BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should girls be aloud on boys sports teams

My opponent says the following: "Still girls have rights as guys. Girls should have fun like guys". Girls can have fun similar to guys with their own all female sports team. I agree that they have rights, but that doesn't mean they should play a sport with guys; they can play a sport with other females. So technically we are not taking away their right to play sports, we are just suggesting not to let them play with guys because they can get hurt more easily.
Should girls be aloud on boys sports teams

Still girls have rights as guys. Girls should have fun like guys. Still guys might hurt them, but if girls want to play they should get to play. Girls have rights! They are people not animals or slaves. So let girls play on sports teams if they get hurt so what. It's football or whatever sport they are playing. Your going to get hurt. You can't do nothing about it. If you were play wesilting then watch your hands and plus at my school girls play guys sports teams and they don't get hurt.........
Should girls be aloud on boys sports teams

The reason why is because a boy can cause more major injuries to a girl, compared to another guy. Stated by journalist Janelle Greer, "Plain and simple, females are the weaker vessels of the two sexes. It's not degrading. It's not an insult. It's a fact of life". And my opponent even agrees with the following quote: "I know you might hurt them or touch them in the wrong place". If thats the case, why risk it?Source:http://www.lehighvalleylive.com...
Should girls be aloud on boys sports teams

Yes cause girls should be treated just the same as guys.If girls really want to play then they should be able too.Girls have as many rights as guys do too. So girls should be aloud to play football,wrestling, soccer, and other guys sports. I know you might hurt them or touch them in the wrong place.Still girls should have rigths like guys. I don't care who you are or what you believe in! Girls should be aloud on guys sports teams and be treated how we want to be treated. Girls have rights!!!!!!!
If religious practice are to be separated from the public, relative federal benefits should as well

If religious displays and practice are to be separated or secularized from the government, then the federal benefits of the same should be removed as well Apply for acceptance of debate will be done in comments. As this is my first debate, I am testing the waters. As Pro, I will be debating for the logic of removal of benefits of government enacted activities associated with separation of like religious practices, and supplementary absence of logic in non removal As Con, you will be debating for the logic of non removal of said benefits, as well as supplementary absence of logic in removal, or that federal benefits are nonexistent in relation to religious activities I appreciate any criticism that will aid me in future establishment of debates The first round will be definitions and acceptance. No new arguments in the final round No trolling Acceptance of the debate implies; That both Pro and Con agree that Separation of Church and State is recognized and enacted. That both Pro and Con agree to all definitions and rules expressed in Round 1 Clarification may be required, and annotated in comments to facilitate understanding or variation to stated definitions, if agreed upon by instigating party. That both parties may not assume favorable argument from the other, in that the views expressed may not be of the opinion of the debater, merely the argument, and any argument based in assumption or deduction of opposing parties' personal beliefs is invalid Any definitions stated outside of round 1 are open for debate Religious and non-religious are mutually exclusive Benefits referring to positive gain from a party are not negated by deficit or negativity towards the opposing party, wherein a viewpoint determines the classification of an item in question as benefit (i.e. worker vs employer. If it benefits one party involved, it is classified as a benefit) That both parties understand Boolean and logical arguments such as AND, OR, etc. Citations may be immersed in text, or listed following. Definitions;Christmas noun the annual festival of the Christian church commemorating the birth of Jesus: celebrated on December 25 and now generally observed as a legal holiday and an occasion for exchanging gifts. From <http://dictionary.reference.com...; Benefit noun : a good or helpful result or effect : money that is paid by a company (such as an insurance company) or by agovernment when someone dies, becomes sick, stops working, etc. : something extra (such as vacation time or health insurance) that is given by anemployer to workers in addition to their regular pay From <http://www.merriam-webster.com...; Thank you for your acceptance
If religious practice are to be separated from the public, relative federal benefits should as well

org. As Stated in round 1, the definitions of Christmas and benefit were established. It was established in round 2 that the government of the United States has established holidays, with legally confirmed named and regards. Round 3 affirmed that the First Amendment established freedoms from a government ability to promote a religious attribute over non religion. The logical conclusion to the dictation of these events is that the government endorses a holiday (benefit) in the name of Christmas (Religious), despite the establishment clause's disassociation. Thank you for participating in this debate period, and have a Merry Christmas!
If religious practice are to be separated from the public, relative federal benefits should as well

"The majority of people in an area will likely hold to similar beliefs, traditions, and customs. Because government was established for the people and by the people. It would be illogical to assert that government legislation would deny people from observing similar customs that have a right to publicly practice." While the 14th amendment grants equal practice to corporations as person hood, no entity may act on the behalf of the government in regards to religious practice. Contrary to your argument, the removal of religious affiliation is in no way the same as denying people the opportunity to practice. That was the intent of the establishment clause. While government agencies are prohibited from creating religions, practices, or affiliations they are also prohibited from siding with any religion or the idea of religion over non-religion. The fact that Christmas was established long before the creation of the United States confirms that it was not named by the government. Though it also defines that the United States officially named the holiday defined by government standards after Christmas. Christmas has been defined in R1 as having a predetermined religious connotation. "Its significance as a religious observance is obsolete for the majority of the public. It is the exploration of a custom for economic gain and business' bottom lines." As roughly 70 percent of the United States reports as Christian, it would be illogical to assume that the significance of their most revered holiday is obsolete. "So much and more was stated by Ganulin vs. U.S. Supreme Court decision"The decision of the Supreme Court was made in light of current precedence, not necessarily the common logic and upholding of establishment. As the decision was made in 1999, there is reason to believe that the logic and circumstances have changed in light of the last 16 years of disassociation between religion and government. In the meantime, the Pledge of Allegiance, Swearing in Under God, and even the term IN GOD WE TRUST, printed on our money has come into question.http://blog.constitutioncenter.org... Endorsement test The endorsement test, proposed by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, asks whether a particular government action amounts to an endorsement of religion. According to O’Connor, a government action is invalid if it creates a perception in the mind of a reasonable observer that the government is either endorsing or disapproving of religion. From <http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org...; Unless religious affiliation creates unreasonable individuals, it would be safe to assume that 70 percent of the American people would reasonably observe that the government creating a holiday named after their most sacred holiday is an endorsement of a version of their religion, or, if it is a combination of religions, it is still a promotionn of religion over non-religion.
If religious practice are to be separated from the public, relative federal benefits should as well

The first amendment states, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [1] It is the right of the people to publicly practice their religion. Publicly. The fourteenth amendment extends these rights to equally apply to corporations as legal person hoods. [2] The majority of people in an area will likely hold to similar beliefs, traditions, and customs. Because government was established for the people and by the people. It would be illogical to assert that government legislation would deny people from observing similar customs that have a right to publicly practice. Holidays have an economic impact on businesses. By recognizing the source of these demands it behooves the federal government to utilize such observances for the benefit of economic growth. If the government made strides to eliminate the inclusion of holiday customs into their public persona, we risk killing the demand it generates. Seeing how the government can not create religious days, it only stands to utilize the days already commonly used by the populace. So much and more was stated by Ganulin vs. U.S. Supreme Court decision. [3] That the recognition of Christmas as a holiday, a custom practiced by the people, was not against the establishment clause. Government institutions were not establishing the practice, just recognizing it's prevalence. As such the name Christmas, was not elected by government either. Christmas was being called Christmas 4 centuries before the U.S. was created. It is only the name by which the holiday is known by. Christmas with the use of trees, Santa, reindeer, and present exchanges is a modern amalgamation of corporate advertisement, additions by different populations. To an outside observer Christmas as represented in media, even government accolades, would appear to be a very non-christian holiday. Its significance as a religious observance is obsolete for the majority of the public. It is the exploration of a custom for economic gain and business' bottom lines. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu... [2] http://money.howstuffworks.com... [3] http://www.becketfund.org...
Manatees should be treated like Gods

You are wrong.I think it might be because you have the BRAIN of a manatees. Lol. Because manatees are dumb.Manatees are also awfully ugly. Much uglier than humans. Humans are clearly more deserving of better treatment than manatees, and being treated like God is the best you can be treated because God is perfection (unlike manatees!!!!).All arguments extended.Thank you.
Manatees should be treated like Gods

I dont think we're talking about the same manatees, Unless you are mistaking laziness for their long hours of meditation. And it is well known that they need to Meditate for hours to channel the flow of qi within thier bodies otherwise they would not be able to perform so many miracles. http://www.brandoncole.com... here is a manatee risking its life to save a worthless human from drowning
Everyone should be allowed to say racial slurs.

By racial slurs I mean Nigger,cracker,etc. Lets look at this way,racial slurs are just words. Words can't hurt you. Why because words can't physically harm someone. You might say it might mentally harm someone. The thing is a person can ignore the words. Why should we pity someone who makes the word harm them? Freedom of speech is very powerful in America. It allows people to say what they want with no repercussions from the government. Why should someone go to jail for saying a word someone took offense of? If we do that we are limiting speech. Less speech means less ideology,less new ideas,and less creativity. Saying racial slurs is equivalent of a 9 year old kid saying f. a. g. g. o. t. Does it matter someone called me the N word? No it's your choice for reacting towards it. Why should someone go to jail for saying a insult based on someones race or ethnicity? Their just insults and both are at fault for reacting towards it.
Political parties that advocate Authoritarian leadership should be outlawed.

My opponent has not given a valid argument. She has merely mentioned companies, which nearly all are run in an Autocratic way. She hasn't given one reference to Authoritarian governments in her main argument, and by this, she is implying a country should be run like a corporation. My opponent has only mentioned Martha Stewart's empire using an Autocratic style of running it. She has not mentioned what strategy she used, or exactly how it was done. As well, my opponent has more bad things to say about Authoritarian leadership styles mentioning high turnovers and absenteeism. Unless my opponent can give an argument mentioning why Authoritarian parties SHOULDN'T BE BANNED, she has no argument.
Political parties that advocate Authoritarian leadership should be outlawed.

To I-am-a-panda, your welcome I'm more the happy to be debating with you,... Although my opponent has explains what an Authoritarian leader ship is he doesn't explain that there is multiple leader ships the definition of leader ship is the style in which the leader dictates policies and procedures, decides what goals are to be achieved, and directs and controls all activities without any meaningful participation by the subordinates. The style has its advocates, but it is falling out of favor in many countries. Some people have argued that the style is popular with today's CEO's, who have much in common with feudal lords in Medieval Europe. There are 3 steps to this type of leadership for example; The characteristics of an autocratic style include: Work methods that are dictated by the autocratic leader Limited employee participation in most aspects of work Unilateral decision making by the leader In fact, we might not think there are a lot of good things to say about autocratic leaders. This style of leadership is often very stressful on fellow employees and makes the work environment itself not such a fun place to be. But like all leadership styles, there is a time and a situation where the style is appropriate. As you all know or should know the communication style of an autocratic leader is usually described as one way. They tell you exactly what they want done. The feedback you would get from this type of leader would generally be unplanned. They would simply tell you when you've made a mistake. The decision making process is usually unilateral and they accomplish goals by directing people. Now that might not sound like the type of leader you'd follow, but there are actually situations when this style is effective. Martha Stewart built her empire with personal attention to each and every detail. Whether you like her or not, she was meticulous and demanding. She was also very successful in her endeavors and in using her autocratic management style. The down side is that some studies suggest that organizations with lots of autocratic leaders have higher turnover and absenteeism than other organizations. With today's emphasis on joint decision making and empowerment, employees just entering the workforce will be highly resistant to this management style. So the autocratic leadership style should be not be used when you want to get your employees engaged in the decision making process. Autocratic leaders are also not very effective in situations where your employees might become resentful or fearful.
Political parties that advocate Authoritarian leadership should be outlawed.

Authoritarian leadership: A form of government where one party rules and there are no elections Outlaw: To permanently ban The basis of my argument is that parties that would have an Authoritarian leadership should be outlawed because: 1. They are un-democratic: The basis that republics & democracies live on is that a party can be elected into office, and removed from office in favour of another party, on the basis that it's the true will of all of it's citizens. If an authoritarian party came into power, this is completely destroying the system. They cannot be taken out without military means of a revolution or foreign intervention like we saw in the Iraq war. 2. They often don't work for the people: If the people don't want the democrats in government, they vote republican. and vica-versa. This puts pressure on parties to work on caring for the people and catering to their needs. But, if a party knows they can't be elected out or impeached, they will often turn away from the people to their own goals. This can leave the people in a bad way, and will oppose any point my opponent may have in saying Authoritarians were elected in on the will of the people. Take Germany for example, when it became a dictatorship, the people voted in the Nazi's because they thought they would make Germany strong and great. However, this was thought to be achieved when the Jews, communists and other minorities became scapegoats. They led the German population to believe they had eradicated the problems, when all they did was kill and execute. 3. They are a danger to the international community: Let's say a far-right capitalist dictator were to be elected into France. What would his/her first action be? Probably invade Germany. There's no one to oppose them and the people suffer ultimately, and the German people suffer too. A dictatorship can have a terrible effect on both the national and international community. I look forward to Paramore's response.
Rap Battle Ten

Jimmy likes to battle, & he thinks he got the illest flow,He crams a lot of rhymes in but he doesn’t count the syllables. In the end, his verses just sound desperate. It's pitiful. I’m just being honest; I’m not trying to be critical.Half the $hit you've written here isn't makin’ sense, so I don’t even know whether or not to take offense. Are you somehow trying to have a laugh at my expense? Do you realize just who the f*** you’re up against?I’m like the clip in a Glock; I make it click & go pop. You’ze a b!tch; not a ladle. Can’t let you dip in my pot. They call my a$$ a volcano because my $hit is so hot. They call my sh!t jalapeño because my $hit is so hot.“Clutz” and “blitz”? That ain’t even a rhyme.I’m a stack of dollar bills & you ain’t even a dime.JimShady can’t even conceive any linesthat don’t suck d!ck. F*** him, Imma leave him behind.
Rap Battle Ten

Your rhymes are so cheap you gotta resort to underline Like I can't understand them, well yeah, they're under mine... You barely get doubles, and when you do it's stutter time My insults hardcore, yours are weak, so you mutter rhymes You butt hurt guy, rapping 'bout how you the devil Like you a bad bjtch Muslim with a nuke from Aleppo... You got a shrieking voice, weakling boy, I got tunes and treble And anytime you listen to my raps, you will revel. Screw your level, I go up to heaven with my flow, You come in steppin' on my toe, then I pull a weapon on you, h0e Shoot bullets, I'm wreckin'on this joke, need a blessin' for your hope? I'm reppin' for my home, while you discredit your abode. Your left in slow-mode, because we gotta slick spitter here! You got me freaked out talkin' about djcks gizzing, queer... I got you shaking in fronta' the screen, I'm instilling fear Better get out this battle now 'cause Jim's killing steers... I'll go tame the squonk and smoke my blunt and go open some vag... While you lamely talk about pokin' butts with no lotion, dumb f@g.
Rap Battle Ten

F*ck JimShady like we're makin’ a baby.I blow up in his p*ssy, jizzin' thicker than gravy.You think you can defeat me? Nah. Not even maybe;I run this rap game & you could never outplay me.You rhyme about p*ssy but you’ve probably never seen one.I rhyme about p*ssy. Unlike you, I’ve never been one.F*ck the Christian God. Worship me; I’m the Supreme One.Catholic f*ck boy, go to church & have some clean fun.If this a "death sentence" then why am I still breathing,and still making fun of the Saviour you believe in?“Lord, save this atheist. Please help me redeem him!”That sh!t won’t work; I’m a mother*cking demon.I flow like an ocean, got all these b!tches soakin’Fast-forward rhymes; all your sh!t in slow-motion.You think your flow’s “lit”? Homie, where’d you get that notion?I f*ck JimShady in the a$$ with no lotion.
Rap Battle Ten

squonk's waiting to fight me, but I don't know why He must want his @ss kicked so hard he'll go cry To accept this challenge is a death sentence, so die Zapped in a lyrical electric chair, zapped by my dope rhymes "Oh my, I'm up against squonk, how will I ever win this?!!?" Just jokin', you're the one who's gonna be afraid and shjt bricks I know you dig this (big djcks), dip shjt, hear my flow? It's lit- I write paragraphs, you write tidbits, apply lipstick, and sniff shjt What is with this website bein' full of butt hurt atheists Hard to set right you folks, day after another day we blitz Instead of a web fight I could utter the name Jesus But like an edge knife I wanna cut butter and slay this clutz Your profile pic is a rabbit, but your slow like a Star Wars GONK Make it a turtle so I can pass it, you sing such a slow song My flow is absolutely rapid, your flow is red juice on a thong Got you heaving and gasping, shoulda known better, squonk...
Rap Battle Ten

This is the tenth rap battle so I wanna make it special. By special I mean freakin' long, there's gonna be R1 acceptance and then Rounds 2,3,4,5 are gonna be lit with fire. (Note: only accept this if you have extreme perseverance, it's gonna take a while and the viciousness will be relentless. Rules: 1. Absolutely no copy and pasting. 2. Write however much you want. 3. Go hard
Rap Battle Ten

You think that I’m butt-hurt?My dick’s going up skirts into your mom’s pu$$yand I’m making the slut squirt.All you spit is beginner rhymes. Eat a d!ck like it’s dinnertime.F*ck you up to the finish line;I’m as cold as the wintertime.You can’t even talk now; got you choking the c0ck down.& I could just stop now;‘cuz I got this on lockdown.Keep going; I got time!Speeding past all the stop signs.Make you suck on the Glock 9.Leave your a$$ in a chalk line.Your rhythm’s all f*cked up.Your flow is retarded.Your near-rhymes don’t cut it.I’ll pull you apart withMY claws. You can’t maul me, can’t stop me or stall me.You never could beat me;your verses appall me.Let’s check the votes & we’ll see what they say.Thanks for the battle & have a nice day.
Rap Battle Ten

You stepped up the rhyming, congrats son You finally grew a pair. But now that you're past it, and that's done, It is now time... loose the bear!!! In this gladiator match you'll be mauled with my claws The crowds watch as your shredded and bawl and can't crawl Think you stand tall? This man's wrong, his rant's long but is nuthin' but shjt, I'm cuttin' this bjtch in my grand song Girls take pants OFF when I spit, but hear you and zip up. from you they run, skid dust, with me they give lust, in love It's tough? Give up? You got more? Well bjtch, 'nough. You keep talkin' in vain, and know that nobody will tip ya. It's done, my rap is over... hmm, did YOU even start? It won't be hard for voters to decide, I'm seething smart! What an easy match, knocked you out- you seeing stars? This boxing match is over, enough of your weakling spars. Jim Shady aint disturbed by your third grade crap Instead he victored already on the first day raps