BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Merry Christmas vs. Happy Holidays

Hello, I am XStrikeX representing the opposition/con side of this debate. I am stating that the American public should say "happy holdiays," rather then saying "merry Christmas." Introduction: Certain people of English-speaking countries have said "Merry Christmas" to each other around the time of Christmas in December. This tradition has been amplified in the last century. Now within the services and retail businesses as well as in government, many have successfully argued that the term should be changed to "Happy Holidays", because such a statement expresses a religiously neutral perspective and is an inclusive term. The controversy has become particularly prominent in larger retail stores such as Wal-Mart, which have a prominent place in the present-buying surrounding Christmas. Wal-Mart actually began encouraging the use of the term "happy holidays" in place of "Merry Christmas" in 2004 and 2005. This move was met by significant opposition, causing Wal-Mart to change course in 2006 and subsequent years, where it began using the term "Merry Christmas" once again. In 2009, in a similar instance, Best Buy changed its policy, defining "happy holidays" as their preferred form of seasons greetings. And for the first time ever, in 2009, the White House called their "Christmas tree" a "holiday tree." These and other moves by companies and governments at different levels have stimulated a major debate. Points: 1. Happy holidays includes all religions and faiths. Hanukkah and sometimes Eid al Fitr fall in the same period as Christmas. Hanukkah as a Holiday predates the Christmas holiday by almost 200 years [4] as it dates from the 1st Century AD. Christmas was forbidden by the early Christian Church and created a Holiday coinciding with the pagan Feast of Sol Invictus by the Roman Emperor, Constantine the Great, in the 4th century AD. 2. Merry Christmas is offensive. Organizations and businesses that have a policy of saying "merry Christmas" risk being seen as favoring Christians. A non-Christian that receives the message "merry Christmas" could certainly, therefore, feel their faith is being excluded or just under-considered, and could thus react very negatively to the message. Subsequently, while "merry Christmas" certainly makes Christians happy, it carries the risk of offending non-Christians. No matter what the intended "spirit" of "merry Christmas", this risk is real for non-Christians. I look forward to debating with my opponent.
Super Saiyan 4 Goku (Pro) vs Super Saiyan God (Con)

For now, I shall ignore the fact GT is not canon and should not be taken into consideration when talking about Super Saiyan-Jin forms, or the Dragon Ball universe as a whole. You have to be a moron to think SSJ4 is stronger than SSJ God. Whilst it is true that SSJ God is the imperfect form of SSJ Blue, it is still an immensely powerful form that allowed Goku to go toe to toe with a god of destruction. As SSJ4, Goku didn't stand a chance against Omega Shenron. SSJ God would annihilate SSJ4.
God Could Not Possibly Exist if he were to be Under Human Philosophies

My points were, if God were bound by the laws of human truisms, he could not exist. I wanted to have a different debate from the usual "God cannot lift the rock while not lifting the rock--in a way that we can understand" and at first it worked out, but I see we go back to the omnipotence-destroys-logic statements. My opponent states that "an omnipotent being can violate truisms without violating truisms, because saying that it can't would be a truism that the omnipotent being can violate. " This is very confusing, so I'll try to break it down. My opponent says "an omnipotent being can violate truisms without violating truisms", then suggests the opposite is a truism, because "it can't" "would be a truism". .. therefore my opponent is trying to say. .. "an omnipotent being can violate truisms can violate truisms". This is true, a statement repeating itself, but then my opponent gets ultra-confusing by saying ". .that the omnipotent being can violate". However, if my opponent agrees that it is entirely true that omnipotent beings can violate truisms by violating truisms, then there is no way out of it. Again, I stress that there is absolutely no way you can find two lines between the same two points. It is simply illogical and could not exist. The infinity argument: yes, I was doing that. .. I was pointing out that "Everything" was the universe in its whole. As for duality, if God "grounds" the universe, how could he NOT be a phenomenon of the universe? Sure, he has the power to NOT be a phenomenon of the universe, but we can only assume while he IS a phenomenon of the universe he has to follow the laws of duality. In conclusion this was a very very confusing debate, much more confusing than my other debate with CJKAllstar.
God Could Not Possibly Exist if he were to be Under Human Philosophies

My point is, if something goes against a truism, it cannot exist.There is a truism saying only exactly one line can go through two points. This is true. s://mjgds-math.wikispaces.com...; alt="" width="484" height="279" />Can you find another line? Nope. It is impossible. It does not exist. Thus, God cannot exist if he contrasts truism due to the nature of the resolution, since he has to follow the truisms and mutually exist at the same time.As for duality, you are speaking of "everything". However, is "everything" a component of the universe? Is 100% a "part"? In addition, I am limiting it to God himself, which means you are creating some kind of a Straw Man. If duality exists within every element in nature, then of course it should exist within the tree itself as well as within one of the tree's leaves. Same goes for my argument--yes, the universe itself has God on one side and the terrible on the other side. But what about God himself? Nothing suggests God himself has duality within him, so he goes against this truism.Back to you, con.
God Could Not Possibly Exist if he were to be Under Human Philosophies

I will start by stating my case, before addressing Pro's contentions. I'd like to make it clear that my rebuttal of the affirmative case is largely unrelated to my main points. This is extremely important for everyone reading to note, as my primary argument effectively makes the possibility of God a self-evident truth. Omnipotence is an interesting subject, and in theology I find it is starkly overlooked. If a god were to be omnipotent, there is one clear issue at hand: The violation of truisms. If one can do anything, could they find something that they could not do? Within the basic structure of truisms, the answer is unclear. One would have to both have and lack an ability. All truisms dictate that possessing and lacking a quality at the same time is impossible. This proves itself to be quite an issue within the concept of an all-powerful being. However, if we look at omnipotence as being an essential omnipotence, this issue disappears. An essential omnipotence is one that is not bound by truisms. This means that a god can be logically possible, whilst possessing logically impossible traits. In order to win this debate, Pro must prove that a being that is not bound by logic cannot exist. http://plato.stanford.edu... Now, I will move on to my rebuttals. My opponent seems to be confusing "all" with "infinity". My opponent asserts that if one is entirely good, or if one is the entirety of good, then one must also possess an infinite amount of good. There is no evidence for this presented. An alternative and equally possible idea, is that "God" is simply a word we use to describe all of the goodness, intelligence, and power there is in the universe. There is quite simply not an infinite supply of those things. The next point my opponent makes has many of the same logical errors. God could quite simply be the side of everything that is good, intelligent and powerful. In fact, this version of God is necessary to the concept of duality; there is that which is good, and that which is not. Equally, there is that which is God, and that which is not. There is a good side of things, therefore a God side of things is inevitable. Unto you, Pro.
God Could Not Possibly Exist if he were to be Under Human Philosophies

The full resolution: God Could Not Possibly Exist if he were to be Under Human Philosophies. This means he has to follow all truisms.God: the all-intelligent, all-powerful, all-good being who grounds our universe.Philosophy: "the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct." [2]Truism: "a self-evident, obvious truth." [1]. Round one is for acceptance only.[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
God Could Not Possibly Exist if he were to be Under Human Philosophies

This has, indeed, been a confusing debate. Thank you, Pro, for sticking with it. My point was that a god could violate truisms without violating truisms. The only possible objection to that statement would be a truism. The only logical conclusion we can make from this, is that a god that controls logic can exist. With this alone, I have proved the resolution false, and should win the debate. Looking at it further, I have attempted (and in my opinion, succeded) at proving the resolution false without relying on my previous argument. Infinity: The universe has not been proven infinite, so the "all-powerful" equating to "infinite power" argument is null. If my opponent was saying that God could use "his" power to get rid of his own powers, then we have come back to my omnipotence arguments. Alternatively, we could assume accidental omnipotency. Duality: My opponent has stated that since God is a pneomenon of the universe, "he" must follow the rules of duality. I have already pointed out, and my opponent has not attempted to refute, that God is the nature of duality itself. Duality stems largely from that which is good, that whch is powerful, and that which is intelligent, in comparison of that which isn't. It follows that my opponent is saying that duality is subject to duality. Let's finally define duality: the idea or belief that everything has two opposite parts or principles http://www.merriam-webster.com... We run into some problems here, as my opponent is saying that good, power, and intelligence must have two opposite parts or principles. How this equates to "the entirety of good, power, and intelligence must not exist" I'm not quite sure. I think that my opponent is suggesting that the god in question is an entity that possess those elements, rather than existing solely as the elements themselves. Let's look at the definition of "Being": b (1) : something conceivable as existing (2) : something that actually exists (3) : the totality of existing things http://i.word.com... It's entirely possible for the entirety of good, the entirety of intelligence, and the entirety of power to exist, despite consisting of two opposing parts and principles. In summary, Pro's burden of proof has not been fulfilled. I suggest that the floor vote accordingly.
Affirmative Action is a necessary responsibility

Respects to anyone who accepts this challenge. I stand in affirmation that Affirmative Action is a justifiable and necessary measure I choose the "pro" side of this argument and deem Affirmative Action necessary for the following reasons: Round 1:Pro-1. It helps to accelerate equalization, a responsibility of the government due to the government's role in having enforced inequality in the past Whether or not the government currently causes discrimination in the form of constitutional or legislation, historically the U.S. government did in the form of slavery laws prior to the Emancipation Proclamation, and the "Jim Crow" laws which stood through the establishment of Civil Rights protections of the 1960s. The racial inequalities are the responsibilty of the government, which enforced inequality, and the lingering consequences and effects of this inequality is also the responsibility of the government to amend because it committed these violations of civil rights. Round 1:Pro-2. It prevents non-government, racial-majority-dominated entities such as schools and employers from ignoring the repeal of slavery and "Jim Crow" laws. While government and people can "talk the talk" of non-discrimination, without special protections such as Affirmative Action, nothing could stop educational, housing or business institutions from wielding their influence to privately maintain inequality between the majority Caucasian race and minority groups. These institutions could operate with virtual impunity to discriminate against minorities without protections such as Affirmative Action. For these reasons, I believe Affirmative Action is a necessary tool and should be maintained. Evaluated for its effects and tweaked to bring about racial equality, perhaps, but it should not be eliminated nor considred obsolete, unfair, unjust nor unnecessary in its principles I stated above.
Lyrical Games #1

You know what Brando. I came here to put down lyrics and I did. So go ahead, trip me on a technicality. But I hope the voters at least notice that they're voting for some 27 year old dude battling teenagers, not understanding that rhymes should make sense before you cram them in somewhere. Even though I substituted 4 bars from my hook to not exceed the limit, I did read that wrong and will prbly lose since I'm breaking another rule right here. So f*ck it. You don't like my last bars? Here's 4 more! Wanted some battle closure, instead I'll toss up my middle finga' But go on, tattle to the voters, I'll still flip off you and your "bazinga!" Take it. Have this victory. Fake it, keen trickin' me. That can't defend you. Your last verse was catch-up from the accusations I filed against you! Here's 4 more, tired of my lies? feel the fire in my eyes? I'm tired so why try? Take a loss with my pride. I've rewired my mind, blow you apart with 5 rhymes! My weapon is my mind. Done with this guy's lines. And your rules, so I'm out. Go ahead, vote for brando. You make me throw up, but that's the price, eh? To say what you need to, hate me, please do. But I'll end this with a throat cut, then have nice day! RayPtheRapp
Lyrical Games #1

Vs3Dude, 2 is a division of 6, nigga ya defeats are so sick with a despicable tie of 6[1]My 5 wins will be an easy 6 when my conquest captures this debate so quickYou shot the First Bullet, claimin’ lyrical stud; fool, you drew First BloodYou shot the accusation that’s causing me to expose your crud rhymes are dudsSee the ignoramus profile of a 16 year-old child. Boy, everything you spit is mild!Let me file you in the Cold Case aisle, with the other idle.org juveniles[2]I came off vacation to crank up my icy defamation with fiery vilificationEven tho my competition doesn’t have the inclination for lethal killin’ mentationHe’s absence of fluent flare, you bucked me with a dare, his skill is creatively not thereSo I corner you off like a square, cause real niggas verbally crucify you witches like BlairRita, at least I lost by less than half, the Jew was unable to dizzily thrash my black @ss[3]But he Thor-like whipped & lashed yo white @ss[4], revealin’ you held a forged ghetto pass!I gave you props, but you spat in my face so I will interlace this race caseWith a strychnine-based lyrical pace that will leave your soul virtually effaceEat the blame, drink the shame, ya memory will no longer be proclaimed!For I am inflamed, untamed & will have voters callin’ you: He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named!Lead Out:Your “Lead Out” contains 4 additional rap bars, not a phrase, expression, statement, etc. Again you irrationality vindicates me, bazinga!1- (http://www.debate.org...)2-([a.]http://www.debate.org...; [b.]http://www.debate.org...; [c.]http://www.debate.org...)3- (http://www.debate.org...)4- (http://www.debate.org...)
Lyrical Games #1

Hook: Don't act like a friend of me, you're not. You're my enemy. You won't be the end of me, in fact you'll remember me. As predictable as you tend to be, you're not who you pretend to be. You're a fool to go against me, you can't see that god sent me, so don't tempt me. (x2) Final verse: You speak of things like "spice-funk" and success, You're weak. Leave you in diced chunks, and give a f*ck less. I already dissed everything about ya'. I'll stop your southpaw and pull a blade like an outlaw! Sick of your games, time to play mine. And by the way it was YOU took that with a "gay mind" Yeah, great rhyme, you can state a hate crime! I'll kick you in the teeth like a donkey... hold up, did you call me a honkey!? F*ck that. I won't play this. You brought us back to the days of the slave ships! This time I've wasted. Time to face it, I'm battling a homophobe and a racist! Need to rap, try callin' me. This is only a piece, you couldn't handle all of me! I tried to be the man with an apology, but you filled your mouth with bullsh*t and shot at me. You rap like "my perfection lies in my correction of the connections into directions of infection" You're not as good as you gotta be, to beat me. You can rhyme but lack lyrical quality. Know this, before I close this, I hope the voters notice, my opponent's hopeless. He challenged me, but presented to verse, because he was scared to go first. It's like tryin to kick my as$, but cry like "ow! My toe hurts!" Actually, no. Worse.. Lead Out: In these closing statements, I'll admit I'm not perfect, But I don't cite everything to make up for my rhymes that aren't worth it. Push me, you pu$$y, let's hear one last sound, from you when you know you're dead. I thinks stupid to have to pass the last round for you, but the floor's yours. Go ahead...
Lyrical Games #1

Vs. 2What the fhuck? I see ya scribbled down mo' honky-tonk-influenced junk,Was you blind drunk on crunk1 while smokin' piss-dipped shunk?You just a flunky punk with lyrics without marinated & spicy funkIt was like reading a monk's bunk2 thoughts dictated by Alvin & the ChipmunksIt's okay to caress Hip Hop’s success, unless you confess to be an Emcee bestThen I will invest a process to arrest and repress, your lyrical mastery protestYou flew the way that Jew did too, to spew lies of being a vocal rappin' guruBut you two can't brew a lyrical stew, that I can chew & spit in Greek or HebrewNigga, it's still fhuck yo apology, you committed atrocity with that comedy of verbosityErase the oddity of your hypocrisy with this policy of quality, they will call prophecy“Eat me like a pizza?”3 Yo name Lisa, Mia, or Felicia? Nigga, you ain't puttin' yo mouth on my PisaOur bodies ain't comin' together like a zebra, Call you Rita cause now we know you a freaky divaEmailimg me every other day about being "FWB with Ray," with some gay NSA,Offering to pay my way into Comic Con on birthday next May! Nigga, I say nay!And give you a raw southpaw hook to yo jaw, double you over til you fall into a small ballStomp you with my boot til you bawl. Call the law! Too late--I slaughtered this hooker like JigsawI tried to do for you what ya daddy would do tooPatted you on ya back, kid and gave you props4But fool ya copped an attitude and got rude5So now I'm going to do to you what I gotta doYa rap credibility, dude on DDO is now throughSo now I'm going to do to you what I gotta doI'm going to do to you what I gotta do (what I gotta do) x21-[#2] http://www.urbandictionary.com...2-http://www.urbandictionary.com...3-His words not mine!4-(http://www.debate.org...)5-(http://www.debate.org...)
Lyrical Games #1

F*ck my apology? Is your sign an as$hole in astrology? go ahead "do what you gotta do" I'll be who I gotta be! You think you can write with lyrical expertise, Brando? It's a miracle you're next to me and my complexity. Your lines? I can't stand those! I spit quotes while I script notes, til sh*t provokes Those I oppose. F*ck your verse, I'll get the cliffnotes! I read every bar like is this guy done yet? Just take your trash can of lyrics, off in the sunset. First off, could your next one make sense? Your studio's fake, hence, you as a rapper couldn't make cents! Your best line couldn't shake my fence. You'd end up with face dents. And don't offer me your bullsh*t academy, just cause you're mad at me. You think I'm scared of you? "Ah! Don't hurt me with spoken harm!" B*tch you throw rhymes like Nolan Ryan with broken arms! Backup before I snatch a hatchet and stash it in my backpack, Light up your house with matches, pass your ratchet wife, find your face and smash it! You couldn't learn my rhyme scheme even if I screamed It at you. You couldn't see what I mean, but go ahead. Try me. Any by the way this is the consequence. For being a little b*tch who self compliments. You could fill continents with your misplaced self-confidence. It's too easy to defeat ya, better pray I never meet ya! I have capability to defeat ya, and eat ya like a piece a pizza! Like all I've faced, I tricked em'. You're no opponent. You're a victim! I hope they see why I do to you. Otherwise the other guys try as another dies.
Lyrical Games #1

HOOK:I tried to do for you what ya daddy would do tooPatted you on ya back, kid and gave you propsBut fool ya copped an attitude and got rudeSo now I'm going to do to you what I gotta doYa rap credibility, dude on DDO is now throughSo now I'm going to do to you what I gotta doSo now I'm going to do to you what I gotta do (what I gotta do)Vs. 1I don't wanna hear yo Roman mythology, so nigga, fhuck yo Greekish1 apology!You suck with lyrical phonology with imbecilic worded phraseology2Hoe, my name is Brando, not Studio, I flow faster than a Nolan Ryan throwCut slow thru yo throat like a surgical, medical Pro and sew in a rotten sloeTo watch you choke and slowly croak cause you spoke against the Holy RegimeSo go slowly stroke yo daddy for protein until I invoke my Banshee to scream3The only liquid you spit out is seminal fluid; Little boy! How could you do it?Knob job the Duke4 just to win a rap debate, you fluke, you knew it & you blew itRule 3 specifically states 16 B's, 8 for Hook, but yo cowardly fear against me clearly led theeTo circumvent the "with or w/o Hook" Decree, obviously RayP, you're not a master emceePerhaps I need to institute a DDO Rap Academy, because all of you abnormal anomaliesWrite with faulty grammar catastrophes, from the Jew, T_Seeker, to you I see a commonalityYa'lls rhymes have no center of gravity, no universality, they're rotten decayed cavitiesUnlike mine with unique personality, ya'll in need of the Shadow's poetic chemistryIt's a reality now! A formality how? Simply that my vitality packs POWYo irrationality ain't wow; you finalized the actuality of it from your own avow51- Greek, #6 http://dictionary.reference.com...2- "You rap retardedly failure pumps through your hear and arteries" Retardedly?3- http://dictionary.reference.com...4- http://www.debate.org...5- Read his 4th, 5th, 6th, & 7th bar=irrationality
Lyrical Games #1

Hold up, there's something I should fix first Before I close up and put down this verse I'll take a deep breath and let my anger disperse I never meant to up and call you out, And over react for something I don't know all about. I'm left embarrassed from the anger I fed on And for leaving so long, for something I read wrong. That being said, I'm all out of apologies. You want a real challenge? Here, follow me... How can you call yourself "shadowking studios"? When you can't rap and sit at home playing yugioh! And how can you think you could take me in a battle? You just jumped into the rapids, no boat or no paddle! I spit with liquid pain, cause the abuse I've felt. Wait you don't know me? I'll introduce myself. My name is Ray P. I may be crazy, but the ladies praise me You can't phase me or change me with 80 attempts to play me! You rap retardedly failure pumps through your hear and arteries, It's no wonder your "talent" is so hard to see, cause unlike you, rap is a part of me. It's quite likely you might be mentally challenged slightly. You grip the Mic tightly, like "sh*t he might fight me!" Don't get high and mighty in real life you'd just smile politely And back away when you sight me. You try to take it lightly that you cry nightly. It might be because you look at your lyrics like "geez! I can't write these!" (I realize my into exceeded 8 bars by 1, so my verse is only 15 bars to compensate)