BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Music Debate

Pink Floyd-Speak To Me/Breathe/On The Run/Time/(Breathe Reprise)Breathe, breathe in the air. Don't be afraid to care. Leave, but don't leave me. Look around and choose your own ground. Long you live and high you fly, and smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry. And all you touch and all you see, is all your life will ever be. Run, rabbit run. Dig that hole, forget the sun, And when at last the work is done, don't sit down it's time to dig another one. For long you live and high you fly, but only if you ride the tide, And balanced on the biggest wave, you race towards an early grave. -------------------------------- Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day You fritter and waste the hours in an offhand way. Kicking around on a piece of ground in your home town Waiting for someone or something to show you the way. Tired of lying in the sunshine staying home to watch the rain. You are young and life is long and there is time to kill today. And then one day you find ten years have got behind you. No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun. So you run and you run to catch up with the sun, but it's sinking, Racing around to come up behind you again. The sun is the same in a relative way, but you're older, Shorter of breath and one day closer to death. Every year is getting shorter, never seem to find the time. Plans that either come to naught, or half a page of scribbled lines. Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way. The time is gone, the song is over, thought I'd something more to say. -------------------------------- (reprise) Home, home again. I like to be here when I can. When I come home cold and tired, It's good to warm my bones beside the fire. Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, Calls the faithful to their knees, To hear the softly spoken magic spells.
Music Debate

"Darkness. Explosions in this darkness. Harmonies suddenly broken off. Harsh sounds. Depressurized soundings. The music will give the impression of a distant cataclysm and will fill the room, falling as from vertiginous heights. Chords will originate in the sky and then deteriorate, going from one extreme to the other. Sounds will fall as if from very high, then suddenly stop and spread out in bursts, forming vaults and parasols. Tiers of sounds"Jhon Cage - 4'55"
Another Rap battle

nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Another Rap battle

Wells, you're so freaking short I'm pretty sure your mom's from Hogwarts Maybe if you didn't look like a stoner, You might have a bigger boner Man, I'm pretty sure your so small The mannequins are bigger at the mall Jeez, you raped Josh with so much force, No Wells, that's not real intercourse. You actually have to pay people to have sex That "girl" was actually a guy named Rex. See, you really need to concentrate I know it's hard to find your di*k to masturbate. See, while i'm sitting here being a genius You're having difficulties finding your own Penis Hold on, did you look up your *ss? I didn't think you could hold that much mass Just wait till he get's to your p*ssy lips For once you might actually get a tip And yet, you call me dumb? I could get you to shove it up your own bum. Now when you finally wipe that jizz off your face, You'll understand that I just put you in your place.
It's time to bring back open days at lunatic asylums

This is, of course, in response to my opponent's replies to the questions and points I presented earlier. 1. Do you see an Asylum as a safe haven or a prison? The entire point is to give the insane a shelter where they may interact with other people happily and healthily. In the book Mad In America, it explains a period of time that can be referred to as the "Golden Age of Insane Treatment", it was a time of respect and agreement with the mentally ill. This period was founded by the Quaker society, which remained secluded from others whom were not their own. (A likely reason that they found their own solutions to many problems, including the insane.) They rejected modern medical treatment for the disabled as it went against the teachings of morality. (Nearly drowning, beating, bleeding, terrifying, and binding to chairs roped to the ceiling to spin around.) Now while I disagree with practically everything in the Bible, I can't say that the Quakers were bad- as a child I was raised in a Friend's Church, they taught that Jesus was within everyone, thus everyone was equal. The Quakers didn't view homosexuality as a sin, nor did they consider ethnicity a relevant matter; accepting of the disorderly began the creation of Quaker Asylums. "It isn't a matter of the patients fearing and obeying us, instead to love and understand us, a we must do with them." One French psychologist shortly after the events of The Bloody Revolution, stated, "The insane were some of the greatest human beings I have ever met, inquisitive and talented, morally spectacular people. I shall never be moved as much as I was those years of my life. For, rather than the scum of society, they were it's shining stars." 2. Retarded? I believe my opponent is confusing many of the aspect of the various branches of mental illness. I simply believe that a asylum is for those that cannot operate in society without the possibility of harming themselves, others, or they seek help. There are many more preferable means of coping with retardation than that which is given at asylums. You seem to think that if we open the gates to alternatives than everyone will scramble to appease their appetite for release. I truly believe that if that's what the mass is like than not only is the ill superior in most ways, but we should move society to them as they are much more capable. (Just think about how effective it would be; a schizophrenic in charge of security, OCD file organizers, and Bipolar drama producers!) 3. That sounds strikingly similar to the "Terrify to Treat" which was regarded the most effective method of treatment, uh, a hundred years ago. Only it demeans the patients to mere dogs. Actually the two are the same. 4. Wow. I respect you as a good debater, and I consider you a fellow human but, wow. Another treatment is talking about problems, stress balls, a healthy sexual life, other non-sociopath means. 5. No, thank you!
It's time to bring back open days at lunatic asylums

Firstly, on the subject of morality, I think it is important to remember that this is merely a competition and the views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the actual views held by the contenders. With this in mind, I would urge you not to judge my opponent too harshly for his apparent callous desire to deprive financially-disadvantaged little kiddies of what could be their only regular treat in life: a lovely trip out to see the loonies. Now, I would like to address my opponent's contentions in turn as follows: 1. MISUSING A MEDICAL CENTER FOR CHEAP ENTERTAINMENT This statement is totally misleading. I did not propose misusing a medical center for cheap entertainment; I proposed misusing a medical center for FREE entertainment. Furthermore, I didn't suggest anything as cruel as my opponent's nursing home abuse scenario: as the BBC report I referred to in the opening round stated, visitors would be "permitted to bring sticks to poke and enrage inmates", that is to say, they would use the sticks to goad the more placid nutters into going bonkers, not to hurt them. 2. WHAT ABOUT THE FAMILIES: My opponent points out that some of the inmates' families might be unhappy about people coming and baiting their retarded relatives, but he ignores the plight of the many more deprived families for whom gawping at insane people may be their sole source of entertainment. In the final analysis, the greatest amount of good should be for the greatest number of people. 3. WHAT A WASTE: It may well be true that some inmates will recover from mental illness and be released into society: I'm not a doctor so I don't know whether interactive open days would either help or hinder their recovery; but I suspect that many mental patients would be incentivised to get better by dreaming of the day when they can return to the asylum as an ordinary member of the public to aggravate their former housemates. 4. KINDA AGAINST THE WHOLE IDEA OF "TREATMENT": Have you ever wondered how people end up in lunatic asylums in the first place? A good many of the inmates are probably admitted after having nervous breakdowns caused by stress, and a great way to release stress would be to go and laugh at mental patients going doolally: they say ‘prevention is better than cure', don't they? 5. FTW Thank you.
It's time to bring back open days at lunatic asylums

Well, given the fact that those practices were some of the most publicly humiliating and sickening events since Ancient Rome, when citizens would gather to witness (with much excitement, I might add) the poor be ripped to shreds. Only with this it's towards the mentally ill to whom treatment has been promised. Besides the basis of morality that I have so far pressed, let's examine the stupendous amount of logical fallacies that your argument brings to the table. (Mmm, food.) 1. MISUSING A MEDICAL CENTER FOR CHEAP ENTERTAINMENT: Why does it appeal to you, to turn a Mental Care Facility into a Human Petting Zoo? This is on the same level as traveling to a Nursing Home with a group of psychopaths; beating the sh*t out of defenseless seniors, then drinking Chocolate milk on your victims bruised bodies while peeling off their liver-spots with a can opener! (I said no more moral arguments, but Come On!) 2. WHAT ABOUT THE FAMILIES: This is a thought that might not have occurred to you, but there might very well be people who love the poor souls you're torturing. So if people are paying to have their dearest helped, and (hopefully) live his/her life to the fullest- where exactly do you see a poking-stick anywhere in this equation? Sick person + Good Treatment = Um, life? 3. WHAT A WASTE: I know you may see it as "A darn shame" that we don't take advantage of the fact that there are millions of worthless punching-bags across this country, and how it should be made legal for anybody to violently harass someone who doesn't even know what's going on, for sick thrill. (America!) But on the other hand, doesn't it seem a waste to torment someone who could be a wonderful addition to society? Also, you may even go the extra mile and develop a new mental disorder in your name! 4. KINDA AGAINST THE WHOLE IDEA OF "TREATMENT": If trying to treat a schizophrenic to overcome their fears and mistrust, would you: A.) Talk to them on a daily basis to try to get to the source of the problem; assigning them pills to lessen stress. B.) Try stretching and exercise routines to loosen them up every week, prior to your nature walk together of course. C.) Throw rocks at them whilst screaming profanities. :D 5. WTF!? No seriously, that's it.
It's time to bring back open days at lunatic asylums

What families really need in these dark days of economic austerity is something to cheer them up. Obviously, there are lots of sources of entertainment: theatres; zoos; sporting events; circuses; amusement parks and so on, but they all cost money – and that's often in very short supply at the moment. However, the government is in a position to provide free entertainment to the public at no cost to the taxpayer. How? Well, in the 19th Century lunatic asylums, such as Bedlam in London, opened their doors to the public. According to one BBC report "People used to visit Bedlam to see the lunatics - there were 96,000 visits in 1814. Entry was free on the first Tuesday of the month. Visitors were permitted to bring sticks to poke and enrage inmates." (1) What great fun that must have been, and there's no reason why mental institutions couldn't open their doors to the public again. Imagine what a lovely time the kids would have down at the loony bin taunting the nutters with sticks – I bet some of those mental cases would be much funnier than any clown - and all that fun and frivolity would be for free! So why not? It costs a lot of money to house and feed mental patients and it's time the taxpayers got something back – it's time to bring back open days at lunatic asylums. Thank you. (1) http://news.bbc.co.uk... http://www.youtube.com...
Terrorism in general will be best defeated by military means (war).

Since I am Con I will allow my oppenent to provide his/her case for why terrorism will be best defeated by war, and then rebutt. They must prove that war is the best solution, and that other options are not sufficient in order to win this debate. No semantics please. Academic Consensus Definition: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).
Ban Bossy is a Ridiculous Campaign

Very short rebuttal amount to work with, but here’s what I will say. 1. You completely dismissed the rest of the paragraph and nitpick it to your advantage. The thing is though, as much as the idea of it can ‘help’ both genders, the entirety of the movement with its specific message including the banning of the word is what makes it a total joke and that it is open to public ridicule. 2. Well they apparenly did not try hard enough. You didn’t even provide a rebuttal to the entire section, including my mention of government ‘involvement’, nor the alcohol ban comment. 3. If a serious movement failed, public reaction differs and some may find it laughable, and some may not. That’s just the reaction of the public using different emotions. Also, your KKK comment was incredibly irrelevant and doesn’t contribute anything constructive to the conversation, along with the dhmo. org mention … In conclusion: My opponent has failed to provide reasonable or constructive, let alone specific-topic based sources outside of definitions. I’ve already shown my reasoning for why this movement is a joke and is laughable, but have noted that public reactions do differ, but it’s still a reaction that is reasonable and supported by my arguments and sources that I provided.
Ban Bossy is a Ridiculous Campaign

Rebuttals:"The punchline of it is that they are focusing on something that really should not be the primary focus, and ended up creating a feminist movement that is truly a first-world problem, especially because all genders can face such criticism."So.....this movement can help both genders, and it currently is supposed to help only one, and that is worthy of ridicule?? How?The video: even if they didn't look at the entire picture, at least they tried!! Misleading information: Well, it's not meant to be a joke. It's a serious movement that failed shortly, and that is not laughable. If the KKK failed to convey their message, that in now way would be laughable.Now THIS is laughable: dhmo.org
Ban Bossy is a Ridiculous Campaign

I would say that my opponent had not followed the guidelines I set in place for what will be involved in each round, however it may have been kinda difficult to do it that way since we both are on opposing sides which would call for rebuttals, so let’s just continue from here. Let me just clarify that the reason I say ‘ridiculous’ in terms of ‘worthy of ridicule’ or the verb form meaning ‘to make fun of’ is because the movement is really just a big joke. That’s all it really is. It takes a topical subject, takes celebrities to sponsor it that that within itself proves a bit strange due to the success of those stars, regardless of criticism, and tries to push an agenda to censor people when in reality, what should be done is to focus on girls still taking leadership roles and not let criticism or insults put them down so negatively. The punchline of it is that they are focusing on something that really should not be the primary focus, and ended up creating a feminist movement that is truly a first-world problem, especially because all genders can face such criticism. My rebuttals: 1. It makes women seem more like the victim than a potential leader. I already addressed the first part of your rebuttal by including the previous paragraph. I also do not understand what point you are trying to prove, especially with the fact that the ridicule it’s given is not within limiting it with the goal in mind, but with how it was portrayed and started. 2. The video itself and who's involved I kind of see what you mean, but I’m talking about the video here and the people, not the movement entirely in this section. The thing about government involvement with this is that with topical subjects like ‘The Pay Gap Myth’[1] and the statistics involved with education and how women are actually doing better in academics[2], how is there a lack of any form of government involved that didn’t end up having them make a fool out of themselves by not looking at the entire picture? Also, how are you so sure that the alcohol ban being unsuccessful wasn’t laughed at? 3. The sources themselves 1. Yes, I am basically saying that the website used that fallacy. 2. You are comparing something to a source completely outside the conversation. Websites like this cherry-pick data to support their argument, and instead ignore the entire picture, which is why the statistics are an issue. Due to the arguments given in the video, it’s likely that ‘engines’ have promoted these statistics purposefully to further their agenda regardless of outdated or misleading information, and that’s the true issue about these statistics and why it contributes to this movement being a joke. ... In conclusion, I have shown so far with my rebuttals and observations of why this movement is in fact a joke, and deserves the ridicule it is getting because of its misleading information for a cause that is topical. Back to you, mate. … Sources: [1] http://www.consad.com... [2] http://dontneedfeminism.tumblr.com... (K-12 Section of interest)
Ban Bossy is a Ridiculous Campaign

First of, I define ridiculous as "causing or worthy of ridicule or derision; absurd; preposterous; laughable" as shown in http://dictionary.reference.com....Now, onto the rebuttals:1. It makes women seem more like the victim than a potential leader.Okay, so how is this preposterous or laughable? Yes, you prove this campaign has negative effects, but bad effects does not always equal to being "worthy of ridicule or derision". In fact, ridicule is to "make fun of", but your campaign bans the word "bossy", in fact, limiting ridicule. You have only further proven my point.2. The video itself and who's involved Again, if the campaign is not successful, that does not mean it can get laughed at. The banning of alcohol was very unsuccessful. Was it laughed at? Of course not! The government tried to help its people, but everyone was too addicted. This is sad, somber, and perhaps even causing sobbing, the complete opposite of laughter. 3. The sources themselvesFinally, a point worthy of laughing. It would be pretty funny if I said "a user named 9spaceking said I'm credible, therefore I'm credible". Eh, eh? Funny, anyone? Now, down to the serious business. You are basically saying that the bossy website had the texas sharpshooter fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org...However, it must be noted that a long time ago, when Wikipedia was still stuck in its uncredible nutshell, it commited this fallacy too. Is this ridiculous? No, this website had only begun and it's free, with nearly no one helping them. In fact, the lack of good articles caused many professors to gather together and revising Wikipedia, so that now, most of the articles are pretty credible. So, if the bossy website notes someone not accepting their information and many people complain, obviously the main "engines" of the movement would notice and try to search for other more credible information to back up their claim. In conclusion, the bossy movement was not ridiculous at all. The third and strongest point my opponent made can only propell the people forward, as this failure can help everyone realize what not to do. I have rebutted all of pro's arguments.Back to you.
Ban Bossy is a Ridiculous Campaign

A little background here, the ‘Ban Bossy’ campaign’s mission seems to be a bit difficult to really understand, so from what I am reading about it, this is the best way I can explain the movement. ‘Ban Bossy’ was created to encourage young girls to become leaders by removing the word ‘bossy’ because of how it is used to describe women who take the initiative to be in charge. Now, there’s a great amount of hypocrisies and problems with this movement, so I am here to explain why it’s a ridiculous campaign (Based off of statistical evidence and personal opinions).1. It makes women seem more like the victim than a potential leader. By banning a word because it hurts the feelings of young girls, it completely takes away the fact that as a leader, you will be subject to criticism, including being called ‘bossy’, among many other negative terms that are a lot more offensive than that, but they seem to completely disregard that. Along with it, women are not the only ones who receive criticism, anyone regardless of gender who takes on a leadership role do put themselves in a position where positive and negative criticism are present.2. The video itself and who's involvedIn the primary Ban Bossy video with Beyonce, Condolezza Rice, and Jimmie Johnson, among a few other notable female celebrities, we see women who are well-known, brave, and powerful with the things they’ve done to get to where they are. Along the way, they’ve had to experience some level of criticism, as stated in the video. The thing is, what really should be addressed is how even with criticism, these women still went on to success regardless of what others said. That’s really what is powerful, and trying to physicially/figuratively ‘ban’ a word instead of what really needs to be focused on is just not the right way of doing it.3. The sources themselvesOn the ban bossy website, you will see a few ‘statistics’ that are on there such as ‘Between elementary and high school, girls’ self–esteem drops 3.5 times more than boys’ and ‘Girls are twice as likely as boys to worry that leadership roles will make them seem “bossy. ”Thing is though, there are findings within the studies that show these were cherrypicked, not to mention outdated. That being said, it’s just feminist propaganda that isn’t only misleading, but a bit hypocritical in itself when it comes to the people who came together to promote it. [1, 2]. .. I await your opening arguments. Sources:[1]: . http://illinoisreview.typepad.com...[2]: . http://www.tpnn.com...
Ban Bossy is a Ridiculous Campaign

This debate will be about a topical campaign that, as not exactly the most 'recent' of them, still deserves a discussion about whether or not it didn't end up just being a ridiculous campaign to continue modern feminist propaganda with discredited sources....First Round: AcceptanceSecond Round: Opening statements/argumentsThird Round: Rebuttals/New argumentsFourth Round: Rebuttals and closing arguments.Let us begin.