BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Socialism is evil

Taking from someone only to give it to someone else is stealing. Socialism by definition will not work without the redistribution of wealth by way of taxes. That being said we have to make sure we the citizens, Which really means the government are using tax money in the most efficient way possible. Students today want free college, And the tax payers should be the ones paying for it. So lets say college, Health care, All societal resources are free to the public. But wait now we have to decide who gets to go to college. We can't afford to pay for people who won't take there education seriously. So the government has to make a decision should you be allowed to go to college? What are your qualifications? What makes you a better investment than other people applying for college? Now lets not forget about health care. The United States has a huge health problem obesity, Diabetes, And a myriad of other health concerns that run rampant across our citizens. While some people take rigorous care of there bodies, Others have horrible diets, Addictions, And lack of exercise. How do we make sure people are not abusing our health care system at expense of others. Should we fine them for bad health? Tell them what they can or can't eat? Do we ration food to make sure no one goes without? Obviously these are extreme examples. We have to remember that in socialism the government has to play a huge role in the day to day life of a citizen. There is a reason why socialism quickly turns to communism. If the U. S was to turn into a socialized state we would quickly lose the rights and freedoms that we take for granted. Round 1 State your argument Round 2 prove it Round 3 rebuttal and closing
school uniforms

Firstly, Thank you for letting me debate this issue with you. I percieve that I am arguing in favor of a school uniform, and will do so. I concede that uniforms do take away from the individuality that someone can express, but Con has not shown why this is so important. I will base my argument on the divisions that arise from a lack of uniforms. The lack of uniform causes students to divide themselves into groups and cliques amongst themsleves which isolates some people from others. For example, rich people are able to wear more ostentatious garments, which the poor cannot afford and hence is a point for the children to discriminate. Another instance is when school athletes have their uniform and the jersey which apparently gives them a higher social status as they recieve more attention. Considered from an educational perspective, since we are talking about school, what place does wealth or physique have to do with one's ability to learn? That is why I propose to enforce school uniforms as it prevents students from discriminating each other on the basis of such, with such trivial matters that do not involve the educational purpose of school. Yes, individuality is being sacrificed, but I can simplify your voting to this one question: Are the potential lives of the poor,nerd or other social outcasts that are being saved is worth more than the individuallity sacrificed?
Democracy is a magic even with such large diversity with such large population

Hi every one i believe that democracy in INDIA is magic ,it looks like this fellow is mad ,but its true in my point of view.Because we have seen countries with no diversity are getting bifurcated ,but INDIA being a country with different religions and different languages ,still there is unity in diversity ,they want to form a separate state but never a country ,there is a exception with one place Kashmir .When we see the survey regarding ARE YOU TAMIL SPEAKING OR INDIAN ARE YOU TELUGU SPEAKING OR INDIAN ----------------- Its really amazing result around 60% say INDIA...which is magic with which is still maintaining democracy in INDIA ........
Rap Battle

Here I go again testing unknown waters Looks like this time I'll be battlin' some man's daughter My flows roll gently, steadily wearing down your strength with vocal EMP's, diseases, and supersonic speech. These MC's elegantly fall into disorder After I subconsciously turn them into hoarders, They can't help but collect every rhyme I provide and go to great lengths to share the respect they hold for me with their neighbors I send syllables in swarms. Make old ideas transform. I connect heaven to earth to join rose bud to thorn. These aren't shallow attempts to discourage you from speaking, rather cautionary warnings for the scene in which you're creeping
Rap Battle

Step up - check up - ya dental when I reck upOn the mic - my rhythm my rhymes are to delite .The judges into voting me to win this battle - ya only need to read aloud to feel my rattle Saddle up this ride is getting rough - never enough without the hustle of the cuss flo I reserve that for the muscle of rebuttal Pro has not responded to my last flo cuz he’s busy - now I sit and type this to myself I’m feelin dizzy Feel like Bambi did in disney when he couldn’t find his mom Where did I go wrong just wanted a friend to carry on I’m talking crazy cuz I have nothing to counter rap to Why’d moon make me act fool - now I can’t attack you. Can’t relate the fact true - I’d win without you eff effing Cuz moon left me guessing nothings left but I’m still questing To finish this debate rap just to honor what I started And to barter for a win with only writing this half hearted So I hope that moon is in the room and we can battle again soon - for now I leave this round shalom good afternoon.
Rap Battle

got me pullin out weapons - becuzz u can not step on mic 1, 2 check on - my effect on - give u an erection - - or correction cuz your intellect wrong - cuz my dialect on - I can spit direct on like an infection - words of this election - wanna get my sex on - wanna get my text on - in the public sector - I will be the next on - I pull out my weapon - mic 1,2,3 check on. got me pullin out weapons to step on your respect on my style my resurrection - you need to find direction - - or correction - cuz your intellect wrong - cuz my dialect on - I can spit direct on Like my deflection - of your misdirection wanna get respect on - wanna get my text on - in the debate sector - i will be the next on I pull out my weapon - mic 1,2,3, check on.
Rap Battle

She says she can't battle rap because she's not mean enough. Didn't ree-lize it's a valid reason to shove back for a belief in love She pretty much gave up after her first eight bars. and barely tried to adapt to the speed of my flows I applied acupressure to her mind and had her seeing stars so she retreated, fleeing to fight another time. I will admit. My phonetic ballistics have obtained impressive reach. Yet they pale in comparison to the defense imbedded in my keep. Look at what I have become, practicing iron shirt qigong, A model elemental son - Raised by the god that science calls a sun. Casting bright lights high into the sky for every species seeking a proper guide I'm the hawk that ate the snake swallowing it's tail I devour philosophies that for centuries gave civilizations thrills. Still I'm one with the life force that owns the tectonic plates who told Pangea to divorce into seven hostile states I'm known by my people for the good deeds that I've done So if you provide a potent masterpiece maybe you can join our fun
Rap Battle

Bonobomoon had a great round - very classy - much respect due!mine isn't the best metered rhyme - but it does actually have a triplet here and there that makes it hard to read - it does actually fit on a beat though.bold words are stressed - hyphens are rests - to get the flo and to also carry breath I bet u thought that u could beat me in a battle bettah bite ya tongue before ya brain begin to rattle just warmin up till I get back upon this saddle step out my way be fore your shattered - - I'm - - climbing up the ladder - - fry you in a skillet like the sizzle of the batter - - hit the pan and get flipped over like the dog named rover - - go - fetch- this battlez over - maybe even b4 it start - - -and you thought that I don't have heart? - hiphop's in my circulaytion - my goalz to save this nation but I'm paycing my hearts raycing and I pray for grace eraysing my past sinz so that I winz - my skinz feelin all thoze pinz - - - of devil worshipers with grinz - but I got inz to the spiritual my heart iz true to Izreal - even when the world is dizmal I'ma make it cuz I'm abysmal and take ya to baptismal. I'm not mean enough to battle rap you cuz your classy but I'ma murk the other guy you battled - lol
Interracial relationships/marriage are moral.

I. Preface Thanks for the debate Pro, in all honestly I didn't expect such stiff competition. Since Pro didn't offer a substantial first round I will use this round just to summarise my arguments and insert a handful of key rebuttals. II. Burden of Proof Please more the burden of proof is on Pro for this debate, so for him to win this debate his own positive arguments need to stand on their own two feet. Pro has spent most of his time this debate attacking my arguments, but does not defend his own. By doing so he has failed his burden of proof. III. Marriage Marriage legally institutes such emotions of possessiveness and jealousy. I argued against non-platonic relationships too, as the same things occur. Marriage just takes this another step further. Just 'liking' and 'disliking' things is not a good enough qualifier for something to be moral. I like Ferrari's, does that make to moral for me to go steal one? I dislike Mitt Romney, does that make it moral for me to assassinate him? No. I would also argue that the institution if 'trust' after being married is a false one. Why would marriage make you more trusting of your partner? There is no logical reason except for social/pragmatic reasons rather than genuine emotional attachments. To summarize, marriage and monogamous relationships promote harmful behaviour and emotions, and therefore all such relationships, including interracial ones are immoral. Pro has simply not refuted my previous points on this matter. IV. Human Evolution Pro does not contest that prohibiting interracial marriages/relationships would be beneficial for Homo sapiens speciation, mind this human evolution. I have already provided evidence they geographical isolation is a very powerful method for causing such changes, and a mixing population is bad for this. Pro contests only 15% of US marriages is interracial. This is an ENORMOUS number in light of evolutionary timescales (where thousands of generations are needed), especially when compared whit the near 0% interracial marriages that occurred before international travel was possible. This is devastating for human evolution. V. Pro's Positive Arguments Pro has not defended his only two positive lines of argumentation, and therefore appears that he concedes these. VI. Conclusion: Thanks Pro for this debate, the resolution is negated.
Interracial relationships/marriage are moral.

Thanks for taking my challenge. Here are my counter arguments: 1.) Marriage itself is not immoral: Marriage does not promote possessiveness of one's partner and jealousy by itself. Most relationships in are not open relationships. Many people in a relationship that are not married do not want their partner to cheat on them. Most human relationships may promote possessiveness of one's partner and jealousy, but they are not immoral. Cheating would cause emotional distress to many, so cheating is immoral. If an open relationship is wanted, then both members of the relationship should agree to avoid emotional distress. Marriage can be carried out at minimal cost or at least at a cheaper cost, so financial stress can be avoided. It is true that a large portion of marriages end in divorce, but many relationships end as well. The end of a relationship not involving marriage can also carry stress. However, people can deal with the stress in a healthy way, and the majority of people get over the stress. You could argue that human relationships are immoral due to the possibility of stress, but not being in relationships could also cause stress as loneliness could occur. Stress is just a normal part of life, but stress can be dealt with in an effective and healthy manner. Marriage does promote the breeding of children, but the majority of children, as well as people in general, do not live a sufferable existence as the majority of people are overall happy in their lives. Breeding has to occur for the human race to survive. If breeding does not occur, then the human race cannot survive, and then the human race would not be able to survive and be happy. 2.) Interracial marriage does not inhibit human evolution: The human race will still evolve even with more people of mixed races. The human race will survive regardless whether or not races mix. There are many people of mixed races today, and the majority are healthy and are surviving just like people of one race. Studies have shown that people of mixed race may actually have genetic advantages. Inbreeding is genetically bad, so it makes sense that the mixing of different races is genetically good. My counter arguments can be summarized: P1) Marriage is not immoral. P2) Interracial relationships do not inhibit the evolution of the human race. C) Interracial marriage/relationships are not immoral.
Interracial relationships/marriage are moral.

Thanks for the open challenge Pro. My arguments are twofold. 1. Marriage itself is immoral The argument is stated as follows: P1) All forms of marriage are immoral P2) Interracial marriage is a form of marriage C) Interracial marriage is immoral I don't think P2 needs more explanation, nor that it will be disputed by Pro, so I will defend P1. In defence of P1, marriage inherently promotes possessiveness of one's partner, and jealousy. Moreover marriage frequently places an enormous economic stres in both the married partners and their respective families,with weddings costing in the region of tens of thousands of dollars. Moreover a large portion of these end in divorce anyway, which carries significant stress involved in the separation process. Furthermore marriage promotes within society the breeding of children, who will lead a sufferable existance, and hence should be prevented at all costs. 2. Interracial marriage inhibits human evolution If we want to survive as a species, then we need an increasingly diversifying gene pool, with multiple sub-species which can carry on our genetic lineages. When humans were separated, with Asians, Caucasians, Africans etc. Largely geographically separated and interbreeding, then we had genetic drift occurring. Had modern transportation not ever been available then very conceivably these racial groups would have speciated, and become unable to breed with the other groups, leading to a new species capable of carrying on our lineage. However, by promoting interracial marriage, we are encouraging the 'mixing of the gene pool', and thus largely stopping this process of speciation. Therefore the argument can be summarized: P1) Anything that inhibits the evolution of the human family is immoral P2) iInterracial relationships/marriage inhibits the evolution of the human family C) Interracial relationships/marriage is immoral Case closed. Back to pro!
A straw has two holes

A straw has two holes. Not really sure how this is debatable. If you actually think that a straw has one hole then I hope you have packed your bags for Hell. If you were to cover up a hole on a straw, how many holes would it have then? HALF A HOLE?!?!?!?!?! I think not. So listen, cast your opinions and by opinions, I mean either being correct or a total slug idiot. I better not see any typos either.
A straw has two holes

Wow. I have never even thought of such an argument could exist before now, but what you bring up is a valid point. All I have to say is straws due have one hole, as a hole is characterized as any gap between two surfaces through a medium where there is missing matter. Basically, a hole is a gap where there should be something but there isn't. You could debate that a hole in a straw is designed and intended so a straw isn't really a hole in a cylinder but rather a sheet of plastic that has been rolled, or you could say that it does have a hole, but only one hole. The latter of the options is possible, as a hole can be characterized as anything that is missing matter, by having this hole extend to the other side you don't create a second hole, but rather just extended the hole beyond the second side. By covering up one side you still have a hole as a hole doesn't need an ending to be considered a hole.
The Death Penalty Should be Abolished

I agree with Con that the Governments job is to ensure safety and guarantee rights. Con argues that the problem with abolishing the death penalty “is that our prisons are already crowded so the government must let out some criminals to make room for the new ones. When this happens, more than likely, these criminals will continue the same path as they have before. ”This statement lacks logic. Abolishing the death penalty does not lead to overcrowding prisons. In fact those waiting on death row are already in prison and wait a great deal of time before being put to death. Likewise, I have not argued that the government should let out any convicted criminals to make “room. ” This is a strawman and should be dismissed. Con asserts that “The only possible way to guarantee the safety of the citizens is to execute those whom are a threat to society. ”This is a crazy claim. It seems that my opponent thinks that anyone who is a threat to society should be executed. This is crazy… It is not the only possible way, nor does the existence of the death penalty guarantee the safety of citizens. My opponent still seems to not understand that the trial for a death penalty case costs millions more than otherwise. Plus you add the years those inmates are held in prison awaiting death. Then add the cost for appeals and so on… it is a verifiable fact and sourced in this debate that the death penalty costs far more than life in prison. Con's source is twenty years outdated, mine is more recent and more accurate. Con’s final strawman “According to my opponent, it seems as if protecting rights of criminals is much more important than than protecting the rights of society. ”I never said this… Protecting rights is the function of the government. To do this does require a limit the rights of those who violate law. However, it does not necessitate taking their unalienable rights. Thus imprisonment successfully protects society while not taking away unalieable rights. Overview:People (criminals or not) have the right to life. The death penalty has caused the State to kill innocent people with taxdollars. The death penalty costs far outweigh life in prisonLife in prison is a reasonable alternativeDue to the inherent harm of the death penalty and reasonable alternatives, the Death penalty should be abolished.
The Death Penalty Should be Abolished

This round is for the final conclusion. I have successfully proven that the death penalty is reasonable and helpful. My opponent argues that it's a violation of the accused rights if put on the death penalty. But, isn't it the governments job to ensure the safety and guarantee their rights? This would mean by getting rid of those whom have committed horrible crimes and for those whom have taken other peoples life's. By banishing the death penalty, my opponent argues to keep them life in prison. The problem with this is that out prisons are already crowded so the government must let out some criminals to make room for the new ones. When this happens, more than likely, these criminals will continue the same path as they have before. I have also shown that "For each actual execution, about 17 murders are prevented, the studies show. " How could we see this as a bad thing? Life's are being protected with criminals, sex offenders and murderers are being executed. My opponent seems to think, that instead of executing criminals who are a threat and harm to society, that we should just put them into prison and wait till the prison gets full, then release them. If we did this, the cycle just repeats its self! The only possible way to guarantee the safety of the citizens is to execute those whom are a threat to society. My opponent misunderstood the cost as well. Life without parole is much more expensive than the actual penalty. As my source stated ""Many opponents present, as fact, that the cost of the death penalty is so expensive (at least $2 million per case? ), that we must choose life without parole ('LWOP') at a cost of $1 million for 50 years. Predictably, these pronouncements may be entirely false. JFA estimates that LWOP cases will cost $1.2 million - $3.6 million more than equivalent death penalty cases"So how can you argue that the death penalty is more expensive? According to my opponent, it seems as if protecting rights of criminals is much more important than than protecting the rights of society. Criminals are the ones who take away the "life & happiness" of innocent people.
The Death Penalty Should be Abolished

My opponent claims that the Death Penalty “lowers crime.”R1: Lowers crime“A July 2009 study titled "DO EXECUTIONS LOWER HOMICIDE RATES?: THE VIEWS OF LEADING CRIMINOLOGISTS" by Michael L. Radelet and Traci L. LaCock, demonstrates an overwhelming consensus among criminologists that the empirical research conducted on the deterrence question strongly supports the conclusion that the death penalty does not add deterrent effects to those already achieved by long imprisonment.” (1)Personally I find it hard to picture a drug lord deterred by the death penalty as it would seem more likely he die from his chosen life than our Justice system.R2: The Straw manMy opponent asks “Would it be moral to let these felons free, and then have them commit the same crime over.” This straw man’s my position. No one is suggesting to “let these felons free.” I have proposed life in prison without parole.My opponent claims “It is more important to protect our society.” Society can be protected without the death penalty. Life in prison without parole provides this without spending near as much and more importantly without the chance of killing innocents. The same cannot be said about the Death Penalty. C1 Right to lifeCon’s response to this argument is weak and very brief. I do think that we should protect citizens. I have not argued otherwise. Con has not shown how the death penalty protects society anymore than life in prison. We should be protecting all peoples rights. C2 Innocents Con says “18 is a small number.” Really!? A small number. 18 people who were innocent of crimes that they were convicted of, sentenced and then put to death for something they did not do. This is unjust and easily avoided with life in prison. C3 Cost The source my opponent uses for her argument is from 1997. Mine is from 2011. The Death Penalty may have been a cheaper alternative twenty years ago. This is no longer the case as is shown by my source. C4 A reasonable alternative Con asks “Why would we sentence more people to prison.” This is amusing as people waiting to be put to death already go to prison for quite some time. Besides it is not those convicted to life in prison that overpopulate our system. Those are drug offenders. Lowering or eliminating prison time for lesser crimes would vastly impact prison overpopulation much more than maintaining the death penalty. OverviewCon seems to think that abolishing the death penalty is equivelent to allowing felons to run free. This is not the case. I have proposed a reasonable alternative. Life in prison protects society without the possiblility of taking an innocents life. Life in prison allows security without paying as much. Life in prison is a superior option to the death penalty and thus the death penalty should be abolished.