BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Carbon dating proves dinosaurs lived tens of thousands of years ago

I accept. Pro has provided a link to an article on newgeology that lists radiocarbon dating results for a number of different dinosaurs, all of which are a factor of tens of thousands of years. They use this as a case for the resolution that carbon dating proves that dinosaurs lived tens of thousands of years ago. But is the article sufficient to justify such a bold claim? No. The absolute best case scenario for Pro based on the case given so far is that the article gets cross-examined and comes out the other end smelling of roses. But this would not prove that dinosaurs lived tens of thousands of years ago. If everything from the article checks out, at best it presents a conflict between radiocarbon dates of dinosaurs and relative dating done using various other radiometric techniques and/or with the use of index fossils. Pro would still have all their work ahead of them to demonstrate that the conflict should be resolved in favour of the radiocarbon dates.
Rap Battle

have me slain what you insane ill grab my glock and block your face with bullets just as i wrote it because you and i know it that when we talk trash about thrashin and slashin that its a basic clash between minds of tides with world flowin like they be growin in my basement just like the bucket of psycho active chemicals boiling in the brains of kids that spew teh crap they do as if it where a game where i win just as your donkey show is blown open by the nsa just like regan at watergate your through with your slew of words had their brains blew out by the end of this reign by my name
Rap Battle

Ha! Who thinks they can out rap me? I'm new, but I'm hard to beat. You don't know enough words to carry this battle on Cause I'm a pro, you are simply a con I know you'll lose this battle, you will lose at your own game, cause your raps are weak and your rhymes are very lame please don't try to out rap me because I'm delirious rapping you so hard and quick, call it Fast and the Furious.
Spongebob Squarepants Should Be Cancelled

"When I was younger I was smarter than most children. Watching the low res. Spongebob... Now I'm soo stupid..." 1. Grammar. 2. Your brain issues have nothing to do with watching Spongebob at a young age. It has everything to do with you not paying attention in high school and maybe even dropping out. "I probably know more about spongebob than anyone else." 1. It's a fricken miracle! Your grammar! :,) 2. Obviously you don't because your points are irrational and invalid.
Spongebob Squarepants Should Be Cancelled

"the same tests on spongebob is teaching children to be stupid." 1. Grammatically incorrect. 2. By, "the same tests", I assume you mean the tests I was speaking of before? So, what you are saying is, the tests they are doing to prove that Spongebob causes brain damage, is actually making more and more kids stupid? I completely agree. If they would stop their ridiculous "testing" and focused on more important issues, maybe the children of our society would be a bit more logical in things. "Screaming such foolish things at each other." 1. This, my dear opponent, is a fragment. 2. I am going to assume you mean the dialog inside of the show. It is true that some of the things that Spongebob says are completely irrational, but, a lot of the time, they have some kind of secret meaning behind them. "Though the main conflicts in the show are based on real world problems much like protects..but they are now taking into a joking manner and are no longer a worry" 1. Grammar. Is. Bad. Again. 2. You must remember that Spongebob started some 13 years ago, and these problems were an issue at the time. But, as the show got older, they simply joked about things from the past. "What r they suppose to think when they grow up. To sing a song and the protects will end. NO." 1. Grammar... 2. The show is made for little kids, you know....So, they are going to make it so that everything is always happy. In real life, singing songs gets you no where, but, by the time the child has grown, they realize that. I started off round 3. Hit me with your best shot.
Spongebob Squarepants Should Be Cancelled

I love the way u prance about acting like u know so much... We'll even if u did the same tests on spongebob is teaching children to be stupid. Screaming such foolish things at each other. Though the main conflicts in the show are based on real world problems much like protects..but they are now taking into a joking manner and are no longer a worry. What r they suppose to think when they grow up. To sing a song and the protects will end. NO.
Spongebob Squarepants Should Be Cancelled

"there has been reborts of spongebob causing brain cell damage" Viewers. This is 1: Grammatically incorrect on a series of levels. and, 2: Has no real proof. Have you ever heard of someone losing so many brain cells from a television show that they were unable to cope with daily life problems? Of course not, because there are no such cases. Even if Spongebob did cause a slight amount of your brain cells to die, it would be in no way as harmful as, say, walking by a gas station. The fumes from a single whiff of gasoline kill more brain cells than a 15 minute show. I would like to bring up another point, as well. There are shows out there that have brighter colors, louder noises, and more annoying voices than all of the Spongebob episodes combined. It just goes to show, why cancel Spongebob Squarepants when you could cancel shows that kill twice the amount of brain cells (according to Mrs. Obama). "Mrs. Obama says so, so i will beileve her..." Once again followers, this is not grammatically correct for a start. The next thing I would like to point out about this statement is that it is simply showing that my opponent is a gullible person with no facts on her hands. She is saying that she will go against Spongebob simply because someone else (with power) will. I find that an untrustworthy source. Mrs. Obama is not an expert on Spongebob Squarepants, last time I checked, and has no saying if it does or does not kill brain cells. Scientists and doctors have to prove her theory first. Scientists are said to have proved Spongebob Squarepants kills brain cells. They did an experiment on a group of children. They were sent to a television and were told to watch Spongebob for 9 minutes. When they turned the television off, the children, apparently, couldn't remember as much as the children who had been coloring or watching PBS shows. I find this ridiculous for two reasons: 1. No matter what you watch on the television, the moment you turn it off, you aren't going to remember exactly what's been happening in the real world for a minute or two, because you were just sucked up into this imaginary world where you could focus on something different. 2. These are children. Young children, at that. If you did the same test on adults, I'd pay money it would show different results. So, Kaitlyn, I have reversed all of your points. Please, lecture me on why else we should cancel Spongebob.
Should We Have Aquariums

First off I do not understand why this is relevant, but to answer your question. Yes, I have been to an aquarium. It was honestly inspirational. It inspired me to get all of those creature out of there. They are intelligent and beautiful creatures. Humans are too, but are we kept in cages. On display for lions or zebras to come to see. No because we are soooo "SPECIAL." I am honestly ashamed to be human when my own kind is doing torturous things to beautiful , helpless creatures. They speak exactly like we do, they all need to eat just like we do, so why exactly are they counted as not as important, as something that we can awe over, as something that does not matter as much as us. They are tested on, held captive, and even killed for human amusement. I say as long as they are getting held captive. Why exactly aren't we? And I don't mean because one of use commited a crime. I mean for no reason at all. Say you could breath water. Would you want to be cooped up in a little cage that will most liekly be crowded with a lot of other people that can breath water too? And be stared at in awe because you're at an aquarium. If I were a fish, I would find a way to rebel against people like you. The people who think that caging up helpless animals is alright. That as long as humans are being amused everything that animals are getting is just fricken fine.
Should We Have Aquariums

Yes, there should be aquariums. 1) Those Animals do get fed properly and is taken care of. (Maybe even better than normal sea animals) 2) It is safer to be in an aquarium. As a fish in the aquarium, you do not get eaten or fished out of your home. 3) Why were aquariums made in the first place? To let us see the animals. 5) Medical care, these animals have medical care that other fishes don't have. 6) Researchers use these animals to find new breakthroughs. This will help them help even more animals. 7) We are a species of animal...... True so are they. But as I said they are treated even better than an average fish.
Family Guy's Peter Griffin is a morally repugnant character.

This debate was not supposed to be about whether one likes Family Guy or thinks it is "the best show ever"; I enjoy Family Guy, however, is is evidently not the point of the debate. This debate was supposed to be about the morality of the show's character Peter Griffin. Con has not refuted any of my points regarding Peter Griffin's morality, nor brought up any points of their own. Saying that Peter Griffin "does care about his actions because he thinks twice before doing so too" supported by nothing at all must be a joke, because it does not quality as an attempt to debate.
Family Guy's Peter Griffin is a morally repugnant character.

I will be arguing that the cartoon character Peter Griffin from Family Guy is a morally repugnant character. I will present arguments and evidence that supports my assertion, and my opponent will have to do the same, in order to argue that Peter Griffin is morally sound. I will allow my opponent to present any arguments which are seen to be relevant to support their assertion that Peter Griffin, is not a morally repugnant character.
The purpose of hypersexualization is to increase the gender power divide.

So I have reviewed your post, and I have come to the conclusion that the following are your main points: -Women who have multiple sexual partners become submissive to men and gain low self esteem. This is untrue. There is not a single scientific study that shows this. In fact, in many situations, because it is the female that is 'letting' the male have sex with her, it is more the man's job to please the woman than vice versa. This gives the female power and would actually raise her self esteem. Also, surveys have shown that women tend to be the dominatrix more than men in bed. -Women think it is acceptable to be permiscuous and dress sexually as it is seen in the media, thinking it 'empowers' them. It does empower them greatly socially. They do gain a power over men, this is undeniable. Men only see a female 'easy' when she dresses like this but has very low self esteem (trust me, I'm a guy and I have talked about this with many other guys). It is women who do the slut shaming. -Permiscuous women become stigmatized therefore become disempowered. Only by other females. Most men actually think a girl outspoken sexually is cool and modern. There are bad men that manipulate women though, as there are women who manipulate men. -Sexual women makes visual stimulization easy for men to find. This is true. As it is for sexual men making it easier for women to do the same. It is easy to notice that sexual men are much easier to find than sexual women (men go without shirts around the house, at beaches, etc.). -Sexual women have a higher chance of being sexually assaulted. This is true, but this does not in essence lengthen any gender power gap. It does put them in degrading situations, for which there are many pre-emptive solutions (http://www.cbsnews.com...). -Sexual men are considered studs, sexual women are devalued. This is actually fact. Men must work to get sex, women do not. Women can just say that they want sex (no matter their looks) and get it. Men cannot, therefore, the sexes are 'rewarded' by doing that which is more difficult for each sex (for a man, getting a woman to have sex with him. For a woman, having the willpower to abstain from constant sex). If an army (males) can conquer any country, (defeating their resistance, similar to meeting a woman's standards for a man) that's a pretty good army, but if a country can be defeated by any army (a woman having impossibly low standards and having sex with any man) is a pretty terribly country. -Easy for men to pick up women, therefore they are devalued in the eyes of men. Not really. Men care much more about how a woman carries herself than how many men she has slept with. If she has slept with many men and is proud of it, that is all right. If she has slept with many men but is ashamed, she is seen as easy. -Women used to be sexually outspoken and blunt, but now are submissive. What? Not really. This is the most outspoken women have ever been sexually. See my rebuttal to your first point about women being 'submissive'.
THBT the gay rights movement should mourn the emergence of 'gay-bourhoods'.

Motion: This house believes that the gay rights moement should mourn the emergence of "gay-bourhoods". (Motion taken from: http://www.debate-motions.info...)Rules: This debate is structured like a CNDF debate. This means that its structure is as follows:Round 1: Acceptance, no argumentsRound 2: Pro presents two constructive points and models the debate. Con makes rebuttals and presents two constructive points.Round 3: Pro makes rebuttals and reconstructions and presents one constructive point. Con does the same.Round 4: Both sides make conclusion speeches (speeches that summarize the debate biasedly to show that one side won.) Unlike in CNDF, conclusion speeches go in the same order as in the rest of the debate.
THBT the gay rights movement should mourn the emergence of 'gay-bourhoods'.

IntroductionIn this debate, my opponent and I focused on two main points of contention. First, how do gaybourhoods affect homosexuals who live outside of them? Second, how do gaybourhoods affect homosexuals living in them? I shall show that my arguments have successfully proven that gaybourhoods harm all homosexuals. 1. How do gaybourhoods affect homosexuals who live outside of them? I have made several uncontested points to prove that gaybourhoods harm homosexuals who live elsewhere. In my first round, I argued that because, as a rule, gaybourhoods necessarily include exhibits of immodesty and lewdness; thus, they give homosexuals a negative public image and lead to social stigma. In response, my opponent argued that stigma would also occur without gaybourhoods, an absurd argument that was taken down when I pointed out its irrelevance to the issue; an increased social stigma from gaybourhoods could make homosexuality harder to swallow for mainstream society, and this is important because stigma could cause homophobia and hatred. At the end, my opponent could only muster a seriously flawed response to my point; they argued that they have shown that many minority groups have become more accepted because of ethnic enclaves, but never successfully refuted my distinctions made between gaybourhoods and other enclaves such as Chinatowns. Thus, we can see that gaybourhoods ultimately harm the reputations of homosexuals and therefore ought to be mourned by gay rights groups. 2. How do gaybourhoods affect homosexuals who live inside them? In my second round, I explained that since gaybourhoods encourage promiscuity, they also encourage the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. The STIs harm homosexuals both physically and socially; they are perceived as unclean and are barred from donating, say, blood. In response, my opponent asserted that I haven’t proven that gaybourhoods encourage promiscuity, despite me having done analysis on the topic in my arguments on social stigma. My opponent also claimed that since I couldn’t find a source that stated exactly what I said, I was wrong, while ignoring the fact that debate arguments could be also based on logical analysis. Thus, we can see that my opponent has failed to show that gaybourhoods don’t harm homosexuals who live in them. ConclusionAs demonstrated above, my opponent has clearly not sufficiently addressed my points, which still stand strong.
God does not exist.

http://www.youtube.com... I, the Lord of sea and sky I have heard my people cry All who dwell in dark and sin My hand will save. I who made the stars and night I will make the darkness bright Who will bear my light to them Whom shall I send? Here I am Lord Is it I Lord? I have heard you calling in the night I will go Lord If you lead me I will hold your people in my heart. I the Lord of snow and rain I have borne my people's pain I have wept for love of them They turn away. I will break their hearts of stone Fill their hearts with love alone I will speak my word to them Whom shall I send? Here I am Lord Is it I Lord? I have heard you calling in the night I will go Lord If you lead me I will hold your people in my heart. I will hold your people in my heart...
Rap Battle - Perussi vs. CosmoJarvis

What are you? Some parrot or other brainless bird?Why are you resorting to regurgitating my words?Truly, you're nothing but an amateur.Are you trying to offend me?Because all I'm feeling is a tad bit sleepy.See, listen here, Jack.You give me sh*t, I'll just serve it right back. So maybe once you learn to rap, I'll give a quack.
Rap Battle - Perussi vs. CosmoJarvis

Concerned for my mental health? Be concerned ABOUT it I'm freakin' insane, you better split All the exertion it takes to defeat someone of your skill is like a spit A person who thinks mother and bother rhyme, for anyone, is no fit You're no contest and instead of getting better each round you get worse You have no zest, you're only getting redder from each pound, i'm riding you like a horse You're obviously overwhelemed, i just dropped a quadruple rhyme Maybe learn to spot a pro that can't reck you in 8 bars next time
Rap Battle - Perussi vs. CosmoJarvis

Your only refutation is calling me a scrub lord?Is that the only comment that you can afford?A troll. So that's what you call yourself?You need to get checked, because I'm concerned for your mental health.I think you ought to go back to mother,because she's the only one who'll give a bother.Your rhythm: lameYour lyrics: a shameYour rapping is nothing,so go back from that murky cavern from where you came
Rap Battle - Perussi vs. CosmoJarvis

I don't refute what i don't feel like refuting I don't take on a dispute i don't feel like muting Nobody controls me or pushes me around You think you have me then suddenly your fleet runs aground You can't hurt a troll Because of the sick way we roll But i do lose control When somebody calls debate a rap battol What a scrub lord The lyrics of this bub are duller than a gourd I'm not even fazed You make me feel dazed You don't have pattern 4 4 4 2 2? this game ain't yahtzee, i'll kick you to saturn I'm gonna fill the house by recking you And that reference i just dropped ripped you in 2 My Definitions: Battol - "Battle" altered to rhyme.
Rap Battle - Perussi vs. CosmoJarvis

Quite the debater, right? Though, you don't seem to put up a fight. 33% win ratio? Not what I refer to as a "pro. " If you think you can win against me,you ought to take a knee. You're nothing but the size of a pea,So, while you still have your senses, go and flee. I don't know what's worse:Your debating skills or those terrible verses. Go back to your trivial affairs,and debate someone that actually cares
Rap Battle - Perussi vs. CosmoJarvis

Just me, three on one I'm 'Murican, i'll take on the world just for fun Mercilessly, like a gun I'll rip through your flesh I'm unique, new, i'm actually fresh All these b!tches calling themselves thugs Go around pumping people full of slugs Me? i just shrugs I spread peace Of bullies, i make my feast I'm stronger and tougher than all I'm a titan and i stand tall In the end my adversaries take the fall Being bad is easier than being good I'll annihilate anyone just like a badass should My Definitions: 'Murican - Someone who believes very strongly in classic american patriotism and attitudes. Shrugs - In the context used means shrug.
Rap Battle - Perussi vs. CosmoJarvis

Are you even trying? I don't even have to You sound like you're dying and your rhymes stick like elmer's glue Nobody'd be lying if they said out of the water you have been blew All you're good at relavent to rap is denying, anyone can see it too You're defying, prying, mystifying, falsifying The extent at which i believe a noob can be arrogant You're through, slew, strew, barbecue The extent at which you have lost is extravagant
messi better than ronaldo

Well, if you pay fifa or follow football, you must surely be knowing about the legendary goal by Ronaldo against Juventus in the first leg. I have never seen or heard of Messi doing such a thing. Secondly, Barca without Messi is NOTHING. They trailed 2-0 against Sevilla in a La Liga game and only Messi rescued them by making the final score 2-2. Barca, as a team itself grew in reputation only 15 yrs ago. Till then teams like Sevilla, Real Sociedad and Real Madrid (RMA) dominated. If you see the golden period of FCB in the last 15 yrs, it was around this time that Messi emerged. Even Argentina, sometimes cannot do without Messi. Sur, there is always Di Maria, but for eg. in the last World Cup final, Argentina lost to Germany 1-0 and they had only 4 shots on goal, all by only Messi and not even Di Maria came close. Messi even took a free kick and missed it. So, I think I have a fairly good argument against the motion. Sure, I woulld agree that Portugal has come nowhere without Ronaldo, but Real Madrid has. They are looking for a record third consecutive UEFA Champions Trophy and have alredy won the first leg against Bayern. And who scored against Bayern? Only Marcelo and Assensio did. When FCB lost to Roma 3-0, Messi never got more than 10 touches. In the first leg, Messi scored two goaals which won them the first leg 4-1. So I guess I have fairly good points against the motion that Messi is better than Ronaldo.
messi better than ronaldo

this has been a long debate, and I want to post my personal opinion, I think Messi is way better than Ronanldo, sure I can not and will never deny that Ronaldo has been a football icon of our era, he is one the best in this last recent years, no one can deny that, but the truth is Messi is so much better, I think Messi has a magic style that no one can do like him, the dribbles he does are just magical, the best defense that people that support ronaldo (funny thing only Madrid fans say he is better) but football is not all about stats and championships, is as how you play the game, Messi can score a goal dribbling trough half a team, goalkeeper included and let's be honest, Ronaldo will never do that , I want someone to give me good reasons why they think Ronaldo is better than Messi, also let us not forget that most of cr7 goals are by penalty or just pushing the ball and that is not something for the so called best of the world, without further to say,I would like someone to debate on this theme