BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Funny Quotes

There will be three quotes a round all rounds. "Make crime pay - become a lawyer." -Will Rogers- "It's simple. PG means the hero gets the girl. 15 means that the villain gets the girl and 18 means everybody gets the girl." -Michael Douglas [on UK movie rating system]- "They say God has existed from the beginning of time and will exist beyond the end of time. Can you imagine trying to sit through his home movies?" -Scott Roeben-
Homework should be mandatory.

Many children these days want to pursue their dreams in his or her individual lives. If a student can truly understand and connect with a subject, they will go out and learn more about it on their free time because it interests them. By forcing high amounts of homework, teachers are forcing their students to like everything. That sounds an awful lot like communism to me. There won't ever be anybody out there who enjoys doing everything in life. Another main fact is that homework does not at all improve the grade a student gets on the test. There have been accurate studies that support this idea. So what is the point of wasting the children's time on what they won't be doing for the rest of their lives when they can be doing what they love?
Homework should be mandatory.

Homework helps the teacher and the student in a school. Homework helps the student because the student understands the lecture the teacher gave better. Homework can also show if you know the topic or not. If you figure out you do not know the topic, you can ask your teacher. Homework helps the teacher because the teacher has less stress. When the student does the homework, and they get everything right, the teacher knows that the student understands the topic clearly. This can also notify that a student doesn't know the topic, and he or she will be helped. Homework also helps students on tests. When a student does his or her homework, he or she understands the topic and will do well on the test. Homework is good for everyone is a school environment.
ur mom should have aborted u

"u use resourzez an zpace that should go to better peeps. u dont desrve" What could factor towards me not deserving any resources or any space to live in. Think about this; I live in a town which has a land area size of 48 km^2. The population is around 118,000 people; therefore, we can calculate that each person has over 250 meters^2 of living space. This is more than adequate living space. The negates the question on whether I should have been aborted due to me apparently not deserving any space to live in. Well I deserve the space and this right shouldn't be taken away from me due to the fact that there isn't a need for more living space in terms of the general consensus. You have not shown why I don't deserve any resources.http://en.wikipedia.org...https://www.google.co.uk... "if ur mom aborted you hen i woldnt have to debate this"This is tautological and irrelevant to this debate. Moven on please/ My opponent has made numerous spelling mistakes and has failed to uphold the BOP Vote Me!
ur mom should have aborted u

Ok, I am against the infamous dairygirl4u2c. Pro, sort out your grammar and spelling? Ok, so the topic is “Ur mom should have aborted u”; clearly controversial. As I am con in this debate, I will argue against this resolution but I will not have to argue that my “mother” should not have aborted me due to the fact that I do not have to uphold any BOP. But indeed, the BOP is on you to show why my mother should have aborted me. Anyway, please present your arguments. In other words... I ACCEPT! (This is not a troll debate).
Information science demonstrates that biological information requires an intelligent mind (i.e. God)

To define information, I use Dr. Werner Gitt's explaination,"To fully characterise the concept of information, five aspects must be considered"statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics. Information is represented (that is, formulated, transmitted, stored) as a language. From a stipulated alphabet, the individual symbols are assembled into words (code). From these words (each word having been assigned a meaning), sentences are formed according to the firmly defined rules of grammar (syntax). These sentences are the bearers of semantic information. Furthermore, the action intended/carried out (pragmatics) and the desired/achieved goal (apobetics) belong of necessity to the concept of information." Since you accepted the debate, you agreed to Gitt's definition, so we don't have to argue about semantics. If you read the webpage I provided, you will have noticed the 4 scientific laws of information (SLI). I will assume for the moment that you agree with the first two laws, if not you can explain why. The contention certainly arises with the 3rd and 4th laws. SLI-1 A material entity cannot generate a non-material entity. SLI-2 Universal information is a non-material fundamental entity. SLI-3 Universal information cannot be created by statistical processes. SLI-4 Universal information can only be produced by an intelligent sender. (http://creation.com...) SLI-3 is supported by experimental data which has shown that non-living matter cannot produce a living organism. Abiogenesis at best is a scientific hypothesis, but until it is proven by experimentation and becomes a scientific theory, SLI-3 remains a proven law. Scientific laws remain laws until operational science demonstrates an exception(s). "A key element in evolutionary theory is that life has gone from simple to complex. But requiring the minimal components of a genetic code to be simultaneously in place without intelligent guidance is indistinguishable from demanding a miracle. No empirical evidence motivated searches for simpler or less optimal primitive genetic codes. Once the possibility of Divine activity has been excluded as the causal factor, an almost unquestioning willingness to accept absurd notions is created among many scientists. After all, it must have happened! We conclude that no one has proposed a workable naturalistic model that shows how a genetic code could evolve from a simpler into a more complex version." (http://creation.com...) SLI-4 is substantiated by Gitt's SLI-4a-d: SLI-4a Every code is based upon a mutual agreement between sender and receiver. SLI-4b There is no new universal information without an intelligent sender. SLI-4c Every information transmission chain can be traced back to an intelligent sender. SLI-4d Attributing meaning to a set of symbols is an intellectual process requiring intelligence. Please explain why you disagree with any of the SLIs listed above.
Information science demonstrates that biological information requires an intelligent mind (i.e. God)

The information science, and definition of information that will be the resolution for this debate is to be found on this webpage: . http://creation.com... You can disagree with the information laws, but we must agree on the definition for information. If you do not agree with Dr. Gitt's definition of information (statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics), then please do not accept this challenge, but you may state why you don't agree in the comment section.
Santa Claus Exists

Okay, unless Santa's elves are doing a world-wide survey of every home in the world, Santa would have to be omnipotent to know all of that information.I don't think Santa is omniscient, but I do think he might be getting his information from an omniscient source. Santa is St. Nicholas so it might be entirely possible that God gives him all the necessaary information. That, or he's hacked into the NSA.In actuallity, the notion that Santa is a saint explains just about everything, from the flying reindeer, to the fact that he hasn't died yet. It wouldn't be the first time that God has kept bodies from decaying.http://en.wikipedia.org...All the legends of Santa could simply be miracles that God allows to occur through St. Nicholas. (another possibility: Santa is actually already dead and delivers the gifts in a ghost-like state? the elves and neindeer might actually be angels.)However I have another theory that doesn't count quite so much on divine intervention. Unfortunately, I'll have to elaborate on it in my next round, as I'm running short on time.Santa delivers gifts to ALL children, excluding the naughty ones of course. I have never heard anything about any other conditions where he wouldn't deliver gifts.Actually, I've kind of understood it in the opposite way. I've always understood that these exceptions are followed except for the naughty children, who also get visits from Santa in order to recieve coal in their stocking. A couple things to consider:1. If according to legend, Santa comes down the chimney and there's no chimney on the house, Doesn't Santa have to skip that house in order to comply with the legend?2.Santa probably doesn't visit the houses of naughty children directly, if anyone visits them at all. my guess is that he has teams of elves fly to these houses on the backs of a legion of reigndeer.
Santa Claus Exists

Wow, those are a lot of conditions there! Okay, unless Santa's elves are doing a world-wide survey of every home in the world, Santa would have to be omnipotent to know all of that information. And according to his story, Santa delivers gifts to ALL children, excluding the naughty ones of course. I have never heard anything about any other conditions where he wouldn't deliver gifts. Once again, just the logistics of it would make it impossible.
Santa Claus Exists

While I certainly am a fan of St. Nicholas, the saint who I share a name with, and a man known for his generosity and giving, Santa Claus, the mythological character based on St. Nicholas, is exactly that, a myth. He is a cultural figure who is at the heart of the Christmas celebration. I've always liked the story of Santa Claus, but what one has to realize is that it is just a story. St. Nicholas was known around the world for his legendary generosity and for his charity to the poor and needy, and the character of Santa Claus was created in his honor. To really see why Santa Claus is a mythological figure, you have to look at the logic of the Santa Claus myth. The story of Santa Claus in a nutshell is that he has a toy factory in the North Pole where elves make all the toys for the boys and girls around the world. Then on Christmas Eve night, Santa Claus delivers toys to all the boys and girls around the world. To believe in Santa Claus, you would first of all have to dismiss the realities of physics and time. It is impossible for one man, in one night, to deliver toys to every boy and girl on the planet, he would have to stop time, which as we know cannot be done, although we may wish for it to be so sometimes! Also, Santa Claus has been portrayed as an old man for well over a century, has he also stopped aging, along with time? Those factors, along with the other elements of his story, such as elves, flying reindeer, and a North Pole kingdom of Christmas, are classic elements of a fairy-tale, not elements of reality. So yes, the story of Santa Claus is an awesome one, and I've always liked Santa Claus as a character. St. Nicholas certainly did exist, but Santa Claus does not exist. He is a cultural part of our Christmas celebration, but the only time he existed was when St. Nicholas did, as St. Nicholas.
Santa Claus Exists

Since my last opponent never made any response, I'm going to try this again.Here's the catch: For this debate, The BoP lies with my opponent. He/She must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Santa Claus does not exist. This is meant to be a serious, but fun, debate. My opponent may present his arguments in the first round.Santa Claus: Man who brings toys to children on Christmas, flies with the aid of a magical sleigh and reindeer, and has all the other notable Santa Claus characteristics as described in American culture.
Most People Hate the Truth Which is We All Deserve Death and Hell

We deserve to die and burn in Hell because we have defied our Creator and sinned againt Him. He loves us and wants us to be forgiven, so He paid in our place for our sins when he took our death as God the Man, the Son of God, Jesus. He died the most horrific tortuous death in our place, our sin, the sin of all mankind, nailed Him to the cross where He willingly shed His holy life's blood to pay for our sins. The grave could not hold him because He had no sin of His own. He took our sin to the grave and left it behind, covered by His blood, when He rose in victory over death offering forgiveness and pardon form the penalty of sin which is eternal death in Hell. He offers pardon to all who admit they are the ones who deserve death and eternal death in Hell, and believe on His Resurreciont, and call on God in the name of Jesus Chrsit to save them. He delights to save from Hell all who believe on Him.Most people hate the truth which is that we all deerve to die and burn in Hell. Most people will not admit that they deserve to die and burn in Hell. Most people will say death is part of life, or it's the way or nature, or nonsense things like that. Death is contrary to life and we all deserve it because we have been contrary to the life-giver, our Creator who took our death to be our Savoiur.All arguments extended. I hope my opponent's death has not been finalized and he is still with us. He can be saved from Hell if his death has not yet been finalized. I hope he gets saved. I hope all of you get saved. Will you get saved?
Most People Hate the Truth Which is We All Deserve Death and Hell

I'm short on time, so I will simply point out that my opponent seems to be ignoring my argument and trying to say I said things I never said. I will request that in the next round, my opponent qoute me when he accuses me of saying or implying things I never said or implied.I never said or implied the following:" do you think Just because people cant take the truth doesn't mean that they should go to hell."I never said that and I do not understand the logic of the concept my opponent seems to be accusing me of. I don't know where my opponent is getting this from.My opponent asks many questions of me personally which have nothing to do with the topic of this debate. My opponent asks if I accept the truth, and if I always tell the truth. My personal character is not the topic of this debate. I admit that I have lied in the past, and there have been times when I did not want to accept the truth. I suppose there is still some truth that I do not want to accept because I'm not ready for it, but I do admit that I deserve to burn in Hell because of the evils of my heart and my unwillingness to accept the truth in ways.All I said in this debate is that most people hate the truth which is that we all deserve to die and burn in Hell. My opponent shows his hated of this truth by insisting it is unkind and unfair. The truth is not always easy to take or to admit to.My opponent does not want to admit, like me, that we both deserve to burn in Hell because He hates that truth. Most people will not admit that they deserve to burn in Hell so they hate it when they are told they deserve to burn in Hell the same as me and everybody else.
Most People Hate the Truth Which is We All Deserve Death and Hell

I understand that you believe in God,I do also but do you think Just because people cant take the truth doesn't mean that they should go to hell. I think that some people have issues with the truth it may hurt that person or tear down someones self esteem. Do you accept the truth? I think that People Lie and they should repent for that but they shouldn't go to hell because they hate the truth. Do you always tell the truth? Can you accept the truth even if it will hurt your feelings It isn't right for you to tell someone they deserve to go to hell because they cannot accept the truth.
Most People Hate the Truth Which is We All Deserve Death and Hell

You can argue that we don't deserve to die so it is not possbile that you can be hateful of a truth which is a fallacy, or silly arguments like that. You can call my arguments silly. When you say death is natural or only an event we don't deserve, I'll say that is silly and I will explain why it is silly: it is silly because if we don't deserve it, that means it is not fair. Since it falls on all of us, then it must be fair. Is it fair or is it not fair? You can say fair has nothing to do with it. Then I will say that is silly, because we all get the same thing and we all deserve it so it is fair for everbody whenever their time in this world is finished, no matter how young and innocent they may appear, we all have it coming and if it comes soon it is equally fair as it happens once to all of us.I think it's silly that I even have to point out the fact that we honestly all deserve to die and it's fair for everybdoy. I hope you have fun..... I'm having fun knowing I have eternal life and my death was taken away by God Himself when He died in my place as the Son of God, the Messiah, The Creator who became my Saviour, the LORD JESUS CHRST.......the only person who walked the earth as a man who never deserved to die.........ONLY FOR JESUS CHRIST WAS DEATH NOT DESERVED AND NOT FAIR.Ok. This debate is open to even the dumbest of atheistic arguements saying they accept no proof of God outside of the fire of Hell, and death is an evolutionary wonder which leads to survival of the fittesst through natural selection and the strongest will rise to the level of god in the end.Silly stuff.
Republicans are good??(:

We currently live in a society where everything must be labeled organized and furthermore judged. Sometimes in progression of mental disorders and diseases this can be effective based on the premise that it is supportive. Politics, however grate their opponents constantly and everything becomes black and white. Americans believe that they must simply agree that all ideals of a candidate will in the end match up to their own based on a basic alignment. The republican party, to this degree, suffers the most in this situation. For eight years Obama has bashed the Republican party and now the party itself is fueled with anger. In its anger has come the voice of Donald Trump, a man that the Republican party is now against even though he is their best contender. There is no support in this idealistic organization anymore of parties and most are chastised for being in favor of one party or another when in reality we need to simply look at the person running.
How does ViceRegent rationaly know truth from fiction

How does it make you feel that most of your activities or debates on the website are using cheap tricks to win and an attempt to troll people instead of actually try to have an inteligent and productive conversation?You didn't respond to any of my arguements, and you didn't explain as to why I can't use science in my arguement, so your criterion falls apart and you have no intention of debating so you CONCEDE THE DEBATE!Even if you lure me in with cheap tactics, you can't win the arguement if you don't argue.You are an insult to every sincere debater on this site.- Faust
How does ViceRegent rationaly know truth from fiction

Question - How does ViceRegent rationally know truth from fiction? Short Answer - Philosophy (if we exclude science which I don't see why.)Logical thinking - Philosophy in itself is not exactly science simply logical thinking. For example for the sake of the argument let's just assume atheists (because I have a feeling this is where the debate is going) say that an omnipotent and benevolent God doesn't exist, because if he is all knowing then he knows what anger, lust, etc feels like so he can't be benevolent, but if he doesn't know what those emotions feel like then he is not all knowing. So this creates a paradox. And in logical thinking there is a principle called Occam's razor which states that the simplest answer is usually the correct one. So either we try to explain or solve the paradox or simply say God does not exist. So simply put, that is how ViceRegent and many other people know truth from fiction.https://simple.wikipedia.org...'s_razor Now I would like to attack your debate criteria and paradim - Science is a valid way to know truth from fictionDef. Of Rationality - a : having reason or understanding https://www.merriam-webster.com...;Science just tries to develop and understanding of nature by expirimentation and trial and error, so from our UNDERSTANDING we could RATIONALLY conclude scientific fact, and thus we know truth from fiction. To not trust science as I said in a comment before is to not trust the medicine, the food, and vaccinations that made it possible for you to be here and push this anti-scientific agenda. The way this debate is structured puts all the burden of proof on me, which is unfair as my opponent needs to answer a paradox that has puzzled philosophers for centuries and also needs to discredit science before he says that it can't be used as proof. He makes it so it is harder for me to use evidence by nit-picking criteria, that makes it so he can unfairly corner me. Because of all these reasons I humbly request a ballot for my case from the voters. Thank You
How does ViceRegent rationaly know truth from fiction

IF YOU ARE UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO READ THIS WHOLE POST AND THEN RESPOND TO THE SINGLE QUESTION IT ASKS, GO AWAY. I FIND IT HILARIOUS THAT VICEREGENT KEEPS VOMITING WORDS AND YET HAS NOT ANSWERED MY Q. ViceRegent loves to live under the delusion that he is the guardian of rationality. But how can he hold this title when he cannot even articulate a rational way to know truth from fiction. If he cannot do this, he is literally ignorant and the ignorant cannot guard anything. SO, BY WHAT METHOD DOES VICEREGENT CLAIM TO RATIONALLY KNOW TRUTH FROM FICTION?Answering this question is the sole purpose for this debate. I have even put it in capital letters for those to dense to get it. If you are unable or unwilling to answer this question, do not respond to this debate. Likewise, if you do not believe in reality, believe you make it up or deny it is objective or knowable, or if you do not know how to rationally know truth from fiction, do not respond to this debate. If you are terrified of cross-examination or madly in love with red herrings, do not respond to this debate. If you have responded before, do not respond to this debate. After all, if you had nothing rational to say then, you will having nothing rational to say now.If all you have is "science", do not respond to this debate, for science relies on the your senses and reason, which begs the question of how you know your senses and reason are valid. Perhaps you can tell me, which is fine, but if the way you validate you senses and reason is with your senses and reason, you lose the debate because that is circular reasoning and circular reasoning is not rational.if you respond in violation of these rules, you automatically lose the debate.
Two is equal to one.

Jackie-Chan That formula is totally wrong. You jump from a+b=b. The only number possible for A is 0, but you don't explain enough. Then at the bottom, 2+1=1, then the next line is, "thus 2=1" if you count your fingers, 2 plus 1 is 3 fingers. I make it easy, you have 2 apples. I have one apple. They are same size, shape, etc. Who has more, me or you? It isn't equal.
Two is equal to one.

Let a = b. Then a^2 = ab. Subtract b^2 from both sides. Then a^2-b^2=ab-b^2. Use difference of squares. (a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b) Divide both sides by (a-b). Then a+b=b. Now let a=1, then b=1. Substitute a=1 and b=1 into a+b=b. Thus 2=1.