BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Monkeys Need To Learn Math Before They Throw What They Shat

With advanced motor functions such as throwing, genetic programming cannot be substituted for conscious learning. You 'know' that if you throw a ball in a certain way, it will reach a certain point (give or take some). To throw a ball, a monkey would first need to know how to aim, compensating for gravity and wind, and then how to use this information obtained to throw the object properly, including posture and mechanics. For aiming, you would generally need to know the rate of decrease in altitude for a given direction and magnitude + you would have to calculate the deflection due to wind. Then you would have to calculate the required posture and action for throwing. These things sound simple but only because you know this intuitively and genetically. Try consciously calculating the deflection due to wind and and the effect of gravity on a ball, calculate the path of your arm AND THEN TRY TO APPLY THIS and you will understand. If you succeed, it would be slower by orders of magnitude compared to 'just doing it'. By then, the poo would have rotten. Our brain, however, hops, skips and jumps through these hoops because it's got intuition. Its genetic programming enables it to approximate to satisfactory levels and solve these conundrums faster than any supercomputer we have right now (I can't speak for IBM's new silicon brain, however). Monkeys also possess this intuition, but your argument states that they need to learn this maths , but this intuition for this task simply can't be learnt and applied. It must exist at some primal level. You can improve on this intuition through analysis of technique, but not program an entirely new task. An anology for this would be how some people have a knack for something from birth. When was the last time you calculated the exact path of a ball (in real life, not in a physics exam) before throwing it? P.S: You don't have to insult people left, right and center to get ahead in life. Use the mantra of etiquette.
Monkeys Need To Learn Math Before They Throw What They Shat

Nice topic. 1) Whenever a person throws an object at an intended target, (s)he simply aims and fires. No knowledge of trigonometry or any other branch of mathematics is applied here. The prevalent situation often is that the math wiz can't throw a ball to save his life, while the expert pitcher is on the verge of flunking in maths. 2) Our subconscious has the necessary knowledge for intuitively throwing things accurately. This is genetically transferred from ancestor to descendant, and need not be 'learnt'. Our subconscious also has the ability to calculate, at great speed, everything necessary for throwing projectiles. 3)From this one might infer that monkeys actually do need to know mathematics albeit subconsciously to throw poo around, but your topic clearly says 'learn'.
Rap Battle Video Tournament: Lickdafoot Vs. StilettoStomper

http://www.youtube.com...Lyrics:Hey sweetie, let’s set something straight,This is one debate you cannot negateLet’s eliminate all the fake hate, and letchaanticipate a lyrical date rape. Last round was the appetizer, Here’s the full meal: attackin you to nil, you can call me the neutralizer cause Sh!t. Just. Got. Real. Ya know, I’m new to this sh!t, but I catch on quick,Sick as a flu bug bit, but the truth is this:Hip hop blood courses through my veins, Like an iv in spring ,Drippin’ antihistamines.See, before you turned three, sippin a passie,I was ODB, rockin to fugeesAnd before you turned ten, crushin on justin,I was smokin jay z's, and munchin on eminemsSit right down for a lesson, you are the only specimen in question Imma show you how to ooze a hip hop flow From your noodle down to your stilletoso hey girl watcha screamin at the mic for?Nice boobs but lyrically you’re still a boreI know, why don’t ya try a metaphor?Like how I ripped out your core, threw ya heart on the floor.Yeah baby this is my true voice, and The ride is smooth, just like a rolls royceLet the audience make the choice:Watcha want, a chicken walk or my real talk?Your rhymes can easily be bought in bulk,mine are x-men takin a nightwalk. So heres some real sh!t to hit home,Knock you down from your high throne,I’m in the zone and you’re in a drone,I’m gonna send tuf your way and let him give a dog a bone.
Rap Battle Video Tournament: Lickdafoot Vs. StilettoStomper

Da Stiletto Stomp Sign on to DDO Only to find this ho Whinin' bout the way I rap Sheain't never even heard me yet StilettoStomper be my name I got high heels and a brain Be drivin' everyone insane You lickin' feet? Girl, that's lame! Now watch me walk away Watch me watch me walk away Yea I get around, get around, get around town Yea you call me goose in bed? Ha, I say you a goose in the head Girl, you hangin' by a thread So just look out for "Toothy Ted" Yea, watch it Yea, now drop it My raps be "teeny tiny"? Ha, I think you mean yo hiney Yea I'm so fly I be hittin' all them highs To the sky, to the sky It's yo rap that's gonna fry I crank dat volume to the max You got no bliss, so kiss my a** You know that you be jealous Now don't get over zealous Just see them flashin' lights And hear that DJ play, fool I live it up all night And I stay in bed all day You workin' all the time? My work is just to rhyme I sit around and play And who gets the better pay? ME. You think you really shine Just keep drinkin' down dat wine Cause what you do's yo choice At least I'm usin' my real voice PEACE http://www.youtube.com...
Rap Battle Video Tournament: Lickdafoot Vs. StilettoStomper

This is my rap to Aaliyah's "Are You That Somebody?" You might want to turn your volume up a notch, I recorded it with my laptop microphone so it's not very loud.http://www.youtube.com...Lyrics:Its the night time,I come alive like a hot line,But I know you wanna fight grimy Your raps be teeny tinyTake a sip of white wine,And a hit of that green limeWe’ll see whose throwing bowsAnnihilating you hos.You stomping stilettos?I’m dropping arpeggiosI’m rocking my videoI’m stocking up benzo thoughCause my words bruise your head,I know you gonna noose your cred.They call me the soothing red,They call you a goose in bed.They call me juicy legs,They call you toothy ted.They wanna choose my sideThey gonna lose your rideLet’s find this beat tonight,Hitting with heat so bright,Lickin my feet just right,Shipping my sweets, so tight.Massive attacking that,Passive aggressive track,Scratch this and I’ll hatch backPass this bin laden sack.You a petty whine chick,I’m playin jedi mind tricks,You got an up and down tickI’m spittin all around licks.You like backstreet boys, Black and Blue, I’m Metallica black out for youAnd your puppet master too.captivate this showand activate my glowinnovate my solo,make you evacuate DDOoscillating your equilibriumsend you rotating to deliriumyou fascist, hating, need some valium,dictating, piece of scum I should Vote to lynch you to oblivion,A brick tote and wrench and bash you to the sun.I'll smote you in a cinch with plenty elation.Smooth like Frank Sinatra, bliss flows from my lips,It’s comin right atcha, catch that entendre?
Women shouldn't be allowed in the military.

PRO's claim is fundamentally stupid. Women do not present an obstacle in the armed forces, and woman are not a distraction either. Women are fully capable of both serving in combat and non-combat roles. (1) "Everyone is entitled to a chance." -Leon Panetta http://www.theguardian.com... "At a press conference in the Pentagon Defence Secretary Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that women had already proved themselves in action on America's battlefields and the move was simply a way of catching up with reality. "Everyone is entitled to a chance," said Panetta, who is retiring form his post this year. At the moment women make up about 14% of the military's 1.4 million active members and more than 280,000 of them have done tours of duty in Iraq, Afghanistan or overseas bases where they helped support the US war effort in those countries. Indeed, some 152 women have been killed in the conflicts. Panetta said the change was vital for the military's future success. "One of my priorities as secretary of defense has been to remove as many barriers as possible for talented and qualified people to be able to serve this country in uniform," Panetta said. "Women are already contributing in unprecedented ways to the mission ... they have become an integral part of our ability to perform our mission."" (2) This is a move towards equality that modernizes our military. "Now, supporters of the new policy say, women can be formally recognized for the roles they play on the ground and servicemembers can be assigned to any position they are qualified for." http://www.usnews.com... "Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, described women's changing wartime role in a speech in November, saying: "I know what the law says, and I know what it requires. But I'd be hard pressed to say that any woman who serves in Afghanistan today, or who served in Iraq over the last few years, did so without facing the risks of their male counterparts. "In a war where there is no longer a clear delineation between the front lines ... and the sidelines ... where the war can grab you anywhere, this will be the first generation of veterans where large segments of women returning will have been exposed to some form of combat," Mullen said. National Organization for Women President Terry O'Neill said she is "thrilled" by the commission's recommendations because the ban is "completely unfair to women who are already risking their lives for their country." "Since 1990 [NOW] has been calling for fair treatment of women in the military who are in fact at risk but are not getting combat pay or opportunities for promotion," O'Neill said. The commission also dismissed concerns that allowing women to serve in combat units would negatively impact troop morale, saying there is little evidence to support the theory." http://www.cnn.com... All material that is quotes is sourced below. The resolution is negated. I win arguments and source points. Also, a case could be made that I win conduct too since PRO is a sexist pig.
Women shouldn't be allowed in the military.

Women present only an obstacle in the armed forces. There are many cases of rape and unfaithfulness which leads to distractions on the front and trouble when they get home. Not to mention men are built to be the warriors of our species. A 5'6 130 pound women couldn't even come close to a 6'6 230 male. Don't say that they have to pass BMT, The training won't be enough to change the fact of the matter. Also how could they carry said person out if they where wounded? They couldn't. Physically women are built to be smaller. Next is acceptable roles in society. Women aren't supposed to be taking bullets on the front lines, they should be safe in the states. This isn't even a matter of equality or sexism, It's a matter of I'd like to have my squad members around me ready to take me to safety and be able to be the sharpest they can. Oh and this website... http://maketheconnection.net...
Sonic is copying Link, to a greater extent than would be expected.

Copy: imitate . http://dictionary.reference.com... You can copy without trying to. "Kirby has a sword, did he copy from link [sic]? " Yes, Kirby did copy Link. He has a green hat, and the sword has a jewel similar to the Master Sword. . http://zelda.wikia.com... Scroll down to "Other appearances. " You will see Sword Kirby mentioned. My opponent has posted no argument, and he may not use any new ones in his last round, because I will have no chance to refute them. Resolution affirmed.
Sonic is copying Link, to a greater extent than would be expected.

Sonic has been copying Link at least in his past two games. In Sonic Unleashed, he transforms into a dark beast, as Link did, in certain areas. Many times, while he's fighting enemies, a magical barrior will appear, so that he must defeat all of the enemies before proceding. http://en.wikipedia.org... In Sonic and the Black Knight, Sonic gets a sword (which he uses by swinging the Wiimote), there are fairies, there are treasure chests, and there is one pair of swords which double as two boomerangs (like Zora Link). http://en.wikipedia.org...
Jesus was a braver man then Muhammad.

You've written your diatribe and the fact's don't lie, no matter how many times you do. Jesus sacrificed himself. Muhammad did not. He was a prophet of a land a virgins, in order to entice young fighters to his cause. That's the truth. Muhammad lived as a warrior, Jesus died as a martyr. That's the fact's. You want to argue this? Then kill me, Muhammad style. Who's the winner? The loser.
Jesus was a braver man then Muhammad.

I would like to point out that Pro has not responded to ANY of my arguments and for some reason states that the validity of the Messengers of God rests in the fictional idea of a "passport". Pro's arguments have absolutely nothing to do with the title of this debate. So with his single answer of "nope", it seems that he has agreed with my arguments. 1) "Did you check their passports?..." Despite your plain and uninformative answer, I will ask you a series of questions that will prove to you the illegitimacy of your argument. So I ask you, since when do passports provide a bravery section? To my knowledge, passports contain personal information such as name, age, gender, height, weight, country, and so forth. Are you saying that a passport is all you need as proof in order for this problem to be cleared up for you? Even if this passport existed with a bravery section, what proof do you have that in Jesus'passport, His bravery box is checked? These are just questions for you to ponder on. 2) "how do you know they were actually messengers from "god"?" Well simply put, you argue to defend one of them therefore the validity of one, is the validity of all because their Message is based on a flow of progressive revelation. God gives us Messengers, therefore they don't lay down the Laws, they simply bring God's Laws to us and guide us in its ways. So respectfully, it's not the Messenger or His Message that are the problem, it's your lack of understanding as to the station of the Messenger in this case, it's Muhammad. Second, the title of this debate is if Jesus was a braver man than Muhammad. Your question, "how do you know they were actually messengers from "god", has nothing to do with the title, because instead of investigating the alleged bravery of the Messenger of God, your questioning their station. I would advise you to stick to the title of the debate and provide reference for your answers. Your turn :)
The right to bear arms in an unalienable human right and should not be regulated:

When will America learn? When us Australians had a huge shooting we banned guns and since then we have had very minimal shootings compared to if we did not make the ban, however I'm not here to debate banning them but to regulate them. You make an argument using the Second Amendment yet America has indeed edited the Amendments before a good example was the 13th Amendment which abolished slavery not to mention the constitution has also been amended 27 times meaning changing the second amendment to allow guns to be regulated. Considering how often America has school shootings etc. Guns should be regulated to minimize casualties or possible threats saying it won't change anything is false considering other countries have done it and since then those countries have barely had gun related incidents so if you want to save lives then regulating guns is the best option if you try to claim it would take to much effort and time to regulate them I would like to state if the NSA could watch every US citizen then they can keep track of arms owned by Americans.
The right to bear arms in an unalienable human right and should not be regulated:

The Tenth Ammendment states:"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."The Federal Government is never granted the power to regulate firearms in the constitution, infact we find the exact opposite (The Second Ammendment) Infact the only thing which the government is given the power to do under the constituion is to preserve our liberties, which constitutes the power to create a strong national defense.
Six degrees of separation- Actors/ Actresses

I saw one of these debates a while ago and always wanted to try it out for myself. The rules for this debate will be that the Con position will present two actors every round for me to try to connect through movies that they have been in. Rules on who the actors may be will only be that both actors will have had to have been in at least five movies and the majority of those moves must have appeared in America(been popular in America, not to be some obscure movie from Taiwan). If Ican be stumped, all seven points will go to my opponent. If I cannot be stumped, all seven points will go to me. Goo luck to my opponent.
Six degrees of separation- Actors/ Actresses

Fred Astaire to Faye Dunaway through "The Towering Inferno".Faye Dunaway to Robert Duvall through "Network".Robert Duvall to Denzel Washington through "John Q".Denzel Washington to Monique Dupree through "American Gangster".Monique Dupree to Linnee Quigley through "Post Mortem, America 2012".
The Whole World Should Have Only 1 Language For Everyone

According to BBC, it is estimated to be more than 5,000 languages around the world, 90% of these languages are used less than 100,000 people. Why should we keep them when there is so less people using it? and it benefits us if we keep only 1 language for all of us. People will be more united as they communicate with each other often and they would understand each other. If the people are more united, there will be less conflicts and wars between each other. Lots of money and time are spent on learning different languages. If the whole world have only 1 language, people do not need to learn any other languages. By doing so, lots of money and time can be spent on anything else. I will continue in the third round. http://www.bbc.co.uk...
The Whole World Should Have Only 1 Language For Everyone

Thank you for your arguments. However you should not put arguments in the last round. I will post my rebuttals then my conclusion.Rebuttals1. The schools pay these things to these kids. Even though you do less subjects in school, there is more play time.2. If they go anywhere, they have to learn the language because you can't really communicate and also then they can't do anything because they don't know how to speak those languagesConclusionI think that we should have more than 1 language. This doesn't mean we have to learn it though but we shouldn't have 1 languageWhy I wonPro did not rebut. Bad arguments from Pro.Thank you. Vote for the right winner.
The Whole World Should Have Only 1 Language For Everyone

Arguments Students will get to focus more on subjects such as Mathematics and Science as there is less subject language. Also, less subject language means that other subject language textbook will not be needed. Students living in poverty often couldn’t afford to buy textbook for their studies. Global economy will also gradually increase as trade and travel got much easier in communication as people can go anywhere they like at any time without having to learn the language first. Conclusion It is very useless to have more than 6000 languages. What’s the point of it? Do we use them much? I still have to say that the whole world should have only one language for everyone
Relativism is philisophically contradictive

You're quite welome. If nothing else, the debates on this site are generally good about staying civil.I'll let my leading little 'gotcha' argument drop in the name of good sportsmanship.I agree with my opponent that relativist positions "differ from one another and therefore they do not agree upon an objective existance of the universe we percieve." As I said in my R1, all relativist positions involve some aspect of experience, perception, etc, being relative to something else rather than being fixed in an objective existence. However, this doesn't create a self-contradiction, because relativism doesn't claim anything contrary to this.How relativism works is captured in the ice-cream example, which Pro captures succinctly when he says, "the person's opinion of the subject in question is the reality of that one person." Since Pro grants the concept of a reality for that one person, it's impossible to deny that they have an opinion about what they think the best ice-cream flavor is. The best flavor is going to be relative. Different people will choose different flavors. However, for one person, the best ice-cream flavor is a truth in their reality.Pro argues that by claiming that everyone's perception is true, then the relativist is contradicting themselves because the perceptions are different but the ice-cream is the same. This isn't a contradiction, and Pro doesn't make clear why he thinks it is. The different perceptions about the same ice-cream means that the truthful answer to the question, "which is the best flavor" is relative to the person making the claim. It might be true for Jim that vanilla is the best flavor, and it might be true that for Joe that chocolate is the best flavor. There isn't an objective answer to the question. That's not a contradiction of relativism. That is relativism. This is also why Pro doesn't get to define away relativism in his last sentence. If you're talking about questions that are not subject to different perceptions, qualitative appraisals,judgements, values, beliefs, or ways of thinking between people, you aren't talking about relativism. That vast majority of relativist views say nothing about the physical structure of the ice-cream staying constant. They have everything to say about people's perceptions of that ice-cream. It's quite unfair to start a debate about relativism being contradictory, and then disallow all situations that relativism actually deals with.
Relativism is philisophically contradictive

First of all I would like to say thank you for being respectful and objective in your argument. But all relativistic points of view present a certain contradiction on the basis of a common reality that we all experience because they differ from one another and therefore they do not agree upon an objective existance of the universe we percieve. You brought up the example of ice cream flavours, and this is an experience which many people can engage in and each have different experiences of, but they still contradict one another even though it seems objective to the person tasting them. The definition of taste according to Merriam-Webster is "a sensation obtained from a substance in the mouth that is typically produced by the stimulation of the sense of taste combined with those of touch and smell". The person who tastes the ice cream will most likely taste something different from someone else who tastes the same flavour and like or dislike it. The act of choice to like or dislike something is based on the person's opinion of the subject in question is the reality of that one person. But this is only qualitative and therefore varies due to one's genes, senses, personality etc. But if one claims that everyone's ice cream perseption is TRUE than they are contradicting themselves because everyone perceives the objective item differently though its objective form remains the same. So where to draw the line? All things that are subject to different perception of each person based on qualatative aspects are not part of this argument, sorry if I had not made that clear earlier.