BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rock and classical beat rap anyday

I hate Rap music from this modern society. I appreciate some of the old school rap such as the Wu Tang Clan. I cannot find any appeal in this new stuff like Nikki Minaj, Drake, Tupac and these other asshats. Rock like Pink Floyd and classical music like Beethoven definitely have more appeal than rap. Rap artists rarely have any meaning behind their music. The rapper I put most of my emphasis out to with this is "Lil' Wayne. " He is the absolute dumbest rapper I have ever heard of, his music is garbage, beats are off, lyrics mean nothing and are always about sex, his voice is entirely auto-tuned and his topics are not original. This man prefers singing about sex, drugs and alcohol over signing about tragedies, wars, achievements that actually help the world, holidays, death and such. I'm not saying all rap lacks meaning, it's just that 99.9% of it will. Rap has absolutely no reason to be here, it serves no purpose, it lacks meaning to anyone who was not born yesterday. People who listen to rap also have less knowledge of the meanings behind different styles, words and phrases by rap. Such as 'Nigger' which is never an okay word to use, but people think it is just because they take out of the 'er' and replace it with an 'a' which is just a pathetic excuse. The word 'Nigger' was used to label the Irish and then hundreds of years later was used to label blacks. Both the Irish and Blacks were slaves to others and were labeled with irons 'nigger' and such. Another thing that makes me mad about this word is that people think that anyone can say it as long as they're not white. If a White man says it, it's racist. If a Black or Hispanic man or even woman says it, it's not racist, it's a-okay, it's not, it's still a racial slur. Now, next thing, rap influences a new fashion style that really pisses me off, men sagging their pants. This fashion was originally used by inmates who dressed this way because they were anally raped and are owned by another person. So, basically if you wear your pants like this, you don't look cool, you look like an ex-con who got raped in prison. I am sickened by the influence rap has on society. When people were listening to Pink Floyd and Metallica they weren't singing about sex and women. They were mainly singing about tragedies, war and things that mean things to people.
Federal Minimum Wage should be $20 per hour for everyone.

I am playing the Devil"s advocate in this debate by taking the Con position. I actually believe that Governments are required to ensure that everyone receives a living wage, which right now, in America, should be at least $20 per hour for all jobs, including tipped jobs, e.g., waitresses, bar tenders, hair dressers, etc. Here is by Devil's advocate argument for why the minimum wage should be eliminated. The minimum wage should be based on the free market forces and no minimum wage should be set by the Federal Government. If the Market is only willing to pay $5 per hour, that is it. America has a Capitalistic Economic system where supply and demand determine prices and wages. Governmental interference will destroy America's economy; and, fewer people will be employed by requiring companies to pay higher wages than the market dictates. If people can't move themselves up the wage ladder by improving their skills, they deserve to be paid whatever the market forces decide. After all, America is not a Communistic economy. I look forward to hearing Pro's argument for why the government should be setting minimum wages.
911 was an inside job

With regards to building 7 NIST official explanation of how the tower collapsed was due to the failure of one column 79 . The damage to the corner of the building would not have brought the building down because if it had it would have fallen over rather than self implode. This is why NIST had to come up with a theory in which a central column failed resulting in a hidden collapse of the interior structure of the building before the exterior followed. The other buildings like you say were also heavily damaged but did not collapse at free fall acceleration through their own footprint. No buildings do . Does the NIST report explain WTC 7 tower collapse? According to independent scientists AE911truth.org the answer is no . The NIST WTC 7 computer animation of the collapse does not even remotely resemble the observations and actual video footage of the destruction in three main ways. A scientifically valid explanation of any phenomenon must account for the key observations. Moreover, a computer simulation does not constitute an explanation. It is merely a tool for determining and visualizing what might have happened if various assumptions are true. NIST has refused to disclose the computer inputs of its mathematical models. This makes it impossible for anyone to check their work. A more detailed rebuttal is found here. http://www.ae911truth.org... You made the argument that more scientists believe that 911 was not an inside job than there are that do .This is true but beliefs have nothing to do with science. Building 7 for example there is no scientific explanation or evidence provided for the 'collapse' of building 7 so if so many scientists out there accept the official story I would like them to explain how and why. Like I said most scientists havent even heard of building 7, If all engineers in the world saw the collapse of building 7 then many more would believe it was a controlled demolition.Most scientists that view the evidence and questions asked by ae911truth.org turn truthers the problem is getting them to watch it. In other words people are so brainwashed its incredibly difficult to get them to be open minded enough to even watch the video or look at the evidence. AE911truth.org has 2000 engineers and scientists many who are very well qualified and experienced they have provided scientific arguments and debates while none of the professionals you mention have provided any rebuttal or explanations to counter them.
911 was an inside job

Rebuttals 'Was not hit by a plane' Do you honestly believe that there would be little to no debris resulting from the collapse of two 110 storey buildings would not be sufficient for the destruction of a third one less than half the size of one of them? There are pictures of fires within the building, and the design of the building accounts for the idea that all of the support columns gave way at once, as the weight was piled onto the foundation, in which nearly a hundred thousand litres of diesel were stored. WTC 3, 4, 5 and 6 were all damaged, having to be demolished eventually; the World Financial Center suffered extensive damage; and the entire surrounding area was devastated, with roads, buildings and parks severely damaged by the blast. It is hardly strange that one of the buildings, which had nearly a hundred thousand litres of diesel near the main foundation supports, collapsed with the shower of debris and shock from the destruction of two of the world's tallest buildings. You have quoted or mentioned several 9/11 truth professionals in your argument. This issue is like that of climate change. There are three rebuttals. Rebuttal 1 is that it is incredibly easy to gain qualifications that certify a person as a structural engineer, an architect, a metallurgist, pretty much any profession in existence, and therefore the existence of professionals that support the ironically titled 9/11 Truth Movement gives little to no credibility to the 'theory'. The second rebuttal is that although many alleged professionals support the movement, they make up a tiny minority of all the professionals that say that the movement is wrong. There are simply not enough of these professionals supporting the thesis that it can be taken seriously. Perhaps if a considerable share of the total number of professionals supported it, it would have weight, but it is denied by far too many professionals. The third rebuttal is the simple idea that it may be a misapprehension. Whenever a major event takes place, there are always several conspiracy theories surrounding it, and these can be spread, especially with the internet giving a film of credibility to the mimeographed handouts by people wearing tinfoil hats in subway stations, and the easy spread of ideas. Naturally, some professionals may be deceived by them, and they can carry out experiments that suffer from an extreme case of confirmation bias afterwards. With regards to the links, could you please provide ones from relatively objective sources, rather than an Infowars-esque website, a website called 'www.911blogger.com and someone whose email address begins with 'lawson911' (the website won't let me put in full addresses). We need to fit in the motives as well; I think this debate was a little short for such an expansive topic.
911 was an inside job

911 had to be an inside job because the buildings were clearly demolished. WTC7 Enough is said by the video of the building collapse after I saw the video of the tower collapse I knew that it was an inside job. http://www.youtube.com... Collapsed at Free fall acceleration in a classic controlled demolition Was not hit by a plane Squibs and Flashes seen if you watch various angles of 'collapse' Eyewitness see dead bodies and bombs before the collapse of the twin towers and later murdered/disappeared http://deadlinelive.info... Massive scientific/media coverup of building 7 (my uncle who has an engineering firm hadn't even heard of the only high rise steel structure known to collapse due to fire ) most engineers/scientists have never seen the collapse or even heard of the building Evidence of extreme temperatures at base of building 7 and molten steel http://911blogger.com... No studies by NIST on the molten steel or explosives or incendiarys and removal and destruction of key evidence ( steel shipped to china) clearly indicate a criminal coverup and conspiracy.
You choose the topic

This is meant to be a fun, light hearted debate. Con will fffer three silly topics ( such macaroni is better than spaghetti, we should all wear bowler hats, pokemon is better than yu-gi-oh, etc.) And I'll choose the one I like best. If all of the topics offered by con are offensive, overly serious, skewed, truistic or otherwise inaccessible, then I'll choose a different topic entirely. No real rules, just don't be a dick. I reserve the right to expand on what that means as necessary. Hopefully I won't have to.
You choose the topic

(Crud. Work got the better of me and i had to give up Round 3.) Well, as fun as it is, and the amorphous nature of existence, some things are just a bit overboard, like a toaster on our head. As i mentioned before, it's dangerous because of all the weight you have to carry around on your head at all times. And with this added weight, what might happen if you trip? Serious injury, that's what. And if in the hands of the irresponsible, burns. The thing is, with this new toaster-head thing, it sounds like a fun idea on paper, what with free hot food on the go. When in reality, it's a battle against the toaster's weight, and yours in a balance contest. It's not so simple, just getting it in the toaster and waiting while you have to stand perfectly still, and make sure no one or nothing shifts you out of place. Pretty hard to do. Ah, but the risks are worth the reward, right? Not when the risks outweigh the balances. All in all, it's a fun idea, but it's far too risky to be an actual idea.
You choose the topic

We don't have to plug the toasters in, but when we do we will experience a pleasant warmth because of it. Ever been outside on a cold day and felt like your hat just wasn't enough? Simply find your nearest wandering electrical outlet and you'll be set. Not only will you have a cozy source of warmth atop your noggin, but also Bagels. We have to grasp life by the ears and scream in it's face - THIS IS MY TIME, I'M SHALL EXPERIENCE IT FULLY!!! Yes, Life will cower in trepidation as you foam from the mouth, a toaster atop your head - but it'll get the picture. My answer is the same for those who would be afraid of the ding-a-ling-a-ding-dings. Embrace the everchanging and unpredictable nature of existence! Know that when your study break is interrupted from the ding of another student's toaster you are sharing a moment in time that will soon fade away forever. You were trapped in your own world, memorizing things you would mind-dump after your test anyway - but now you are placed squarely in front the reality of your fellow student's existence. You are but two toaster-headed souls passing in the nights, and now you may share solace together through your common humanity. I am reminded of a line from the Incredibles - 'When everyone is special, no-one will be.' In the same vein, 'When everyone is ridiculous, no one will be.' Rather than taking away all sense of decorum from necessarily serious scenarios, we will contextualize the necessity of severity; that is, we'll chill the f*ck out. Con agrees with me that toasters on our heads would be fun. We can hash out the mechanics at a later date, but just having them available will be nice.
You choose the topic

No, because it would be dangerous to apply a toaster on your head, because if you leave something in it too long, you'll feel a burning feeling. And that's not good. Also, the sudden *ding* of some toasters may scare some people who weren't expecting it, and this may be a problem in silent areas where you're trying to focus. It would be hard to be taken seriously with a toaster on your head, even if you have a valid point. It would be fun to have a toaster on your head for the food, but where are you going to find a socket for your head-toaster, or the food to cook in it? It would be only useful if it was for inside use.
You choose the topic

We should all wear toasters on our head. Why not? It seems like something a cool bro would do. You want fresh toasty bagels? Bam. Right on your head. You want toaster strudel? Not a problem. You want to solve complex financial issues under girding equality in the western world? Bagels! But f'rizzle, in a world where everyone takes themselves a bit too seriously, wearing toasters on our head would ground us in a sense of humility and sameness. I mean really, a toaster? On your head? That's so silly. How could anyone thing they're above reproach when they have toaster on their head.
Baptism at a young age

Baptism is, in part, appropriate due to tradition. But there are more arguments for the Baptism of babies. Catholics do believe in the Bible, but not solely on it. The Bible needs to be interpreted by the Magisterium first. Catholics have faith through revelation (ie. the Bible and the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus) and through reason (i.e.. the Magisterium and Church). However, just because the Bible does not say to Baptize babies that does not, by necessity, make Baptism at a young age inappropriate. Does the Bible say to Baptize adults specifically? No. Baptism can occur at any point in someone's life. Also there are three forms of Baptism which remove original sin. These are known as Baptism by water, desire, and blood. Obviously Baptism by water is the traditional Baptism in which the priest pours water on the individuals head. Baptism by desire is when someone who never had the chance to revive a traditional Baptism but wanted one is cleansed simply by a strong desire to love God and their neighbor. Baptism by blood is when someone who did not receive a traditional Baptism dies for their faith. These show how Baptism at birth is equally as good as a later Baptism. However, in order to ensure original sin is removed and bring children up in the love of God, Baptism at birth is the typical route. Every human being is born with original sin by which a disconnect from God occurs. Now obviously this is not total disconnect such as would occur in a mortal sin. However, in order to strengthen your relationship with God and become fully connected to Him again, Baptism is required. After Baptism at birth, the child must reach the Age of Reason in order to sin. Sinning is knowing something is wrong and doing it anyway. Since a very young child does not yet know right from wrong, he or she cannot be culpable for his or her actions and is, therefore, innocent. Baptism at birth makes sense in order to remove original sin and, by doing so, fully re-establish the child's relationship with God. Yes only pure souls without sin can go to heaven. But basically everyone who has ever lived in human existence has sinned. So how can anyone be in heaven? Well, a part of heaven is called Purgatory. This is basically the pre requisite in order to enter the Kingdom of God. Think of Purgatory as a washing machine for souls where we are all cleansed and then permitted to enter heaven. So if a baby dies but is first Baptized, that child is basically guaranteed a place in heaven which is a great thing. You can think of Baptism, in this way, as a safety net for the soul.
Baptism at a young age

So, performing Baptism at a young age is acceptable because of tradition? I mean I thought Catholics believed on the Bible? The Bible does not say to baptize a baby. According to the Bible it states 'Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.' You see that the Bible does not say baptize babies. Also the Bible also states ' But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.' So, according to the Bible children have no sin, because they are pure and the only way you can go to heaven is if you have no sin. Plus babies, don't have the knowledge of what is right and what is wrong.
Baptism at a young age

Here is why Catholics believe in Baptism at a young age. Baptism at a young age makes perfect sense due to tradition. A long time ago, infant mortality rates were far higher than they were today. In order to ensure that new born babies would be saved from original sin, the Church implemented Baptism at birth (or soon after) to remove original sin. Even now, some infants will die. That is nature. So it makes sense to Baptize a baby even during the modern era in order to ensure original sin is removed. That is one reason why it makes sense to Baptize a baby.
Is soccer better than American football

During this argument, I plan on pointing out all of the problems with my opponents argument. 1. You get injured in football more often. The journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics just published a fascinating examination of emergency room visits for concussions from 2001 to 2005 in 100 US hospitals among kids aged 8 to 19. For kids between 8-13, 10% of all sports-related concussions were from football while soccer was at about 4%.. 2. You can run up and score in football too, and If you have ever seen a pro soccer game you should know that there is a ton of passing the ball. 3. Anyone can play soccer. For football you need a ton of padding and a specially shaped ball. With soccer you can play with as long as it is spherical, which most balls are. 4. Football stops ever time someone falls down. 5. In football there are specifically made positions for knocking people over. My opponent never attacked my first,second, third, or fourth point, and silence is compliance. Also I have a few questions that I would like my opponent to answer in their next argument. 1. Are you aware that people have died from football related injuries? 2. Do you have a source to back up parts of your argument, and if you do put a link into the next argument.
Is soccer better than American football

Against Soccer 1. Soccer stops every time there is a foul or timeout. 2. Soccer players can't take a hit. 3. They try to purposely hit people all of the time in soccer. 4. Not all people have hand-eye coordination. 5. Soccer games are the spawn for riots and terrorist attacks. (France vs. Germany) For Football 1. Football toughens people up. 2. Football has less running. 3. Football is a great after school activity. 4. Football involves more teamwork because in soccer, one person can just run up and score. In football, the line, the quarterback, and the wide receivers need to work together for a pass play.
Is soccer better than American football

Soccer is better than Football for the following reasons. 1. It's Global Popularity. There are way more soccer teams in the world than football teams. American Football isn't even played in most countries. And I would like to point out that soccer is an Olympic sport, unlike football. 2. Pretty much anyone can play soccer. All you need is a ball, and a place to be the goal(which can be pretty much anything from a real goal to between two points on a wall.) and some people to play with you. Also football is typically just for guys, while there are national leagues founded just for women's soccer. 3. Soccer is inexpensive. The most expensive items you need for soccer are the cleats and the ball. You don't need cleats unless you are playing compatibly and you can get a ball for like 10 dollars. The only other things you need is a jersey and shorts, and chancres. 4. Soccer is easy to learn. Soccer is pretty easy to learn, because once you figure out that you can't use your hands, and not to purposely try to hurt people you are okay. 5. Soccer is a fast-paced games. Unlike football which stops like every three minutes, soccer doesn't stop to often. Parts of Argument from http://www.livestrong.com...
Tobacco Should Be Illegal.

Thank you for starting this debate. Ob1- this should not be a legal platform but one philosophical argumentation Intro: men in the natural state are independent of one another, as far as as any rightful submission of one individual to another is concerned. Each has an equal share in freedom what one does with his body is his business unless his actions inflict on others freedom. You must accept human liberty whole or entire, or you must give up all cogency of reasoning by which to defend any part of it. Either it is a right, as sacred in one part as in another, an intelligible and demonstrable right, from which political justice and political equality intelligibly and demonstrably descend or else it only exists in the world as a political luxury. To renounce liberty is to renounce being a man, to surrender the rights of humanity and sen it's duties. For him who renounces everything no indemnity is possible. Such a renunciation is incompatible with mans nature: to remove all liberty from his will is to remove all morality from his acts. C1 - Kant - If a man chooses to smoke or chew tabacco it is a moral thing to do because that person believe it is right not taking inti account the consequences of his actions if everybody was in an addicts circumstance or would smoke socially and they would continue to smoke then it is morally just. C2 - Thoreau - People have an moral obligation to themselves to act upon their personal convictions. An individuals act of reason is what determines what is just and unjust, not the laws of state. No group of people can decide what is right mo ruler or group of rulers determine what is morally right. That decision is for the individual, and the individual alone, to make. There is no social contract people are only obligated to themselves and to accept their own concepts of right and wrong. Majorities are no better than dictators, since regardless of the form of government, the state forces us to deny our own inclinations of right and wrong.