potter Books are better than the Films. Reasons: -The films have many mistakes. -The films insert things that change the complete plot. -Whatever happened to R.A.B? -Some of the actors are terrible. -In the Half-Blood Prince, who wants to watch about two hours of Ron/Lavender, which is the most hated pairing? -They should have done more about Snape and the Prophecy.
The united states should declare war on Iran

1. "War should be the politics of last resort and when we go to war we should have the understanding and support of our people."- Colin powell. That quote shows a big part of my position, the US people would not stand behind another war and that is enough of a reason not to do it. 2. Iran is a militarial nation. They have as of 6 months ago a 350,000 man standing army. They are not a bunch of farmers with pitchforks over there. Iraq had no where near this man power when we invaded. This will not be an easy war and there is no real reason to do it this leads me to my next point.... 3. We don't have the troops or the money to fight this war! We wanted to up the number of troops in Iraq from 160,000 to 180,000 and several members of congress proved that just by increaseing the number of soliders by 20,000 we would no longer be able to defend ourselves. Think about how many troops it would take to start another war!
Bullies should receive much harsher punishment

That is all good information. I still stand by what I said in the previous round. Two times I stated that the harsher punishment should be in combination with the bully talking with a counselor and psychologist. You stated in your closing of round 2 : "In conclusion, harsher punishments will not solve the problem of the emotionally conflicted individual, but maybe helping them sort out their problems and any crime equivalent punishment would do just fine." The counselors and psychologists help them sort out their problems. The punishment is for the acts they carried out on an innocent person. I'm well aware of why a person becomes a bully. I'm still seeking reasons why harsh punishments are overkill. Giving me the reasons of how a kid becomes a bully is not telling me why spending a week in a jail cell is too harsh of punishment.
Bullies should receive much harsher punishment

You say that a harsher punishment will allow the bully to learn that their actions are not acceptable. That is probably how they're going to see it. What they will probably miss is why they're doing it, and could invent another way to hurting people that does not end up getting caught as easily. What I mean by this, is that there's reason their being a bully, and that hasn't stopped just because they got suspended or went to jail for a bit. So harsher punishments are likely not to work in the long run. (1 & 2) As an example, a common reason for a bully to bully, is parental neglect (a passive yet powerful form of child abuse sometimes used as disciplinary action), most adults will tell you those that crave attention must've hardly had any from their parents, and sadly they're right. Most kids who are neglected from their parents tend to cause havoc to get attention (4&6), and the more neglected they are, the more they'll act out to receive attention whether it's good or bad. This would accredit to being suspended for 7 days, it's good in the sense maybe they'll get more attention with more time at home, and not in the sense they'll have less school. To back this up a bit, I'll tell you of the opposite. I knew a girl who hated being home because of verbal abuse she received at home, so everyday not only was she a hard working student, she'd stay after school every chance she got to have an excuse to not go home immediately after school. Staying after school was no longer allowed the next school year, simply because the vast number of kids that stayed after without giving reason, so she migrated to the local fast food shop and stayed there after school for the remainder of the year. So you can imagine, that the only way to solve these problems of hating ones own house, or that of a bully seeking grand attention will simply brush off their time in disciplinary custody if their mistreatment or emotions are gone unchecked. In conclusion, harsher punishments will not solve the problem of the emotionally conflicted individual, but maybe helping them sort out their problems and any crime equivalent punishment would do just fine. (1) http://www.crimeinamerica.net... (2) http://toolboxparent.com... (3) http://psychcentral.com... (6) and all Anyone wanting a more "professional" outlook choice http://www.nber.org... direct http://www.nber.org...
Bullies should receive much harsher punishment

Hi Brooklyn, Thank you for accepting. I agree with everything you said. However, I was focused on whether or not bullies should receive harsher punishments and not focused on how a bully comes to be/exist. I, for one, do not sympathize with a bully who hurts others. I feel bad that they may have a terrible environment at home and awful parent(s). However, that is never justification to let out all your rage and negative emotions on another innocent person. This is why counselors and psychologists exist. These bullies who refuse to stop their torture tactics can talk to these people and receive help, such as alternative ways to express and release their negative emotions, not on an innocent being. Bullying will never stop if everybody justifies their actions by blaming it on their lack of parenting and poor home environment. Counseling, combined with harsher punishment, will eventually get it through the bully's head that what he or she is doing to others is completely unacceptable and wrong. As we know, bullying isn't simply limited to verbal abuse. A lot of it is physical abuse too. I don't care if they are 13 years old in 7th grade.. if a bully jumps a kid in the hallway and starts punching him throwing him around and kicking him while he's down, that's called aggravated assault, which is a felony. Seeing as how under aged kids aren't going to get felonies, they deserve more than a 7 day suspension and getting yelled at by a principal. If this kid was 5 years older, he'd be in prison for 5 years. This kid is young, in his mind, he is being rewarded.. " Oh yay! I don't have to go to school for 7 days! " If I keep hurting people I get vacations. Instead of suspension, throw the kid in a local county jail cell for 5 nights. Let's see how he reacts to that. I can guarantee he'll be much less likely to hurt people when he gets out of a cell, as opposed to getting a 7 day vacation at his house. God forbid, he comes back and continues punching and kicking, now he's got 7 days in a cell. This is no over reaction. Kids need to be taught from a young age what is right and wrong. The sooner you have young bullies sleeping in a cell, the sooner they will realize they hate being in a cell, the more likely it is they will stop bullying, the less likely it is they grow up to be a full-time bullying criminal.
Bullies should receive much harsher punishment

I thank mortimor for the chance to do a debate. Argument: Bullies should receive much harsher punishment Assuming my opponent means the following definition #Bullying - is the use of force or coercion to abuse or intimidate others. I as Con acknowledge my duty is to argue that bullies should not receive much harsher punishment, but instead the actions of a bully should be sought to understood, then action taken accordingly. I recede to hear of Con's beginning arguments. Out of my own compile to answer your question: Punishments are only solutions to symptoms and usually never the cause. Understand that although no one likes bully's they exist for a reason. By psychological means (2), humans have determined that where there is parental neglect, ignorance, and absence are present, so are troubled kids/teens/adults who are emotionally scarred or disturbed. Those persons have more likelihood of being less empathetic, as a defensive mechanism to cope and more inclined to be hurtful towards others mostly using seemingly socially accepted bias and other ways to upset and hurt others, few unknowingly. Those with lack of empathy, depending on life situation(s) and experience, see it as normal to hurt and not care of the victims feelings (as they have been hurt before, to them its normal), usually accredited to being unwanted or unloved. Try to understand why they do as they do, then see that no one is giving a S*** to teach parents how not neglect their child and abuse them psychologically. The seemingly only logical answer is to tell humans who are ignorant to the repercussions of poor decisions with their kids. This is not the only road someone can take because of parental failure. It can result in homeless person, prostitute, imprisonment and a variety of reasons and factors for personal failure unless they accomplish catharsis. (1)Bullying - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." 2004. 8 Apr. 2013 (2)http://en.wikipedia.org...
Bullies should receive much harsher punishment

Bullies in grade school can torment an individual to the point of the victim wanting to commit suicide or actually going through with it. Most bullies get suspended for a few days, or simply get a slap on the wrist and have to go to the principal's office. Bullying continues because the situations aren't handled correctly and their punishments are not as severe as they need to be. I feel in some instances, bullies should be permanently expelled from the school or spend some nights in a jail cell. Tell me why such harsh punishments are overkill and what type of punishments should be given in specific situations.
Socioeconomic factors determine how many opportunities they have in America.

Have you ever been to a poor school? I have. The problem is not the funding. Yes, new computers are nice, but they are not required. The problem is the students themselves. They do not care, and they carry that attitude with them. They feel as if they are owed. If we show that that attitude is unacceptable, then they may want to change. Instead, society encourages it. This furthers the problem. If someone drops out of high school: it is their fault. I someone does not go to college: it is their fault. If someone goes to jail: it is their fault. Furthermore, unless you have a Ph.D. you cannot refer to people with Ph.D.s as quacks. You have utterly failed to provide a source to back up your findings, and without a source of equal or greater credibility, my argument stands and yours is invalid. My conclusion: If we want to end the cycle of poverty, we should tell children that their mistakes are their faults and their successes are also their fault. We need to stop encouraging the attitude of entitlement. We need to make being poor in this country shameful, and we should only provide them enough support to feed them bread and water. Only then will we see advancement.
Socioeconomic factors determine how many opportunities they have in America.

Socioeconomic factors do not influence a child's potential. However, being born with a low Socioeconomic keeps children from taking full advantage of it. Your argument are illogical. I don't know where you get your logic that if you demonize a group of people, all of the sudden, they are just supposed to magically rise out of poverty. History teaches us that demonizing a group of people (especially a group that is already disadvantaged and powerless) only leads to further oppression. It will make it even harder than it is now for them to better their lives. Like I said, the fact that your intelligence is greatly influenced by your heredity, remains unproven. Just because some quack with a PHD says otherwise does not change that fact. America should not be a place were you are punished and discriminated against for not being born with the right Socioeconomic status. America should be a land of equal education and equal opportunity. Stating that poor people are bad parents and that they are just simply stupid is an idiotic, illogical, and unproven conclusion as to why poor people have a hard time getting out of poverty. By providing public schools, the government makes a promise that they will give our children a quality education that will give them an avenue for success. If they cannot keep that promise, parents be able to send their children to schools that fulfill that promise.of their choice. The government needs to give caring parents in poverty more power to say what kind of education their child gets. The government also needs to give youth the power to advocate for themselves or give them advocates if they are in a situation where parents are of no help. Bottom Line: In order to stop the cycle of poverty and welfare, the government needs to further support these people, not demonize them. Schools need to provide career paths for disadvantaged youth. Helping these children overcome poverty is not an act of charity, its an act of justice.
Socioeconomic factors determine how many opportunities they have in America.

1. My source is credible, it was a book written by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner entitled Freakonomics. I see no source from you, and until I do, I will ignore your argument on the grounds that it is not credible. 2. I do not care if there is a "smart gene", but you conceded that intelligence is heritable. Therefore, it is possible that stupidity is more heritable than is poverty. Especially since the school you go to has been proven not to influence overall intelligence. 3. Why do rich kids not drop out at the same rate as poor kids? The obvious answer is that it is because they are rich. Of course, my source disproved that. So the other solution is that there is another variable that influences success, and that variable is the parents. Whether intelligence comes from the genome or from caring parents, it is more prominent among the wealthy than the poor. Likely because stupidity is the reason poor people are poor. 4. Demonizing the poor is better than empathizing with them. At least if we make being poor look awful, people will work harder to get out of poverty. Which I have previously stated, is not overly difficult if you simply do the three things. 5. Yes, every child has infinite potential. Socioeconomic factors in which the child was born does not influence that.
Socioeconomic factors determine how many opportunities they have in America.

There has been several studies about the relationship between genes and intelligence. The idea that children inherit their intelligence from their parents has been unproven. Therefore, your argument is invalid. In 2013, A group called the Social Sciences Genetic Association Consortium, did a study comparing the genomes of more than 126,000 people, the study concluded that while intelligence "" and proxy measures such as cognitive test performance or educational attainment "" are quite heritable, the idea of 'smart genes' remains really unproven. Also, maybe you don't want your tax dollars going to children dropping out of high school. I'm saying that the government needs to invest in programs to prevent that from happening in the first place. I would rather our tax dollars be going toward the children who are going to run this country in the future than spending it on things such as a Shrimp on a treadmill. The government has responsibility for the schools that THEY run, fund, and operate. The school system, especially in poverty areas, are in desperate need of reform. If we don't start providing more opportunities for children education-wise, they will continue the cycle of poverty and welfare. Demonizing the poor is something that is becoming more popular and it needs to stop. Like you said, America's social mobility is not the best that it could be. IT WILL NOT HELP IF WE PAINT POOR PEOPLE AS VILLAINS FOR BEING POOR. Every child born in America has infinite potential, no matter if they are born in poverty or middle class. The government needs to provide funding to insure that every child has the opportunity to reach that potential.