BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
You can never teach a llama to drive

"Llamas ruling the world? Madness! Everyone knows robots will rise up and take over the world!"Have you ever seen a working, conquering loving robot? No, no one has. But we have seen llamas. They're everywhere. In the trees, in our racecars, on our fields... One day, they will take over and destroy the Earth, and the sooner you come to that conclusion the better prepared you will be for the inevitable invasion."How would you control a car with hooves? Normally to operate a steering wheel you need to be able to grip the wheel."Easy, you just remake the steering wheel to accommodate hooves."According to the researchers at know your meme, the most reputable resource for anything, the only song called the 'Llama Song' is the song I mentioned![1] Further, if there is a superhero llama, why would he need to drive? Everyone knows all superheroes can fly."Please, everyone knows Wikipedia is the most reputable source on the internet, ask anyone. Superheroes have secret identities, and llama superheroes have even more. They must keep themselves secret, otherwise their great intelligence will be revealed to the world, and their invasion plans will be ruined!"On your profile, you say your name is 'Nicole'.[2] According to the llama website, the name of the owner is 'Michael'.[3] You can't possibly be both Nicole and Michael!"Apologies for the accidental implication that I was the writer of the article. I was merely giving an example of a llama trainer like myself."As to your arguments, that llama is not really a llama. That is Emperor Kuzco, who was turned into a llama briefly by his wicked advisor Yzma. This explains why he can talk." But you concede that it IS a llama. You did not say I had to be capable of training pure llamas (which I can do), you simply said I had to be capable of training llamas. Humans turned llamas are still llamas, if not pure llamas. "Your other image, of a llama in a racecar, is not sufficient proof that you can teach a llama to drive because the picture is still - in other words, the car isn't moving. They could of just stuck that llama in the car and then taken the picture."I will concede that, without a larger version of this picture or a video, there is no way to tell that this llama is actually driving.
You can never teach a llama to drive

1. Have you ever been inside of a llama's head? Seen into its mind? Well I have. It only acts lazy to lure you into a false sense of security, but one day the llamas will rise and overthrow their human overlords!Llamas ruling the world? Madness! Everyone knows robots will rise up and take over the world!2. Cars can be upgraded to help those who are handicapped drive, why can't they be upgraded to work with hooves? It wouldn't be impossible.How would you control a car with hooves? Normally to operate a steering wheel you need to be able to grip the wheel.I call bull, that isn't the llama song, that's the llama-duck song.The llama song actually goes like this:Happy llama,Sad llama,Mentally retarded llama,Super llama,Dead llama, Big fat mama llama,TACOSo as you can see, llamas are capable of being superhero llamas, and go through a wide range of emotions, from joy to utter depression. This is easily proof that llamas are capable of learning, if given enough time.According to the researchers at know your meme, the most reputable resource for anything, the only song called the 'Llama Song' is the song I mentioned![1] Further, if there is a superhero llama, why would he need to drive? Everyone knows all superheroes can fly.How do you know I have no experience in training llamas to drive? I'll have you know I have plenty of experience training llamas (http://www.borderllamas.com......), thank you very much.NOT SO FAST. On your profile, you say your name is 'Nicole'.[2] According to the llama website, the name of the owner is 'Michael'.[3] You can't possibly be both Nicole and Michael!As to your arguments, that llama is not really a llama. That is Emperor Kuzco, who was turned into a llama briefly by his wicked advisor Yzma. This explains why he can talk. Your other image, of a llama in a racecar, is not sufficient proof that you can teach a llama to drive because the picture is still - in other words, the car isn't moving. They could of just stuck that llama in the car and then taken the picture.References:1. http://knowyourmeme.com...2. http://www.debate.org...3. http://www.borderllamas.com...
You can never teach a llama to drive

This is my first troll debate, and I hope not to screw up. Second, thanks for your patience, personal, family, and school problem kept me too busy to put a lot of effort into debates, and, this being a troll debate, I wanted to put a lot of effort into it. )Now, my opponent had very, very good points, They were so good that a lesser woman might have concede. In fact, anyone should concede to such an amazing argument. But I am not just anyone. "As you can see, this llama cannot drive. It is sitting down, a clear sign that it is too lazy to drive. While the llama's long neck might give it an advantage over other animals, it has hooves - it is very hard to drive with hooves. While llamas are capable of getting in and out of cars as well as being ridden,[1] nowhere has it been proven that you can teach a llama to drive. "1. Have you ever been inside of a llama's head? Seen into its mind? Well I have. It only acts lazy to lure you into a false sense of security, but one day the llamas will rise and overthrow their human overlords!2. Cars can be upgraded to help those who are handicapped drive, why can't they be upgraded to work with hooves? It wouldn't be impossible. "Another evidence that llamas cannot be taught to drive is that their own song does not say they can drive. The Llama Song, widely regarded as the 'national anthem' of llamas everywhere"I call bull, that isn't the llama song, that's the llama-duck song. The llama song actually goes like this:Happy llama,Sad llama,Mentally retarded llama,Super llama,Dead llama, Big fat mama llama,TACOSo as you can see, llamas are capable of being superhero llamas, and go through a wide range of emotions, from joy to utter depression. This is easily proof that llamas are capable of learning, if given enough time. "Finally, I would like to note that, even if llamas can be taught to drive, you cannot do it. My opponent has no experience in teaching llamas to drive, and the widespread scientific consensus is that you cannot teach a llama to drive. [2]"How do you know I have no experience in training llamas to drive? I'll have you know I have plenty of experience training llamas (. http://www.borderllamas.com...), thank you very much. Now for my own argument. . http://www.llama.org...That is a llama. This llama is standing up, a clear sign that it is not too lazy to drive. In fact, this llama is capable of speech, something very rare in llamas. If this llama can speak and understand us, then it is obvious it can be taught to drive. One final thing: . http://personal.smartt.com...This llama is driving. Anything to say about that?
You can never teach a llama to drive

http://www.youtube.com...Now, I hope it is plainly obvious to everyone that a llama cannot be taught to drive by you. Here is a llama: As you can see, this llama cannot drive. It is sitting down, a clear sign that it is too lazy to drive. While the llama's long kneck might give it an advantage over other animals, it has hooves - it is very hard to drive with hooves. While llamas are capable of getting in and out of cars as well as being ridden,[1] nowhere has it been proven that you can teach a llama to drive.Another evidence that llamas cannot be taught to drive is that their own song does not say they can drive. The Llama Song, widely regarded as the 'national anthem' of llamas everywhere, contains the following lyrics:Here's a llamaThere's a llamaand another little llamaFuzzy LlamaFunny LlamaLlama Llama duckLlama llamacheesecake llamatablet, brick, potato, llamallama llama mushroom llamallama llama duckI was once a tree houseI lived in a cakebut i never saw the waythe orange slayed the rakeI was only three years deadbut it told a taleand now listen little childto the safety railDid you ever see a llamakiss a llamaon the llamallama's llamatastes of llamallama llama duckHalf a llamaTwice a llamanot a llamafarmer llamallama in a caralarm a llamallama duckis that how its told nowis it oh so oldis it made of lemon juicedoorknob, ankle, coldNow my song is getting thinI've run out of luckTime for me to retire nowand become a duckNotice many llamas are described in the song, but none of them are 'driving llama'.Finally, I would like to note that, even if llamas can be taught to drive, you cannot do it. My opponent has no experience in teaching llamas to drive, and the widespread scientific consensus is that you cannot teach a llama to drive.[2]References: 1. http://brangesllamas.com...2. ASDF Movie 2
Sasuke vs Kakashi

1) i say Kakashi even though Sasuke got stronger and gained that mangekyou sharingan but like everyone says no one knows Kakashi's real strength he holds back because he doesn't have enough Chakra The thing is he's able to Extremely concentrate he's Chakra to perform a Jutsu he doesn't waste much Chakra not having ...Nov 11, 2011 2) Also he has many more power's then Sasuke does
resolved: it is morally right for animals to have rights

We don't have any obligation to accept "feelings" when deciding whether or not to protect people. Rights are accorded to rationality and one's consent to society. There is no moral obligation by the government to protect people who are not part of our community (hence why we turn away illegal immigrants). Similarly, there is no moral obligation to protect animals because they cannot join our society. He hasn't attacked this, so you can extend this across the round.
resolved: it is morally right for animals to have rights

Animals are not capable of joining the social contract. The social contract is an agreement between individuals and the state that is based on reciprocity. Individuals in society relinquish some liberties to the state, and consent to follow the state's laws, in exchange for the protection of their natural rights. Joining the social contract is contingent upon one's ability to consent to follow laws; if one does not follow rules, then one's rights are not protect. For example, we violate the right to liberty of felons because they openly flout the moral codes created to protect the rights of all. Animals are not capable of joining the social contract, thus indicating that their rights ought not be considered. Moreover, animals are incapable of consenting to society because they lack rationality. Professor Joel Fineberg explains, "Well-trained dogs sometimes let their masters down; they anticipate punishment or other manifestations of displeasure; they grovel and whimper, and they even
resolved: it is morally right for animals to have rights

I. A California man accused of fatally slamming his wife's Chihuahua against a wall during a domestic dispute could be sentenced to life in prison, according to authorities. Bud Wally Ruiz gave the 6-week-old puppy, Teddy, to his wife for Mother's Day. His wife called police just days later after Ruiz hurled a small travel case with the dog inside across a room as the two argued. He now faces two felony counts of cruelty to animals and a misdemeanor count of spousal battery, reports the (San Jose Mercury News)and for that reason I'm on the affirmative side of this debate. in the us there were 1,090 cases of animal abuse in the us alone. the worst punishment in new Mexico is 18 years in jail. There are only three states who have not made animal cruelty a felony offense, they are Idaho, south Dakota,and north Dakota. II. Animals have been on this planet longer than humans. so why should they be treated like they are less than us? is it because we are dominant? well we have got to stop it.
Men are better in sports then woman are

Wow. My opponent starts off with a forfeit. To all the judges: I am sorry about the short speech. I've been very busy lately... Swim practice and studying has been difficult for me... I only have one hour to complete this speech... Definitions (from Oxford Dictionaries):Man- An adult human maleWoman- An adult human femaleBetter- More desirable, satisfactory, or effectiveSport- An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.In order for me to win this debate, I must prove how women are just as good as men at sports.Arguments:C1: ResolutionI, as Con, only have to disprove the topic. The topic states: Men are better in sports than woman are. Since my opponent didn't specify, I assume that my opponent means: Men, in all conditions, are always better in sports than woman are. If I am able to prove that not all men are capable of beating a woman in a sport, the judges ought to vote for me.C2: Men vs. WomenA. "The Battle of the Sexes"Billie Jean King famously defeats a former Wimbledon champion, Bobby Riggs, on September 20, 1973. Although King was 26 and Riggs was 55, her victory proves that some women are capable of beating men at sports. Her victorious win hailed as a blow to sexism. Women were convinced to participate in athletic events.B. WrestlingIn 2006, Michaela Hutchison became the first girl to win a state title against boys in high school wrestling. This proves that some women are physically stronger than men.Refutations:"If men had to play in a league against woman we would win, we are faster and sronger" This "argument" is extremely faulty and weak. It is merely a claim without evidence. For all these reasons, please vote for the negative side of this debate. Thank you.
Science is False

I apologize to Pro, as I most likely hurt his feelings. Anyways, on to my conclusion. Pro's entire case hinged on the fact that the government is lying to us. However, I don't see any proof of the government lying, or any reason why they'd lie. Sure humans love money, but we've been getting more advanced since the 19th century. This alone, is proof that science does exist. Without science, we'd still have sailboats, giant computers, and we'd lack cures to many illnesses. I doubt there's a reason for someone to prefer $1,000,000 rather than working on cures for plagues. Pro dropped my round 3 arguments, saying I went "off topic". I addressed his arguments head on. Sure my Mars example was a bit flimsy, but science still stands. Pro, sadly, just ignored my Round 3 arguments almost entirely. This debate was about "I didn't see a thing, therefore that thing may not be true". I get where Pro's coming from, but he only shown the possibility of science being "made up". I have shown that science exists and helps our daily life, Pro was unable to show how, let's say, we already have a cure for Ebola, and Obama won't cure it now. BoP was on Pro, he didn't fulfill it. Vote the winner! NOTE: If you prefer Pro over Con, or vice versa, explain why in your vote.
Science is False

I encourage everyone to read my previous arguments while I take this time to laugh at how my opponent wrongly came to the conclusion that, "dinosaurs don't exist" was a part of my argument. As he was clearly not even remotely on topic the entire debate, and didn't pay attention to a single thing I said. While he presented endless amount of - "We ARE trying to land on Mars. just 30 trillion more dollars and we're there. we know this because we're using slim suits."
Science is False

Fallacy in Modern Application of Scientific References; PowerPickachu21 wanted me to disprove Abiogenesis. convenient. Abiogenesis indicates that there is no biotic matter. aka. it is not a living thing. IN other words, he wants me to what? ?*? Abiotic-genesis does not scientifically lead to life. There is not evidence suggesting it, nor facts proving it. IN fact, abiotic genesis is a perfect example of the fallacy children and bigots reoccurring present as arguments on the internet. EX. Powerpickachu21 factually did not study it: Not on an atomic level, not on a molecular level, not even in a theoretical level, or in a professional and unbiasedly-regulated atmosphere. < thus. PowerPickachu cannot stipulated that the science even exists : that it had ever been done; that any finds regarding such a scientific experiment suggested abiogenesis lead to life; that the scientists were qualified; or that the scientists conclusions were logical or accurate. IN fact Abiogenesis, regardless of it's accuracy was a perfect example to prove the point the debate was structured at making. Your reference to science was founded on ignorance in an arrogant manner. The studying and research had not been done on a personal level, and the sources he would have/could have chose are not Factually trustworthy. This is an argument I have been presenting for months and years as being a huge issue in the scientific field, and in the way people argue. "The bible was written by people. This scientific theory is made by homosapiens. So my book written by homosapiens is correct." There is a documentary on Netflix at the moment. False Sciences being Advertised for profitable purposes. AKA. Rich people pay tons of money for you to be told what will help produce an arrogant+ignorant following of belligerent fools. The Law of Conservation is not a science. It is a law of physics. It is founded on theoretical/philosophical premises. Newton believed in God** as a side note. However. The law of conservation existed long before atomic studies became advanced, and molecules became categorized into a chart of elements. Proving or disproving this concept is redundant. However, now that you are thinking of the chart of elements, and atomic values. .. First a Computer cannot make discoveries. It can only do what it is programmed to do. Nothing else. It detects things within the parameters and tot he specifications the computer is programmed to detect; It cannot make discoveries. Regardless, we are discussing as a debate. The scientific validity of the references made by people on the internet, at school and in the work lace:* The Fallacy of referencing scientists whom you do not know, and the sciences that you are unsure of the situations in which they "supposedly" conducted them. The words of man, when reinforced with mountains of cash, gas and asss, are not worth a damn-nation of fools defending them needlessly as though they are facts, when no evidence suggest that they are. I await my opponents contributions quite eagerly.
Science is False

Science is NOT false, and it's on Pro to disprove science. First, I should give definitions on certain words so it can be clear what we will refer to, and Pro may not change the definitions. Science: 1. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. 2. A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws. (Dictionary. com) Theory: a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena. (Dictionary. com) (Theory of Evolution, Theory of Gravity, etc. ) Pro must disprove the following things science has proven: Abiogenesis; the chemical change in an inorganic object into an organic being. The Law of Conservation of Matter; matter cannot be created nor destroyed Newton's Laws of Motion: 1; (Law of Inertia) An object at rest will stay at rest, and an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by an unbalanced force (such as friction and gravity). 2; (Law of Acceleration) An object with a greater mass will accelerate slower than an object with a lower mass, when pushed with the same force. 3; (Law of Action/Reaction) Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. (You push a wall, the wall pushes back with equal force) Those are a few I could think of from the top of my head. But, Pro must disprove these. I suggest Pro makes a video where he breaks physics (He won't though. But if he does, I'd be very surprised! ). I expect a big challenge from Pro, though.
Science is False

I would like to present the Argument that "Modern Science" referred to by children, scholars, students, and all people across the globe are based on fallacy, ignorance/arrogance and lack of fundamental studying. I will make references to chemistry, archeology, math, theory, literature, and any other scientific field used as structure for common beliefs. I am debating that the majority of scientific references made by people in debates are not valid evidence nor are they structural support for beliefs. "chia's"
There is no such thing as love at first sight.

"I was asked to define Love. Which I did. I was not asked to define Love at First Sight, which I did in Round 2. "Definitions are not requested. They are set and accepted in round 1, and I've explicitly accepted my opponent's definitions in round 1. Any definitions in further rounds can be debated. It seems my opponent is choosing to debate the definition of 'sight', and is setting 'sight' to mean being accustomed to the knowledge of something's existence. Aside from my opponent's blatant, wild attempt to redefine the word 'sight' to fit his own purposes outside of resolution setup, aside from its blatant contradiction to the generally accepted definition, aside from its dictionary definitions, and let's ignore my opponent's arbitrary derivation of the definition of the word 'love' for now, allow me to present my opponent's definition of 'love at first sight' in Round 2:"So, in essence love at first sight means, that the fist time that you lay eyes"My opponent blatantly tries to redefine terms not once but twice, and contradicts his own definitions twice. My opponent's own round 2 redefinition negates his round 3 rebuttal, which depends on the new definition provided in round 3. Does love at first sight involve eyes or not? Which is it? Even with the contradictory definition, my opponent utterly fails to address my contention on chemical reaction. This point is conceded and is alone sufficient to affirming the negative case. For my opponent's multiple violations and his inability to address the negative case, I urge a full 7 point vote for CON. I wish my opponent well and pray he does not repeat such vile debate misconduct in future debates. I thank him for the debate and would also like to extend thanks to the reader.
There is no such thing as love at first sight.

Love at first sight is a common trope in Western literature, in which a person, character, or speaker feels romantic attraction for a stranger on the first sight of them. Described by poets and critics from the Greek world on, it has become one of the most powerful tropes in Western fiction. So, in essence love at first sight means, that the fist time that you lay eyes on a person, you fall in love with that person. But how can that be? You see a beautiful woman (or if you are a woman, a handsome man) walking down the grocery aisle. You, supposedly, fall in love with that person, and supposedly love at first sight occurs. But that man or woman could be serial killer. He or she could have traits that you do not like. Lust occurs, not love. In the definition above, love at first sight means love for a complete stranger. So in this instance, a relationship between mother and her child, does not have any relevance in this debate. A child is no stranger to his or her mother. They were together for 9 months! However love at first sight between a stranger and another stranger does not exist, because you do not know that person. You have a lust, a sexual attraction to that person, you do not love that person.