BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap battle

So Bman77's account is no longer active Let's all be a little proactive. My name is Paige Please call me P.B My opponent got weak; inactivated account Don't recount, discount, just give me the amount Start to go. Not gonna blow. It's my show. Not gonna sink in my own shipwreck. I wont remember this rap, wont remember your name Just give me 7 points and lets call it a day.
Mozilla Firefox is a better web browser than Microsoft Internet Explorer

Another great feature of Mozilla Firefox is the crash recovery. Two days ago, my computer accidentally reset. At the time I had 2 separate Firefox windows open, both with multiple tabs. When the computer came back up, I opened Firefox and it asked me if I would like to restore my session. I clicked on "yes", and both windows with all of the tabs came back up. Even though my opponent didn't post, the real purpose behind this was to teach people about Firefox. As long as you have a decent anti-virus program and a decent firewall, Firefox, equipped with the plug ins I mentioned above is virtually untouchable. Thanks.
Mozilla Firefox is a better web browser than Microsoft Internet Explorer

Mozilla Firefox vs. Internet Explorer: Security: Internet Explorer currently has the market share, which means more people use it in the business world and at home. This means that hackers write the majority of scripts and other malicious software specifically targeting Internet Explorer. One major flaw of IE's security is that it manages it's security profiles based on zones. Basically it uses the same security for almost every site, unless you specifically choose otherwise. This allows far too many bad sites to have access to modify IE. Firefox's immense number of plug ins also contribute to its superior security. Plug ins: Firefox is greatly superior in the plug ins department. Noscript is a fantastic plug in that allows the user to choose specifically which scripts are allowed to run on a specific webpage, instead of allowing them all by default. Adblock plus is a very easy way to block the majority of ads that you come across on the web. This makes web browsing faster, easier and more secure. Another great plug in is Flashblock. This blocks all flash by default and in order to enable it, the user must click on the flash symbol and it will play. This is also great for avoiding ads. There are tons more, and I will mention them in round 3. Ease of use: On a standard broadband connection, Firefox can be downloaded in less than a minute, and installed in less than 3 minutes. No restart is required. With Internet Explorer, the user has to go through Windows Update, which takes at least 15 minutes and requires a restart. Once installed, Firefox retains its original menus at top, while later versions of IE have gotten rid of the menu and made it more difficult to find settings and options. This is typical of Microsoft. Clearing the cookies and temp files is simple in firefox and requires 2 clicks, unlike IE. Stability: As with most Microsoft products, IE is filled with bugs. As a computer tech, I cannot count the amount of times users have accidentally downloaded viruses and spy ware that hijacks the browser and makes it unusable. Compatibility: Firefox is compatible with all the latest versions of Windows, Linux and Mac OS. Internet Explorer is only compatible on Microsoft Windows. Settings: In Firefox, you can change almost anything. If the user types "about:config" in the address bar, they can access a myriad of settings. You can even make it faster and change the way Firefox behaves. In internet explorer you are much more limited with what you can do, with the exception of the regular security settings. I look forward to my opponents case for Internet Explorer. I will present more evidence in Round 3 as well as negate my opponents argument. Thank you.
Mozilla Firefox is a better web browser than Microsoft Internet Explorer

I affirm the resolution. I will post arguments to suggest that Mozilla Firefox is a better piece of software, overall, based on security, plugs ins, ease of use, memory consumption, stability, compatibility, settings and other additional features. Round 1 will be for my opponent to accept and ask any questions. In round 2, I will begin to present my argument. My opponent must present evidence to suggest that Internet Explorer is better.
Typing something is better than handwriting something.

I'm not talking about whether or not you have a computer, I am just saying in general whether typing is better/easier than handwriting something. Overall, typing is more productive, easier, and faster. < > I don't believe this. I have typed an 18 page paper for school, and I never once got a hand cramp. Also, typing allows your hands to move more freely, whereas if you're holding a pencil, your fingers are bending and hurt after a long period of time.
Typing something is better than handwriting something.

Hand writing is better because you have easier access to a pencil and paper than to a computer. Also with a computer you have to spend a bunch of money to get a computer. handwritten stuff costs like 5 cents a paper. < > From typing you can get hand cramps too. People in the early centuries wrote by hand and we still have their works, but look at if we keep everything in computers. It will be impossible for us to be able keep good records.
Typing something is better than handwriting something.

Good luck, opponent. I believe typing anything is a much more productive way to spend your time than handwriting something. Not only is it much easier and faster, it saves the person from hand cramps, ect. Also, with today's computer technology, you are able to search for synonyms, antonyms, ect. and are able to look up the meanings of words, spellings, ect... in a matter of seconds. Also, if you own something called a flash drive (like a floppy disk) you are able to save your document on one computer (say in school) and bring home your flash drive, plug it in to your home computer, and continue typing where you left off. When you are handwriting, you are able to transport your writing, but it runs the risk of becoming smudged, wrinkled, ect. Also, after a few pages of handwriting something, your hand may become tired... thus creating your handwriting to become messy and illegible. Also, you may have come across the debate about the 8th grade assignment: the 18 page paper. One of my friends hand-wrote the 18 page paper, and when he was done, he then had to type it... thus creating more work for himself.
Typing something is better than handwriting something.

I don't think are are understanding my point. .. < > I'm not saying whether or not you have a computer, or if you have to buy one, I am just saying that in general typing is much easier. Whether you are a fast typer or not, it is much easier. Handwriting may be more personal for say a thank you note, but I'm saying if you are typing for a school assignment, such as an essay. Also, I stated before that handwriting causes the writer to have bad hand cramps, as well as their writing become sloppy and illegible after a long period of time, and I am still sticking by this reasoning. Availabilty is one of the most important factors of a debate, and that is why I state this: If you go to your local library, you will find anywhere from 2-10 computers/laptops that are available to the public. Here you are able to type anything and print it out for your convenience.
Typing something is better than handwriting something.

I have new points but first I would like to rebut my opponents argument. < > Typing cannot be productive if you don't have a computer, also it is not easier than writing because you don't have to learn anything to write. Also writing is a heck of a lot faster than typing I can't type faster than I can write. < > I believe that writing is better than typing because of its availability and availability is one of the deciding factors in a debate. I would also like to point out that my opponent did not rebut my argument < > My opponent says she wrote a 18 page paper on a computer and did not get a cramp. Just because something doesn't happens to one person doesn't mean it will not happen to another.
Donald Trump is a brilliant presidential candidate, with brilliant, near full proof policies.

To clarify, this debate is about Donald Trump and the policies he has proposed as president. Please note that this debate is now whether Donald Trump has the best policies, but whether they are brilliant or not. There is no need for other candidates to be involved in the debate. The Burden of proof is on pro, as he is trying to prove Trump's policies, are, most of the time brilliant. Mostly what I have to do is say why his policies, are not brilliant. He has advocated for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the U.S, let me explain why this is not, brilliant, but actually sh1tty. A. Let's say a jihadist decides he wants to bomb New York, and tries to immigrate. When they see his papers, he will get turned back from immigrating. However I have always been curious what stops them from changing their religion to Jewish on their immigration papers. Idk. B. This is a recruiting tool for terrorist groups. Let's say there is a moderate Muslim seeking refuge in the U.S, ISIS has asked him to join many times but he has refused. Say the U.S turns him away based on religion, and they ask him again, his answer may just change. Do this millions of times, and ISIS may get some new recruits. C. Have you wondered the percentage of terrorist attacks in the U.S are committed by Muslims? I shall tell you, it is about 6% in the U.S. That means 94% of terrorist attacks are done by non-Muslims. See the stupidity in this sh1t? I know the argument to this some people use, "but we don't know if they are terrorists or not!" B1tch, the same goes for Christians, and Jews, and Buddhists, and atheists. Do you want to kick out everyone? Because it is not Muslims committing most of the terror attacks. http://www.thedailybeast.com... Next popular yet sh1tty policy- Deport every illegal immigrant in the country. A. It is impossible to round up every illegal immigrant, all 12 million, is virtually impossible. B. It is... inhumane, but I guess that doesn't matter. C. I have heard so many times the complaints that illegal immigrants never pay taxes. That is invalid. Of course not all of them do, just like you no, some of the richest people in the country. But in 2012, illegal immigrants collectively paid almost $12,000,000,000 in state and local taxes that year. 12 billion dollars. So yes, the majority of them, do pay taxes, and contribute to society. Keep in mind this while knowing most of them really don't make very much money yearly. So there are two, more next time.
Taxes are the best way to lower the national debt

Thank you so much for the debate. Remember in you discion remember that we sell the land do not tax it. Also remember that the US has said that they save saving the land. (explicitly said in 2 round). This means that we have saved 128 trillion dollars in oil. Please remember that I have proved that we get more money from oil fields than taxes. Look to ALL of my argumentation in the 1st round because most of it was dropped (they told me i was right). Thank You
Taxes are the best way to lower the national debt

Now I would like to address my opponents summary of the debate. Realize that nothing new was stated in the summary. My opponent simply restated their main point. Now, I will address it again. My two rebuttals were that A) The government doesn't own most of this land, and B) According to Bureau of Land Management, "The law states that the BLM can select lands for sale if, through land use planning, they are found to meet one of three criteria: 1) they are scattered, isolated tracts, difficult or uneconomic to manage; 2) they were acquired for a specific purpose and are no longer needed for that purpose; or 3) disposal of the land will serve important public objectives, such as community expansion and economic development. " If land with Oil and Gold met this criteria, it would already have been sold! Taxing oil is simpler and more environmentally friendly way to make money from these reserves. My opponent stated that there are other ways to make money. This is true. There involve taking out loans, pushing the government into deeper debt, and demanding damages from countries, which requires threatening other countries with military/diplomatic strength. Bottom Line- The bottom line for this debate is whether taxes or oil and gold mining are better solution to the national debt. As oil and gold mining or selling fields are impractical as proved previously, if taxes do can lower the national debt by one dollar, and I guarantee they do, voting for me is the only choice in this debate. LD101 will type 'no round as agreed' in their fourth round. Again, thanks for reading/ debating.
Taxes are the best way to lower the national debt

In this debate I only have to prove one thing. That there is a better way to lower debt. My opponent has persistently has said that we tax the oil. The whole point of having untapped resources is to be able to sell them. My solution is not to tax the oil but to sell the reserves. If we were to SELL the reserves we would make 128 trillion dollars for the US government. At the end of the day Taxing is not the solution is harms the bottom line. Selling assets and contracts to mine or fracking is a multi-trillion dollar business. I have proven that there are other methods to tackling debt that do not require taxing the bottom line.
Taxes are the best way to lower the national debt

First Lets Address the Opponents Case The opponent talks about debt will lower the credit rating, in their 1st contention. I have a few responses. 1) This is total dependent on the fact that taxes will fix the debt. The opponent talks about how debt decreases credit ranking remember they can not solve this issue unless taxes work to decrease debt. 2) The opponent does not prove how taxes would be channeled into getting the US out of the debt. At this point we need to balance the debt in order to even begin to lower debt. They must prove conclusively taxes will go to destroying debt. What we see in the past is the government raising tax and spending on education or military. Because the resolution talks about taxes being the best to lower the national debt, but we do not know that the taxes are going to go to the national debt. At this point they proved no path. 3) In the same piece of evidence that he looks at his argumentation for decrease credit score, it explicitly says a "downgrade in credit score should not have the severe consequences that some fear." Turn his argumentation. It has no impact. 4) EVEN IF you do not want to buy my argument about decrease credit rating, this actually do not matter in the world of economics. The United States is a powerful nation with a powerful economy. The fact that it has a low credit rating than this will not matter because interdependence. I bring this up in my constructive. The fact tat the world economy is not heavily effected because of interdependence. Attack to the 2 Contention, the government has no other sources of income. 1) The government does. As I explain they sell the oil field off to private investors. The cost for all of the oil fields is 128 trillions dollars. My opponent has misinterpreted my point. The point states that we sell the field not tax the people that mine the oil. 2) Income comes form selling. (Oil, Gold, Military) Rebuttals The opponents 1st attacks talks about how we tax the mining. 1) We sell the field not tax the field. We can easily tackle the debt. The opponent also attacks my Japanese economy point. 1) Remember this is one example and that it clearly demonstrated the interdependence point. Drops Remember that the debt of the the US does not matter because of interdependence. This was clearly drops. You should be voting for my off of this alone. Interdependence means that people are dependent on each other and they cannot afford to attack others. Dropped the Taxes point. I talk about taxes and how it is the governments responsibility to draw themselves out of the holes they dig. The government needs to make choice that help not hurt.
resolved: vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.

In the interests of fairness, and considering that this is an LD-formatted debate, I will allow the affirmative to have the final word, and refrain from referencing any voting issues or crystallizing any arguments in the round. The only thing that I will say is that I enjoyed this rematch with jay very much, and that I look forward to seeing who the voters choose as the better debater in the round today.
resolved: vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.

Being the fact that this is the last round of the debate, I am only allowed to go over what has already been said according to the rules of LD. I will only point out the main details of why I affirm vigilantism. I would also like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. It was exciting for me and I do hope it was for him. Both me and my opponent value justice. My criterion of justice was human rights. I affirm that vigilantism is the act of self defense against criminals of the law. In my previous arguments, I stated that if the government fails in its obligation to protect the people, then the citizens have the right to protect themselves. By the citizens protecting themselves, they uphold the human right of self defense, thus making themselves vigilantes. Human rights are a standard of justice, therefore making vigilantism just. John Locke said "a government that fails to fulfill its responsibility to its citizens is not a legitimate government, thus citizens are not obligated to recognize its legitimacy. " In the resolution, the government has failed to enforce the law, therefore it has failed in its responsibility to its citizens, making it a non-legitimate government. So, the citizens are not required to recognize it. If the government cannot enforce the law, it is then up to the citizens to enforce it, according to Social Contract of John Locke. I affirm the resolution. The value is justice and human rights are a standard of justice. Self defense is a human right. Because the government cannot protect the citizens, the citizens take the right of self defense and use it. The right of self defense is a standard of justice and is also an unalienable right that MUST be upheld and preserved. Human rights are rights God gave us the day we were born and for those to be taken away is immoral, thus unjust.
Everyone should have the right to keep and bear arms.

1. Simply declaring something illegal does not eliminate it. I agree with the statement. However, based on his statement, I have to conclude that my opponent thinks that declaring actions illegal is worthless. Declaring rape illegal may have never stopped it, but the law has reduced it. Declaring murder illegal hasn't stopped it, but the law has also reduced it. Forgive me for saying it, but it seems that my opponent encourages to declare all laws void. If rape and murder was legal, you can expect that actions to be encouraged. Laws elaborate rights and responsibilities in a variety of ways. Laws control equality, fairness, liberty and justice. Without laws, nothing would be illegal and we would have uncontrollable numbers of cases of murder and rape. I can't imagine our society where justice doesn't exist. Justice is one of the key features of society. For further information, go to . http://en.wikipedia.org... There is more weapons than guns that people can own. People can own self-defense weapons that aren't lethal such as quality martial arts weapons, home security products, instructional fighting DVD, and even fun sporting goods such as blowguns, crossbows, and Airsoft BB Guns. If guns were banned, people such as criminals wouldn't have easy access of them and the law enforcement can also own more powerful self defense weapons or they can own guns. If only the law enforcement own guns, then the success of criminal wouldn't increase. Either way, people can have substitutes instead of dangerous guns. For further information, go to . http://www.naselfdefense.com... 2. Weapons have commercial interests. If self-defense weapons were in an industry, I expect that they could replace guns when guns are banned. Guns may have commercial interest. I agree with you on that statement. Unfortunately, the gun industry refuses to recognize its responsibility to make its products safer, choosing instead to place the sole burden on the user - even when that user is a four-year-old child. It makes and and markets the only widely available consumer products designed to kill. It is irresponsible in the way it markets and sells its products, failing to maintain standards for distributors which would prevent gun trafficking, misleading consumers about the use of guns in self-defense, and deliberately marketing products in such a way as to attract criminals. For further information, go to . http://www.bradycampaign.org... 3. Violence does not even require weapons I also agree with the statement. However, having guns will not end violent crime. They can be used to be in suicide, in murder, and in crime such as bank robberies. A little girl won't be able to own a gun, but she might be able to own a self-defense weapon such as peppermint spray. Therefore she won't kill anyone and she won't get raped. I will also elaborate in later rounds as necessary.
Everyone should have the right to keep and bear arms.

I accept and look forward to this debate. Further, I ask all voters to drop all bias before voting on this debate. My opponent will be able to present new points in the second and third rounds, and I will be able to in the first and second rounds. I accept my opponent's definition. In addition, Everyone- every human This 'right' does not mean that there will be a governing body in charge making sure every one has a weapon or else. It is, however, referring to the personal ability to own a weapon. Bear is not referring to an animal. (End Clarification) Everyone should have the right to keep and bear weapons because: 1. There will still be weapons whether they are illegal or not. 2. Weapons have commercial interests. 3. Violence can still occur without weapons. 1. Simply declaring something illegal does not eliminate it. Declaring rape illegal has never stopped it. Delcaring murder illegal hasn't stopped it. We can't expect that incriminating the possession of weapons will discourage violent crimes, either. Gangs that want to have these weapons will still get have them. However, such a law would take away weapons from law-abiding citizens, rending them helpless to violent crime. Self-defense is essentially useless when someone else has a weapon and the victim does not. Knowing this, more hardened criminals would be more successful. In addition, the law enforcement, which fits into the 'everyone', would also not having guns would increase the success of such criminals. The result is a lawless anarchy. 2. Weapons have commercial interests. For example, there are shooting ranges. http://www.nrahq.org... In addition, gun selling is an important industry that supplies jobs. Gun designing creates high-paying jobs. Gun competitions and gun shows can help bring communities together. Banning guns would end all of this. 3. Violence does not even require weapons. A little firls can still be raped by a strong man, especially if neither of them have weapons. Brawls can result in death. Banning guns will not end violent crime. I will elaborate in later rounds as necessary.
Everyone should have the right to keep and bear arms.

Definition: Right to keep and bear arms - people, individually or collectively, have a right to weapons. (Usually interpreted to mean personal guns. ) The rules are: 1. We both have to prove our side. I have to prove the topic I'm going to state below, and you have to argue against it. The burden of proof is on both of us. 2. No semantics. We all know what we mean by something. It's the arguments that count. I will let my opponent make the first arguments in this round.