BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hip Hop vs Pop music

YO WAZ GUCCI MA NIGGA? Hip hop is much better than pop music. Pop music is too mainstream to begin with, whereas hip-hop is mainstream and also non mainstream. Hip hop has beat, whereas pop has some chick screaming while there is a mix of random music. Hip hop has a history, people have gone to jail for their love of hip-hop, whereas the only person in jail for pop is Justin Bieber when on drugs. Pop is for young teens who dance around in their pink bedrooms, while hip-hop is feeling and passion for the tough, and the strong at heart.
Gambling (Take 2.)

My opponent suggests that the US Constitution is a reliable source to accept gambling. It is not right. Stealing is never right for anyone; even for the Governmental stances. Gambling is a source of cheating and unreliances in the end. Regardless to my opponents claim of the Constitution, declaration of Independence and saving companies to use gambling is really uneccesary because things should be handled in a more professional and modest way. Do things ever work out that way? No, everyone wants things done they're way and on they're timing. I think gambling should be looked more in depth to before considering it even in the Government.
Gambling (Take 2.)

The Constitution relates to gambling because we (the United States) cannot create a country-wide law against it because of the 10th amendment. Fedex ships about 6.9 million packages a day. If that company went bankrupt, then those 6.9 million packages will need to find alternatives. However, Fedex did not go bankrupt because of gambling. My opponent stated "I see no purpose in using gambling as a way to saving companies?" but are there any viable alternatives? Perhaps the lottery, but you have a 1 in 175,000,000 chance of winning. Bankruptcy? You lose your business. Loans? You'll need to pay back later. With interest. For example, WW1. Germany had to pay for the war. They took loans from the US, and didn't finish paying us until 2010. Gambling is good depending on the beholder and their reasons. Like Fedex, they had good reasons. So for these reasons and more, I ask a pro ballot.
Gambling (Take 2.)

Thank you for your responses and being patient with me. How exactly does the constitution, Declaration of Independence and saving companies relate to gambling? Constitution is for guidelines and standards. And if a person loses all their money from "gambling" will they be happy? Probably not. The Declaration of Independence relates to the worth happiness to live for. I see no purpose in using gambling as a way to saving companies? Which is right cheating to save something or actually laboring to earn the money to help save something??
Gambling (Take 2.)

I am pro, so I need to say how Gambling is good. First, the American Constitution. Second, the Declaration of independence. And finally, it has saved people. On to my first point, the US Constitution. The US federal government can not legally create state laws. (10th amendment) If we wanted to control/limit the gambling "issue" then the Federal government can't do anything. It'll be up to the states. My second point Id the Declaration of Independence. It promises "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." if someone is happy with gambling, we can't really deny it. My third point, it has saved people. Two companies, PIMCO and Fedex, have both been affected positively by gambling. The owner of Fedex took their last $5,000 and gambled it in Vegas. He came back with $27,000. "I asked Fred where the funds had come from, and he responded, "The meeting with the General Dynamics board was a bust and I knew we needed money for Monday, so I took a plane to Las Vegas and won $27,000." I said, "You mean you took our last $5,000-- how could you do that?" He shrugged his shoulders and said, "What difference does it make? Without the funds for the fuel companies, we couldn't have flown anyway." Fred's luck held again. It was not much, but it came at a critical time and kept us in business for another week." The other company, PIMCO, PIMCO founder Bill Gross credited much of his investment success to his early days spent playing the casino game, according to CNNMoney.
The USA Is Superior | Change My Mind

I"m not trolling. You simply don"t have an argument. As I have said before those problems are real. But ALL countries have problems. You have given me no proof, or any examples of a country that is superior to America. As I"ve said your problems with this country are real, but literally all other countries have those problems that are worse, and more. So I would really like to debate someone now with an actual ARGUMENT. Unless you want to debate me more with an actual ARGUMENT.
Be it resolved that youth are too apathetic and narcissistic to make a difference in the world.

Yes you did list many of people that are great people and doing great stuff, and yes That might be a couple of the people in our generation that a good people as the examples you listed. Those people are doing good stuff but that barley makes up any of are generation seriously most of us are just people that sit behind computer screens all day and are LAZY. Recently there has been many surveys taken, these show that since 1982 Levels in narcissism had risen by 30% . Also we all realize that in this new generation we have been exposed to very much more garbage influences . Such as tv shows we watch these are shows such as jersey shore. This does influence us to be like them in some extent which is a factor to some of the percents listed above. This is because without a doubt the people on those shows are the representation of the new generation for new kids and everybody , they influence everybody! One of the quotes you listed like this"You can't see air but it keeps us alive" This is completely irrelevant to this topic. This is what i strongly believe Heres my source for some of my information http://family.wikinut.com...
Be it resolved that youth are too apathetic and narcissistic to make a difference in the world.

1) The statistic that narcissism is on a rise is irrelevant. This could include all age groups and is a moot point. 2) In the second paragraph of your argument in Round three, you specifically say, "This is because without a doubt the people on those shows are the representation of the new generation for new kids and everybody , they influence everybody!" you clearly admit that youth make a difference in the world. 3) My example of air was, um, an example. It showed that because you are not affected by the youth in our world, it doesn't mean they aren't making a difference. Thank you, and I hope that now you understand how wrong you are. Try and make a difference in your world it is never to late. (Make it a positive one.)Thanks for debating!Sources:Xtraordinary.comkidpresident.com (this is a really awesome website you should view)
School Vouchers are the shizz!!!

Well, it seems as if my opponent has been silenced either with account deletion or banning. I cannot speak to the fact that this a good debate, but I tried to give what I knew on the subject and argue to that point of view. Vouchers in in theory a great idea, but probably will detract from the current public education if they are implement, thus they should not be seen as a viable solution to financial woes, especially considering their bias toward the rich. Make your decision thence! I know that you will probably vote your own opinions, but there is nothing I can do to stop you. Thanks!
School Vouchers are the shizz!!!

To respond to the comments made by kels as the rebuttal to my argument. I will admit wrong in that you are correct that probably most rich white kids are not the only makeup of these schools, nor should it be ignored that there is much more diversity than I acknowledged or knew of. That you for this clarification. However, it can be said that most legislation for vouchers will without a doubt favor rich white kids over the poor working class that are already attempting to stay afloat. It is in my opinion that at least within the U.S. schools should garner public funding without exception, even if those persons for some reason do not appreciate public school. No one is prohibiting them from private prayers or lack of worship, and an excess of god in education is abhorrently unnecessary. The government finds an educated populous to be valuable, and will give everyone the opportunity to be educated. If persons so choose to spend on education that does the same job elsewhere for more money, then that is their business. For highly destitute families that insist on private education, then perhaps some type of voucher would be in order. Voucher legislation as I have seen favors the rich without a doubt.
School Vouchers are the shizz!!!

- Rich parents have a choice of schools for their kids; poor parents should have the same choice. - Competition between schools is increased, leading to greater efficiency and results in all schools. - Private schools have a better history of getting results in teaching information and values than public schools. - Those parents who send their kids to private schools must in effect pay twice; i.e. their taxes pay for public schools that their children don't even attend. - Providing private school access to everyone will increase diversity. - The parent makes the choice between religious or non-religious schooling; thus, the government isn't imposing religion. - No Child Left Behind surely is not working.
mobile technology affects youth education

There is a right and wrong way to do almost everything. As the webmaster of an online curriculum site, I am quite familiar with the many benefits to education this technology can have. Mobile devices allow students to find the answer to virtually any question with a simple Google search. Also, it is becoming more and more popular for students to use mobile devices to complete their assignments.[1]I would continue, but I am given only 500 characters.Sources1. http://tinyurl.com...
Aesthetic Preferences Reveal One's Moral Nature

DISTILLATION ~~~~~~~~~ BEACONS Question: Is it not the case that you have not provided any evidence? Answer: A priori truths stand by their own glory, beautifully eternal, sanctimonious. HUMAN ACTION Question: “Do you simply mean that no one can be an artist unless they create” Answer: Yes; it is the essential nature of an artist to create. Something must be brought into being by an artist. DECADANCE Question: Are you not judging a thing’s truth by its consequences? In other words, does not your theory lead to rejecting truths just due to their unpleasantness, even if they are truths? Answer: I have made no claim that truth is dependent on anything but what is the case. The moral status of valuing a thing, though, is independent of its truth value; a truth may still be repugnant, and, if so, glorifying it through art is still a mark of degeneracy. THE SELF-NEGATION Question: Why have you presented a false dichotomy between accepting responsibility and cowering in fear at reality? Answer: The dichotomy is not false. There are no other alternatives. If one rejects free will, the principle that they are in control of their lives, their characters, their art, they have opted to accept a world in which they are impotent; the abnegator seeks refuge in hell, even if he does not intend to. You, oh Questioner, have yet to explain why you say what you say; I beseech you to. DUALISM REFUTED Question: Can not an idea expressed by a work be silly, but the form be grand? Answer: The mistake, dear Questioner, is in the attempt to extricate the content from the form; form without content is nonsense. I challenge you, Sir, to show how such a thing is possible, for it is intuitively certain that it is not. NO CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS Question: Are not aesthetic judgements of different constitution from moral judgements? For is it not so that aesthetics are biologically, not morally, based? Answer: Wrong again, friend. All of this ignores that one does not have to create that which is pleasant; one has equal opportunity to create the disgusting (and many exploit this opportunity). Therefore, even if all this holds true, a moral choice must still be involved in determining whether or not one’s preconceptions guide one’s brush. TO THAT DEGREE Question: Your theory is dented by the fact that despicable men can like virtuous art, yes? Answer: No. One can be immoral on the whole but moral insofar as they choose one piece over another; aesthetics is only a window. UNESCAPABLE CHOICE Question: If great works can be composed without all its components being deliberated over morally, how does your argument stand? Answer: Poor Questioner, whether one chooses to appreciate the impact of choosing one colour over another reflects their moral character. The philosopher Neil Peart once wrote that “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.” Even in these miniscule ways, one’s morality is implied. ACCEPTANCE OF THE GOOD BY THE PITIFUL Question: Is there any hope for me? Woe! Answer: Only if you are a good enough man to accept the aesthetic power of my case into your heart.
Rematch

DNA is a complex thing to understand. However, just because we don't know what it is, we can't just give credit to God. What happens to when we finally learn how things work we originally said was a miracle performed by God? The same explanation to where it originated could be the same things. Morality does not originate from God. Where does a man who has not grown up with any religion know where he got his religion? He doesn't have God in his life, so how could God have gave him morality? I have listed how we got our mortality. We learn from our environment, it's psychology. Besides, everyone knows how valuable life is. It doesn't take a genius to know its bad to kill anyone. They know the consequences. They know they could face death, life in prison, losing all their privileges and people they love, and they are killing someone who has people who love him. You said rape is wrong, which is funny since God commanded people to rape women. . https://www.biblegateway.com... "When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 Deuteronomy 20: 13-14 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. You said how complex DNA is. The universe is 10 times as complex as DNA. The rule is a complex design most have a designer that is as much or more complex. That means if God did create the universe, God must have a created, proving he cannot be an uncaused cause. Also, did you know the bible says itself God didn't create the universe? It went from saying he created it in the 6 days to contradicting itself at the end of the book. Genesis 6:11 - The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. If the earth was corrupt before God, how could God has created it? He couldn't have. It's possible for God to exist, but probability makes a lot of things possible. It's possible for me to get struck by lightning, win the lottery, and catch Ebola all in one day. However, the chances are slim, just like I feel the chances of a God are slim in this dimension. I'm not saying my side or view is better than yours, just my belief. Good job by pro.
Master Chief (HALO) vs Samus Aran (METROID)

"Chief still has more weapons than Samus, not to mention that he could at any time simply get into a Banshee or a tank during this match and blow Samus sky high." Samus could also do this. "That assumes that Samus will be able to walk up to the chief. Chief wouldn't allow that. And like most good Halo players, Chief could simply go to a good sniping spot and snipe Samus to oblivion. She'd be dead before she even realized where the Chief was hiding. Chief could also use the spartan lazer if he wanted to." Samus could then, instead of walking, bring out a zoomin weapon and snipe chief before he kills her. Now, you'll probably say that chief won't allow this, well, that argument fails due to chief being out in the open and Samus hiding. Oh, and Samus could also use the Spartan Lazer. "Once again, how is she going to sneak up on him? Chief is smart enough to hide and attack from a distance. Plus, Chief could throw out a radar jammer assuming her tracking device is good enough to detect the Chief" She'll sneak up on him using the morph ball. Therefore she becomes smaller than a tire. I'm pretty sure that anyone could sneak up on anything when they're smaller than a tire, if they catch the victim at the right time. Plus, Samus needs to tracking device, seeing as she has eyes. "First, Chief is on a map he is familiar with, so he has the home field advantage." Oh, woop-dee-doo, he knows where some rocks are. Home field advantage is nothing, especially with Samus. She never has the home field advantage, and yet always overcomes her opponenets. "Second, he has more useful weapons to choose from. If Samus were to in fact get up close to the Chief, he could plug her arm cannon with a sticky grenade and destroy it instantly. Also, if you'll the note the metroid games, Samus loses her abilities when she is hit with a tremendous amount of force (this can be seen at the beginning of metroid prime). All Chief has to do is hit her with a gravity hammer to make her lose all of her abilities besides being able to blast with her arm cannon." The arm cannon can be very useful. Oh, and if cheif were close enough to hit Samus with any kind of close-ranged weapon, Samus would simply just kill chief. Also, Samus can use any weapon chief can. "Third, Chief has Cortanna to help him out since she is plugged inside his armor. While Chief is fighting her, Cortanna could easily analyze Samus' weaknesses or hack into her body and shut her suit down." And while the chief is waiting for that to help him out, he'd be killed by Samus. Besides, she could easily just get out of the suit, grab some guns, and kill chief anyway. "Fourth, the Chief has impressive Super human strength. This is shown in all the times he has managed to flip over any of his vehicles (including the tank)." Super human strength is nothing when compared to tactics and far-ranged weapons, both of which Samus has. Now, having said all this, it is clear the Samus would be the victor in a fight against Master Chief.
Master Chief (HALO) vs Samus Aran (METROID)

I choose Samus Aran. The instigator has chosen Samus Aran, therefore, I shall choose Master Chief. I realize that he is the more popular of the two and ask that people not vote simply because they realize that the Chief is "cooler." Note: The instigator leaves the terms for this debate unquestioned, therefore, we will be arguing that the fight takes place on the Halo 3 multiplayer map known as valhalla. "She was the arm cannon and the morph ball" Chief still has more weapons than Samus, not to mention that he could at any time simply get into a Banshee or a tank during this match and blow Samus sky high. "Samus could simply walk up to chief, bring out the Zap Cannon, and shock him to death." That assumes that Samus will be able to walk up to the chief. Chief wouldn't allow that. And like most good Halo players, Chief could simply go to a good sniping spot and snipe Samus to oblivion. She'd be dead before she even realized where the Chief was hiding. Chief could also use the spartan lazer if he wanted to. "If she doesn't have that, she could easily sneak up on him with the morph ball, drop a bomb, BAMM!, she flys right over him, escapes, and he is hurt, thus leaving him vunerable to more attacks." Once again, how is she going to sneak up on him? Chief is smart enough to hide and attack from a distance. Plus, Chief could throw out a radar jammer assuming her tracking device is good enough to detect the Chief. So far, I've refuted the instigator's arguments on why the Chief would defeat Samus. Now I shall provide some offense. First, Chief is on a map he is familiar with, so he has the home field advantage. Second, he has more useful weapons to choose from. If Samus were to in fact get up close to the Chief, he could plug her arm cannon with a sticky grenade and destroy it instantly. Also, if you'll the note the metroid games, Samus loses her abilities when she is hit with a tremendous amount of force (this can be seen at the beginning of metroid prime). All Chief has to do is hit her with a gravity hammer to make her lose all of her abilities besides being able to blast with her arm cannon. Third, Chief has Cortanna to help him out since she is plugged inside his armor. While Chief is fighting her, Cortanna could easily analyze Samus' weaknesses or hack into her body and shut her suit down. Fourth, the Chief has impressive Super human strength. This is shown in all the times he has managed to flip over any of his vehicles (including the tank). Noting these four points as well as my refutation of the instigator's offense, it is highly clear that Master Chief would prove victorious in a battle with Samus.
Master Chief (HALO) vs Samus Aran (METROID)

I choose Samus Aran. My defense: She was the arm cannon and the morph ball, all in the one suit, not to mention the ability to gain new weapons through the course of adventure or battle. Samus could simply walk up to chief, bring out the Zap Cannon, and shock him to death. If she doesn't have that, she could easily sneak up on him with the morph ball, drop a bomb, BAMM!, she flys right over him, escapes, and he is hurt, thus leaving him vunerable to more attacks.
Master Chief (HALO) vs Samus Aran (METROID)

Basically, this debate is just about arguing who'd win in a fight to the death. The fight take s place on on the Halo 3 multiplayer map known as Valhalla. Any questions about the debate can be posted in the comment section and I will respond promptly. I'll let my opponent choose whom they want to argue in favor of (Master Chief or Samus Aran) in the next round, and I'll start off my round 2 in providing arguments for the character I'm stuck defending.
Master Chief (HALO) vs Samus Aran (METROID)

This one argument will destroy most of your arguments: Chief, and Samus, are player-controlled. Thus, anything you say about chief being able to snipe well, anything you say about chief knowing the course, and anything you say about chief being able to react, are all baseless. Now, consider this: Samus could easily pilot any one of Chief's vehicle, due to the fact that many Halo players also play Metroid. I am one, and I believe you are one also. Re: Likely smarter. No, I was pointing out a flaw in your wording. You completely missed the point. Re: A.I. Actually, in this battle, the AI would all be programmed Halo style, thus, if any enemies happen to wander onto the battlefield (it could happen), their AI would be on par with any halo enemies, and, also, see my point about Metroid players also playing Halo. I give you the Cortana argument.