BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Are You Smarter Than A 6th Grader? Season 1 Episode 1 Part 1

Trick question. More than one body contains water. Water is defined as H2O (two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom in a molecule) in either a solid, liquid, or gaseous form. The moon: On 24 September 2009 Science magazine reported that the Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M3) on India's Chandrayaan-1 had detected water on the Moon.[1][2]Mars: On July 28, 2005, the European Space Agency announced the existence of a crater partially filled with frozen water;some then interpreted the discovery as an "ice lake".Images of the crater, taken by the High Resolution Stereo Camera on board the European Space Agency's Mars Express spacecraft, clearly show a broad sheet of ice in the bottom of an unnamed crater located on Vastitas Borealis, a broad plain that covers much of Mars' far northern latitudes, at approximately 70.5° North and 103° East. The crater is 35 km wide and about 2 km deep.[3][4][5]Europa: ...scientists studying data from NASA's Galileo probe have discovered what appears to be a body of liquid water the volume of the North American Great Lakes locked inside the icy shell of Jupiter’s moon Europa.[6]Triton: A Voyager 2 flyby in 1989 offered a quick peak at the satellite, and revealed a surface composition comprised mainly of water ice.[7]I would like for my opponent to be more specific in his questions and not ask for only one answers to a question where many are available. I next take 5th Grade Aeronautics. Sources:[1]: http://www.sciencemag.org...[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org...[3]: http://www.esa.int...[4]: http://news.bbc.co.uk...[5]: http://en.wikipedia.org...[6]: http://science.nasa.gov...[7]: http://www.astrobio.net...;
Are You Smarter Than A 6th Grader? Season 1 Episode 1 Part 1

Welcome to Are You Smarter Than a 6th Grader?! Here are the rules: 1. Don't beg for points2. Sore Losers Not Allowed3. No cheating! Don't call your friends or family or strangers or aliens!TODAY'S SUBJECTS1st Grade Literature- 2 points1st Grade Health- 2 points2nd Grade Weather Science- 3 points2nd Grade Mathematics- 3 points3rd Grade Spelling- 4 points3rd Grade Geography- 4 points4th Grade American History- 5 points4th Grade Geometry- 5 points5th Grade Writing- 6 points5th Grade Aeronautics- 6 points6th Grade Astronomy- 7 points6th Grade Literacy- 7 pointsBonus: Double or Nothing: 8th Grade MysteryYou must select a topic for each round.Example of a good response:The answer is Ice Hockey. I pick 1st Grade Art NextThanks and Good Luck From your host,Majducator
Glasses are better than Contacts

I am sorry you are completely correct I miss read that part.... Sure, you could call losing your vision a rare reaction but getting an infection is not. And it is far less likely to get an infection from wearing glasses. I too wore contacts for some portion of my life and I found myself having to worrying if I hit the eight hour mark and I still have them on. After a certain period of time you have to take them off... which means you have to bring more supplies to change them, if you are out of your home. Also in the morning don't you find it harder to get them in. You previously noted that with glasses you just get up and go. With contacts you have to sit there wait to wake up more so your eyes are wider then put them in. Which as you stated far my time consuming. Also lets look at the cost fact. Glasses are a one time fee for a reduce price opposed to contacts which are a one time fee for a few months supply at a greater price. Also don't forget about the fee for the supplies need for contacts:cases, solution and other necessities. Glasses are less maintenance and less expensive as well as a great style changer.
Glasses are better than Contacts

First off I never said wearing glasses are unprofessional. I said that they can cause you to lose your peripheral vision which is not good for many professions. Your sister now that is a rare reaction. I wore contacts for four years and never once had a problem. You have to change them periodically which may be seen as annoying whereas glasses you just wake up and put on with easy. Contacts are a little more time consuming to put on but save time throughout your day. You do not need to turn your neck all the way to look at something on right or left. This can also lead into neck strain especially when driving. Checking your blind spot can be a simple task with contacts on. With glasses it is more of a painful task.
Glasses are better than Contacts

Contacts are not a safe choice. I do agree with you on the peripheral vision argument. They do tend to get in the way of my peripherals. To add to your statement of glasses looking unprofessional. I would have to disagree I believe that most people who wear glasses tend to look more studious as well as professional. I recently read an article that said that managers and bosses tend to hire a person with glasses rather than without them. Again I would have to disagree with you about contacts being more safe than glasses. My sister recently had a very poor encounter with contacts. She had an infection in her eye and because of the contacts it caused her infection to worsen. Due to this infection she almost lost her vision in her left eye. Also I find wearing sunglasses easier when they are perception glasses. But also I see the other side of it. Having precipitation sunglasses I find it a pain to have to take them off and bring my regular glasses as well. But again I have to say the pros out way the cons, glasses are better than contacts.
Glasses are better than Contacts

Contacts are then glasses because when it rains you do not need to have an umbrella. Contacts allow you to use your peripheral vision, unlike glasses which you must turn your entire head to look at something. This is not good for many professions. I want to be a police officer and wearing glasses would impair my peripheral vision. Glasses are not always a safer than contacts. When you are out walking down the street and your glasses crack there is potential for the lens to go into your eyes. When you wear contacts you can wear sun glasses. In the summer it is necessary to wear sunglasses so you want to have the ability to put on contacts.
Glasses are better than Contacts

Having worn glasses for the past 6 years I believe it is a safer way to see then using contact lenses. Contact lenses have many safety hazards. If you do not change your contacts often i.e. everyday you can get an infection in your eye. Eye glasses are also easier to take care of. You do not need to buy chemicals to clean them, which also pose a hazard to your health. Eye glasses are great because you can change your entire look. These are just a few reasons why glasses are better.
Men are the most important in improving our society

My opponent has failed to present any arguments -- what a shame. I don't get challenged to debates often, and I was looking forward to hearing Pro's case. I will not be as discourteous. Any person who desires to improve society should hold their leaders to the highest standards possible and aggressively fight for their civil liberties. Lacking male organs or male privilege doesn't inhibit you from doing this, and I urge any man or women reading this to get more vocal and involved with their communities. I would also like to thank my opponent and welcome him to DDO. I sincerely hope that Pro have the opportunity to participate in future debates.
Genderqueer people deserve their own bathroom

Genesis 1:27 - "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. " These so-called "genderqueer" people don't exist. For biological purposes, male and female were created, and calling oneself "genderqueer" is not just a gross violation but a lie. You are either a man or a woman, period. Not to mention, like all the commenters said, how much it would cost to create an extra bathroom when men's and women's restrooms ALREADY EXIST for men and women who ALREADY EXIST. I look forward to your rebuttals.
Genderqueer people deserve their own bathroom

Currently, genderqueer people are faced with a dilemma: go to either a restroom for women or men, neither category of which they fall into. People in a restroom of a gender they don't belong to are generally unwelcome, which leads to discomfort for everyone involved, the genderqueer folks included. That is why they need their own bathroom, so they can feel welcomed and safe and so binary-gendered (man or woman) people don't have to have other-gendered folks invading their single-gendered restroom. Please debate me if you don't agree. Con has the burden of proof.
The world we percieve is a simulation.

Einstein once said, "I refuse to believe that the moon ceases to exist when I do not look at it." What Einstein did not realize at the time is that the moon we see exists only as part of a simulation and it's this simulated moon that ceases to exist when we don't look at the actual moon. Confused? Let me explain. Everything we see, smell, hear, taste and feel is created in our brain. It's the brains interpretation of electrical impulses. The origin of these impulses may come from an actual reality as detected by our various sense organs or they may not. We have no way of confirming reality except through these sense organs. Reptiles see in the infrared range and insects in the ultraviolet range. Nothing makes our perception more or less real. The same applies to sound, smell, taste and touch. We experience a reality limited to the sensitivity of our various sense organs. In fact, only 6% of the know universe is comprised of visible matter. We can't detect 94% of reality. Even worse, the 6% we do perceive is filled with illusion. Colors are a typical example. Colors are the brains interpretation of different wavelengths. They are not a property of light or objects. Colors exist only in the simulation we perceive. Then we have mirages, rainbows and reflections. Things which are helpful, for example, applying makeup or spotting a tiger stalking us in high grass, but these things do not exist in reality. What we percieve as reality is a 3 dimensional simulation. We experience it from before birth. Hearing our mothers heart beat. We perceive it whenever we open our eyes. It's understandable that we mistake this simulation for reality as it's all we ever perceive. But this simulation is not real and it's not accurate.
Charter School <Vs> Traditional Schooling

Traditional schooling is better because its not as loosely controlled, students don't get to decide what they do therefore they learn more about stuff people need to learn instead of focusing on one area in the world. Also in life you can't always get to do what you want to do and charter school lets you focus on things you like. Also i think Charter schooling has a looser grading system then traditional schooling and is easier for students to get higher grades therefore making life easier and creating big sissy students that aren't ready for the real world.
Charter School <Vs> Traditional Schooling

"Charter gives you independance" Yes Charter School gives you independence but independence is not necessarily a good thing, "Each year, approximately 1.2 million students fail to graduate from high school."(www.all4ed.org/files/GraduationRates_FactSheet.pdf) From this statement i prove that independence in an adolescence mind isn't always good. A lot of young adults, such as 17 year olds think that they have all the answers and think that they don't need to go to school or shouldn't have to go to school. Then when they turn eighteen they get independence and decide not to go to school anymore, and i think we all know that in this modern world with just about everything computer operated you need a descend education to even make enough money to survive. "President Barrack Obama even likes charter school." Where or when did he say this, in a televised speech or in a news paper article. My opponent gives no proof to this statement. I think I've responded to my opponents arguments well enough to prove my point.
Corporal Punishment is Wrong

Note: This is actually my 4th attempt at this debate. The guy that accepted my 3rd debate didn't even do anything in round 1.In this debate, I will be arguing that corporate punishment in homes is a wrong way to teach your child a lesson.Definition, according to dictionary.comnounphysical punishment, as spanking, inflicted on a child by an adult or authority.I will be targeting home corporal punishments.Round 1: Acceptance ONLYRound 2: Arguments ONLYRound 3: Rebuttals to Round 2Round 4: Rebuttals to Round 3 ONLY (not round 4) and ConclusionMy BOP is to prove that corporal punishment is not the way to teach your child a lesson. The opponent's BOP is to prove me wrong, and show that corporal punishment is a good way to teach your child a lesson.I also would want you to add citations to where you got your information from and link each citation at the end of your round.Let's keep this professional.
Football is a harder sport than basketball

okay, I wil make this simple. Welcome, my friend. Both sports are difficult; all sports are. But I believe that basketball is slightly more difficult than football. I have played both. I was a WR in football and a shooting guard in basketball. When I went to football practice, I worked on conditioning, catching and running routes. Here's what I did at basketball practice: 1. Condition. 2. Dribbling drills. 3. Shooting drills. 4. Jumping exercises. 5. Rebound drills. 6. Passing practice. 7. Defense. As you can see, every player on a basketball court has to know the basics of everything. Also, basketball players need to play great offense and great defense. I believe that basketball requires more skill and practice and is therefore slightly more difficult than football.
Capitalism is the best economic system.

Full Resolution: Capitalism, while imperfect and flawed, is the best major economic system. Rules: 1. First round is for acceptance. Second is for opening arguments. Third for rebuttals and conclusions. 2. By accepting the debate, Con agrees to the following definitions: Capitalism- the economic system based on private ownership of the means of production, and their operation for profit. Best- creating the best quality of life for the most people Major- consistently included in academic discussion and debate of various economic systems (Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, Mercantilism, Feudalism). 3. Burden of Proof is shared. Pro must show that there is no major economic system better than capitalism, under the agreed-upon definitions, and Con must show that there is a major economic system which is better. 4. No trolling, semantics, etc... I hope someone accepts, and look forward to debating!
Is Obama a good president(pro) or not(con)

Hello, and thank you for responding. I first want to point out that Forbes not only created an article titled "Economically, Could Obama Be America's Worst President?", but they also created an article titled "Economically, Could Obama Be America's Best President?"[1] That may loose the debate for you. You commented to the article that backed you up, while leaving out the article Now, to answer your questions about my previous points. You say that I did not elaborate enough, which is true. So that is what I will do: When I mentioned how Obama fixed the economy, I am speaking from truth. You see, the economy was so far down, it cannot fix itself in that steep of an incline. I am speaking from economical experience here. I just don't see that happening without the support of a president. That is why I believe it was the doing of Barack Obama. If you really want proof, look at what Forbes said about it[1]. Now, they also have some facts against it, but I do not feel that they are as strong as the other article.[2] When you talk about how he nearly doubled the debt, I sadly have to agree with you on that. It went up 58%.[3] I want to now talk about the number of jobs President Obama has created during his terms. As of August of this year, he has created 2.5 million jobs, which "is nearly two-and-a-half times the number added during George W. Bush"s entire eight years in office". [3] That is a significant increase, which is one reason I enjoy having Obama as a president. As for Obamacare, I agree it could have been better, but was still a brilliant idea. It is a great reform because it requires people to have health care. The only problem is that is makes people switch health insurance. But besides that, I see nothing wrong with it. Sources: [1]http://www.forbes.com... [2]http://www.forbes.com... [3]http://www.factcheck.org...
Is Obama a good president(pro) or not(con)

Thank you for your response, Pro.Rebuttals"When Obama was elected, the economy was in the toilet. But once he started working, the economy went back up."As I am sure my opponent knows, correlation does not equal causation. Because it is in the nature of economies to fluctuate, my opponent must prove that there is a causal link between President Obama's actions and the positive change in the economy."I will now list many of the things he has done to help the country: Health care reform, Wall Street reform,"In order for this point to be valid, my opponent must prove that these reforms were needed and beneficial. Please detail the reforms implemented and the positive effects they had, if any."ended war in Iraq and killed Osama Bin Laden,"Actually, the removal of U.S. troops from Iraq was negotiated between United States and Iraqi officials in 2008, under President Bush.[1] According to the Huffington Post, President Obama wanted to keep troops in Iraq beyond the withdrawal date set by the Bush administration.[2]As for killing bin Laden, he authorized his death, but any President would have done so. George W. Bush certainly would have.[3] Also, it is interesting that Obama's Vice President opposed the raid[4] and that Obama passed up a chance to kill bin Laden three times before authorizing it.[5]"boosted fuel efficiency standards, repealed 'Don't ask don't tell'"I will grant you these.ArgumentsObama sought to wage war on Syria.[6] This solidly refutes the picture my opponent tried to paint of Obama as someone who is responsible for ending U.S. involvement in wars in the Middle East.Our recovery from the recession has been so unimpressive in contrast with recession recoveries engineered by other U.S. Presidents, that a Forbes article was titled "Economically, Could Obama Be America's Worst President?"[7]The debt rate nearly doubled under Obama, which is unprecedented.[8]1. http://reason.com...2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...3. http://www.theatlantic.com...4. http://www.thedailybeast.com...5. http://townhall.com...6. http://www.npr.org...7. http://www.forbes.com...8. http://www.washingtontimes.com...
Is Obama a good president(pro) or not(con)

When Obama was elected, the economy was in the toilet. But once he started working, the economy went back up. I will now list many of the things he has done to help the country: Health care reform, Wall Street reform, ended war in Iraq and killed Osama Bin Laden, boosted fuel efficiency standards, repealed "Don't ask don't tell", and many more. How can anyone read that list of accomplishments and say he is a bad president? He ended wars, brought the economy back up, and has created millions of jobs.
Girls should "make the first move" more than they currently do now.

I will be defending the status quo: where the majority of heterosexual relationships are initiated by the males. First, I will examine the observations of my opponent. First, he notes that extremely shy and socially anxious males can be put at a serious disadvantage compared to those who are outgoing and socially confident. Is this a bad thing, really? Smart men have an advantage compared to dumb men. Strong men have an advantage compared to weak men. This is because strong and smart are two different traits the female population at large values, at least on average. It is no different for the traits "outgoing" and "socially confident." These traits should be given an advantage, and their opposites, shy and socially anxious, should be at a disadvantage. He then notes that love-shy people might have trouble initiating conversations. While this is true, my opponent has failed to see the female side of the spectrum. I would wager that a much higher percentage of females are "love-shy," at least when it comes to being able to ask someone out. I will go over both possible sources of love-shyness and explain why females are more likely to be love-shy. First, it could be, at least partially, genetic. As is noted by my opponent, love-shy men have a very hard time finding a mate, and therefore are much less likely to pass on their love-shyness. However, love-shy women don't have anywhere near the same trouble finding a mate. Therefore, this love-shy gene would thrive in women, but not so much in men. Second, it could be caused by upbringing. Since we live in a society where men are expected to ask women out, women are not taught to be the initiating force of a relationship. By the media, by their parents, etc. None of these sources teach women to be the active persuer of a relationship to the extent that men are. Therefore, it is completely reasonable that we observe many more men starting relationships than females. More women are love-shy than men. As my opponent has proclaimed himself, it is not an issue of simply "growing a pair." Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect more women to start asking men out. I have other things to say, but I will leave end my first rebuttal here. I ask my opponent to bring up anything he thinks I did not sufficiently address and/or any new points he has.
Girls should "make the first move" more than they currently do now.

First I will elaborate on the proposition, so we can clearly understand the terms of this debate. The phrase "make the first move" will be defined by me as: 1. Asking a person out 2. Telling a person you have feelings (romantic, do you like me check yes or no , you get the idea) for them. NOT THE FIRST MOVE SEXUALLY, at least not in this debate. This debate will concern more with a girl proclaiming her like of the guy, rather than the social norm of the guy asking out the girl. By taking this debate you agree that a guy asking out a girl is the social norm right now. ---------- The social norm the way it is now creates a large disadvantage for extremely shy and socially anxious guys. "Love-shy people find it difficult to be assertive in informal situations involving potential romantic or sexual partners. For example, a heterosexual love-shy male will have trouble initiating conversations with women because of strong feelings of anxiety." (http://en.wikipedia.org...) One may have the strongest feelings they have ever felt for someone and still be too shy to proclaim this outright. It's not a matter of "growing a pair" (http://www.urbandictionary.com...), it's just very hard for some people to overcome this social anxiety and and can lead to other conditions like depression, when it could be solved by a nice girl taking the first initiative and realizing the guy may not be a social god. I await my opponents response, and will clarify anything you do not understand .