BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rapping

Coming down to the final round, here are more words that will astound. Scotty thinks he can just dust me off, can you do anything but make me scoff. He admits that he is lude, while getting blued and then tattoed. Man, Scotty surely got street cred, but rappin his rhymes might leave some dead. Not from any cleverness in his rhyme, but the fact it keeps us snoring every time. I was kind of weirded out, when Scotty claimed to see my spout. Was it he or was it his chick, who lusted after my mighty stick. Either way, that stuff is whack, but I guess that's what happens when talking smack. Bringing up minstrel shows is odd, for a dude who claims to be reppin God.
Rapping

So it comes time to conclude. Final dust-off of this dude. My opponent really has no clue. Of what I am about to do. My acts are lude but also true. He had total lack of fortitude. Having only tall-tales to constitute. I have much more to offer you. Oh. .but that's just me. My story is so easy to read. My opponent had trouble functioning ABC. Next debate we should have a spelling bee. You will find out I got a master's degree. Imma Knight yeah thats right. But I lean less toward dark and more toward light. Leaving nothing to chance so I fight. Reigning down on my opponent with furious smite. I swing a very large stick. Like my rhyme it is stiff like a brick. Quick go ask my chick quick. You just mite make her get sick. Just imagining about your little prick. This guy better grab his walking stick. Instead of spit he mite get bit. So I send back to my rapping bro. Maybe next time we wont get a minstel show. This is the end I gotta go.
Rapping

Now I'm the coolest guy in the whole southwest, while ScottyDouglas just like the rest. He thinks he fly but he really cray, but y'all all know that anyway. We all know Scotty's running out of rhymes when he uses the same word two times. But let's get back to the rappin game, where one is awesome, the other is lame. Just wise advice, my silver friend, you ain't gonna beat this Arizonan. When people hear my raps they say, "He got skill", when they hear yours, they say "Hey man, chill". But that happens in these fights, one is cool, the other bites. Rap is really all about talking smack, which is fun because yours is super whack. So where you from, Scotty my man? Chilling in Philly or the coast of Japan? Rockin in London or eternal Rome, or possibly freezing in icy Nome. Possibly Oregon, possibly Maine, either way people think you are a pain. So doesn't matter where you live, clean your rhymes like a giant sieve. Bro to bro, let's end this show.
Evolution is valid science and should be taught in the public schools.

Firstly, evolution is not a religion. Secondly, most religious groups don't have a problem with the theory of evolution. Most Catholics and Mainline Protestants don't see a conflict between evolution and their religious doctrine. Surprisingly, Pat Robertson even thinks creationism is nonsense nowadays. So if a Catholic, Mainline Protestant, Buddhist, Hindu, or even a Taoist student was in the classroom and if evolution is taught they wouldn't go home and complain to their parents about it. They would simply learn and reason. And in case you haven't noticed a lot of the Catholic teach evolution and they teach it as fact.
Evolution is valid science and should be taught in the public schools.

Thank you for your response. However, I'd like to point out that you really did not make a point there or provide much evidence. You only provided a timeline of events happening in chronological order. I fail to see how this shows that Darwinism should be taught in both public and private schools. Time to bring up my own points. There's a major thing that prevents Darwinism from being taught in school. And it's called religion. You see, if you were to teach a class about this, do you realize how many parents would be pissed off? And this goes against a lot of religions, not just Christianity. Only 8% of people in the population are Atheists/have no religion. So you're trying to say "even though 92% of people have a religion, let's teach something that defies their own religion because SCIENCE!" Even IF God doesn't exist, this is still one of the most horrible ideas I've ever seen.
Evolution is valid science and should be taught in the public schools.

Will thanks for accepting my challenge. Anyway just to get to the bottom line. I do not think creationism or intelligent design should be taught in public schools because: A) In 1968 banning the teaching of evolution in the public schools was ruled unconstitutional by Supreme with the Epperson vs. Arkansas case. B) In 1987, the teaching of creation science was ruled unconstitutional by Supreme Court with the Edwards vs. Aguillard case in Louisiana. C) In 2005, the teaching of intelligent design was ruled unconstitutional by Supreme Court with the Kitzmiller vs. Dover cas in Pennsylvania. D) Teaching creationism or intelligent design would force religious beliefs on a non-Christian student, and I don't just mean an atheist or an agnostic but even a Muslim or Hindu as well.
Technological progress will probably destroy our planet

If you want ecological reasons you will have it. What means ecology to people nowadays? It is big problem which can cause global warming or apocalypses. But technological progress can decide this problem. For example in Northway near 99% of electricity came from energy of falling water. It is technological progress solution. We try to improve our machines not to cause such problems and without this progress we cannot do this. Progress means improving and improving in technology gives to us more safe machines which will not cause bad effect to our nature. I can give another example. It is using of solar energy. It is very safe way of taking energy from the nature. Technological progress made it. If something create problem, it can solve it. And if this progress made a lot of problem, it will be solved by technology.
Technological progress will probably destroy our planet

Firstly, you did say anything about ecology and damages, which progress did, but it was my strongest argument against rapid progress. Now about communications, of course it really great, but for now it becomes much more than just communications. There are huge amount of different social networks, which are really dangerous. It leads to very serious obsession, after few years of using this networks, person can`t live without it, this problem usual for users of Twitter. This persons don`t need anything just to take some notes in their blog, they don`t want to play with their friends, Twitter of Facebook much more interesting for them than real life and it is really sad, technology not only destroys our surrounding, it is also kills our mind. Also ecological damage influence on human health and leads to disability. Of course, progress is process of our evolution, but now we can`t control it, so it could just kill us.
Technological progress will probably destroy our planet

Technological progress is our future. And we cannot deny this thing. It is part of our life. Why technology is good for us? I have three reasons. People should understand that progress in technology is not bad because it gives to us communication, surgery and good economical position. First of all technology gives fast communication with people, who are sitting in the other side of the Earth, there are a lot of chat rooms which can help people to connect with each other. And all of us have experience of using this benefit. Second of all technological progress gives chance to people who have serious illness to have good consequences after operation. And nowadays all serious operations do with technical equipment. People are not so accurate like machines. Robots do not think they do things which are in their program. Third of all this progress give to country good economical positions. And country which has good informational technologies always will win than country which has only weapons.
Technological progress will probably destroy our planet

First of all, I realize importance of technological progress, but I really concerned about damages that it did. Technology evolves too rapidly, it is really dangerous because there are a lot of process which scientist can`t control, a little mistake could lead to disaster. Huge amount of woods cut off for our needs, factories throw toxic substances into the air and to the ground. Just remember Chernobyl and Fukushima, this disaster destroyed ecosystem on the whole territory around them (40km). Technology becomes more complex, next mistake could destroy ecosystem of whole planet.
The possibility of parole is effective in promoting good behavior in prisons.

Parole is a way of rewarding good behavior. If the offenders don't participate in violent behavior, or using drugs, they have the opportunity to go back into society under the supervision of a parole officers. It provides the opportunity to return offenders to society as productive and law-abiding citizens after a reasonable period of incarceration. The cost of controlling badly-behaved prisoners is much greater than the cost of controlling well-behaved ones " commonly fifty percent more, and sometimes two or three times more.
The possibility of parole is effective in promoting good behavior in prisons.

This argument is about whether or not the possibility of parole promotes good behavior during their time in prison. In which it does gives them a sense of hope for their future, and an incentive to do good. They are carefully monitored by a parole officer. they find offenders employment, a suitable place to live, and get them treatment for any mental health issues they may have, and make sure they are staying out of trouble. To accomplish all of this, parole officers may help by pointing their parolees in the right direction. For instance, they may set up interviews with potential employers or referring parolees to mental health treatment facilities, such as substance abuse centers.
Tax cuts are not necessarily good for the economy.

The Clinton Tax Defense A growing body of literature and experience indicates that higher taxes are associated with a smaller economy. It is generally axiomatic that the more one taxes something, the less there is of the item taxed. There is surely no reluctance among proponents to argue that higher taxes on tobacco materially reduce tobacco consumption or that higher taxes on energy would appreciably reduce energy consumption. Yet, somehow, the argument persists that raising taxes on labor does not diminish the supply of labor or that raising taxes on capital does not appreciably reduce the amount of capital in the economy. In both cases, tax hikes weaken the economy and reduce the amount of income earned by American families. The Clinton defense of higher taxes rests largely on a cursory review of the economic history of the 1990s. Whatever the theoretical debates, the proof, as they say, is in the pudding: President Clinton raised taxes, yet the economy grew, and grew smartly in the latter half of the 1990s. Economists have occasionally been accused of seeing something work in practice and then proving that it cannot work in theory. However, this is not the case here. History suggests that the economy performed reasonably well in the years immediately following the tax hike, but history is not causality, and history sometimes needs a more careful examination to tell its story faithfully. Following the tax hike, the economy performed reasonably well, but not as well as one would expect given the conditions at the time. The real economic boom came later in the decade, just when the economy should have slowed as it made the transition from a period of recovery to normal expansion. Further, this acceleration coincided to a remarkable degree with the 1997 tax cut. Contrasting the period immediately after the tax hike and the period immediately after the tax cut, the evidence strongly suggests that the tax hike likely slowed the economy as traditional theory suggests, and that it was the tax cut that gave the economy renewed vigor--and gave history the real 1990s boom. In other words, the Clinton defense of higher taxes does not hold up.
Tax cuts are not necessarily good for the economy.

Here is the problem, you are trying to fix the sink, when its the drain thats broken. Again,.. think about this, if we cut government spending, govt. programs, limit govt. we can maintain lower taxes while stimulating and strengthening the economy! There were two tax cuts in the Bush terms. The smaller began in mid 2001 and was phased in over time. The larger came in mid 2003. The effects were quite dramatic. By July of 2004 GDP growth had jumped from 1.8% to 5.4%, business investment jumped over 10 times and employment growth was also up a factor of 10. The good news was that supply side economics really worked. Tax revenues increased steadily from 2003 right up to the present as the table below shows: Total Federal Revenues in Billions 2000..........$2,025 2001..........1,991 2002..........1,853 2003..........1,782 2004..........1,880 2005..........2,153 2006..........2,407 2007..........2,568 2008 est. 2,521 before new rebates The deficit grew right along because Congress let the spending grow even faster. To kill the tax cuts, that is greatly raise taxes as the two Democratic candidates aren't oppose to, can be expected to have the opposite and dramatic results of less GDP growth, less business investment, higher employment and less total revenue. This would really put pressure on Congressional spending and a much faster growing deficit. Be careful what you wish for.
Tax cuts are not necessarily good for the economy.

I am new to this site, and I like it! I am not really clear on your stance on the position of tax cuts being good or bad for the economy,.. i believe it is the "not necessarily," bit that make your platform weak. Is it good or is it bad? Surely you dont believe, that you can tax a country into prosperity? I know that if the people do not have the solvency to pay the tax than the government must understand that taxing will only cripple an already damaged citizen. And you are just not specific enough on your stance or your direction on the topic, like the time of bliss we had under higher taxes. Name that time... I dont recall it. You ideas of "great times" may not be that of another. Less governent + less spending = lower taxes
The quantity 1/3 is only theoretical

A Real Number is a number that can be found on the number line. This includes rational and irrational numbers. The quantity (1/3) is real because it can be found on the number line. The quantity (1/3) is not an imaginary or complex number because it is not being multiplied by the imaginary unit i. A "not real number" and a "theoretical" number are two different concepts.Theoretical is concerned with or involving the theory of a subject area rather than its practical application. I already proved (1/3) is real, and I will now prove (1/3) is pracitcal.Consider the equation 3x=1. This can be read as "3 times a number equals 1". Let's say I wanted to know what this number is. I would divide both sides of the equation by 3. It would look like this:3x=1x=(1/3)I derived the quantity (1/3) because I divided both sides of the equation by 3 to get x by itself. 1 divided by 3 is the quantity (1/3). If I plug (1/3) back into my equation this happens:3(1/3)=1(3*1)/3=1; The 3 in the numerator cancles out the the three in the denominator leaving:1=1, which is a true statement.(1/3) is the solution to this equation. It is a number I can substitute in for x in the equation above to satisfy the equation. This makes it practical because I can use the number (1/3) to solve an equation. Even a number like the square root of 2 is practical because it can be used to solve an equation such as x^2-5=-3. The square root of 2 is a solution. I'll show that below:(sq. rt. 2)^2-5=-32-5=-3-3=-3(also negative square root of 2 is a solution to this equation because neg. sq. rt. 2 squared is also 2).(1/3) is rational because it can be written as the quotient or fraction of two integers p and q with q not equalling zero.To further my argument I will give a real life situation of this. Let's say you and 2 friends order a pizza. How much of the pizza would each of you recieve? Let p be people. Because there's only 1 pizza and 3 people eating the pizza, we can write and solve an equation for p.3p=1, thusp=(1/3)Each of you would recieve (1/3) of the pizza. If each of you put your fair share back together, then if would form 1 whole pizza. This is a practical application of (1/3).Good luck.
There is no such thing as capitalism or socialism all societies combine the two

Well Capitalism is a mix of socialism and Anarchy. Where you lose me if when you say that two completely different social constructs are used by a government. Capitalism is a market driven economy. Socialism is basically a people driven economy, Meaning the people are the assets to the economy. In conclusion, Capitalist might have different ideals that can also be applied from other political theories but you cannot argue that they are combinations. I. E. Social constructs
Should Pakistan Be declared as a terror state internationally

I would like to begin this debate by providing you with a pair of figures, for your consideration. Firstly, the population of Pakistan is 200 million, being the sixth most populous country in the world. (https://www.cia.gov...) Secondly, there are forty-four terrorist groups operating in and out of Pakistan. (http://www.satp.org...) Now given that the most prolific and arguably most accessible terrorist organization in recent years, ISIS, can only muster about "between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters across Iraq and Syria," I can only assume that Pakistan's residential terrorist groups cannot be too much larger than ISIS, which is a multi-national extremist group that pulls converts from such far-flung places as Canada and Britain. (http://www.cnn.com...) So let me ask you then, what your rationale is in condemning two hundred million innocents for what is likely the actions of 0.015% of their number? In what way is that justified to you?
Should Pakistan Be declared as a terror state internationally

Pakistan have been backing terrorist organisations since a long time,no one can deny that,many UN announced terrorists live freely in Pakistan and these terrorists speak freely against the enemy nations. Recently Pakistan supported and sponsored terrorist attacked an Indian army base located in Kashmir India ,18 Indian soldiers were killed in the attack and 36 were injured ,the base is just beside the indo-pak loc and the terrorist infiltrate under the cover of cross border firing provoked by Pakistan side,also the area is hard to petrol due to rough terrain .Such incident have occurred previously some of them are Mumbai 26/11 attacks , pathancoat airbase attack etc . Such incidents provoke India for an open war against Pakistan and in every way Indian forces are far more superior than Pakistan army but they just threat India for a nuclear attack ,India also have nuclear weapons but it have a policy of no first use.
War on Terror

I have challenged the Con because she is against the war on terror that is being fought currently by the US and NATO versus Islamic Radical group's in the middle east. This, I believe is unjustifiable and therefore I wish to ask a few question's before I end round 1. 1/Do you believe that 9/11 justified the invasion of Afganistan? 2/Do you see no threat in Islamic theocracies? 3Why do you not support the removal of terrorist's that threaten our way of life? 4/Do you believe that the US should have a policy of non-intervention even when it come's under direct attack? I look forward to your response
Humans can't alter their dispositions.

Firstly Hello and welcome voters and my opponent Silk. The Nurture side of the Nature vs. Nurture debate is mainly supported by Behavioral Psychology which studies the impact of socialization on our development of behavior as children. Three main aspects of Behavioral Psychology are Operant learning, Social learning theory and classical conditioning. Albert Bandura's social learning theory (1977) is based around behaviour learnt from ones environment by observing the behaviour of others. Bandura's main case study was the Bobo doll study. In his study he took a group of young children and split them into three groups. The first group he put into a room when a woman was violently hitting and bashing up a Bobo doll. The second group was made to watch a video of a woman doing the same thing and the last group was the control group. He found that the children; when exposed to a Bobo doll, the first and second groups were more violent towards the Bobo doll than the control group. This case study supports that childrens' behavior is in fact impacted upon by what they see and the people they interact with and thus proving that nurture does in fact overcome nature in the development of behaviors.
Humans can't alter their dispositions.

Thankyou for that compelling argument... Once again I raise my point that nurture is in fact solely impacting upon the building of a humans character. Many behavioural scientists like Skinner, Thorndike and Bandura have time and time again proved the massive impact of nurture on the upbringing of an individual. Also case studies like that of david reimer and the countless twin seperation studies have proved just how important nurture truly is.
Humans can't alter their dispositions.

Hi I must firstly point out that there is no proof of there being the higher force that we like to call destiny. There are so many choices in our life that you can"t possibly believe that each person has a destiny, that each person already has their future laid out for them before they are even born. Also, in what way are we "spectators" of our own lives, we make the decisions, if we mess up we only have ourselves to blame. We choose our own past, present and future. We are most certainly the most important person in our own lives and no one else controls what happens in our lives. I must also point out that the statement that my opponent made about Skinner"s "straw dog" is in fact incorrect. B.F Skinner was a behavioral psychologist who performed experiments in the area coined operant learning. Most famously he conducted experiments like Thorndike"s except using a mouse. He placed the mouse in a box he called the Skinners box where the mouse was to perform several tasks that it was conditioned to do using negative reinforcement, positive reinforcement , positive punishment and negative punishment. These experiments were proof of the extents of the effects of negative reinforcement, positive reinforcement , positive punishment and negative punishment; and strong evidence for how we can condition new behaviors into animals and humans; strong evidence for the Nurture side of the debate. In no way were his findings incorrect and to this present day his findings are still extremely relevant. Lastly I would like to point out that in debating you are not meant to refer to your opponent by their real name. By the way my name is not Oliver and neither am I a boy"