BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ultimate Team War: Alcatraz Island

Unfortunately, I won't be able to complete this battle. Sorry mongeese...This was my team anyway:TV's TEAM01) The Invisible Girl (Comics, Fantastic Four)Abilities: Can turn invisible, can produce powerful forcefields.02) T-X (Movie, Teminator 3: Rise of the Machines)Abilities: Futuristic onboard weaponry, shape-shifting, can hack and control machinary.03) Scorpion (Game, Mortal Kombat)Abilities: Limited teleportation, spear, hell-fire manipulation04) Nightcrawler (Comics, X-Men)Abilities: Teleportation, shadow camouflage, spider-like grip on hand & feet, enhanced agility and flexibiliy.05) Cris Johnson (Movie, Next)Ability: Can see two minutes into the future.Since I have nothing which can beat your ocean pokemon thing, you would have probably won.I didn't learn, even after you've used the environment against me multiple times. >_<Cheers for the good times.
Ultimate Team War: Alcatraz Island

Okay! Here's my team:1. Mewtwo (anime)Mewtwo is a powerful Psychic-type Pokemon, considered to be one of the most powerful Pokemon ever.http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...(anime)He starts atop the Water Tower.2. Harry Potter (books)Harry, the Boy Who Lived and the Chosen One, became a powerful Auror for the Ministry of Magic.http://harrypotter.wikia.com...He starts in the Recreation Yard.3. Dark Magician (anime)The ultimate wizard in terms of attack and defense, actually the fusion of Egypt's most powerful magician and his own ka. Many of his spells were made into trading cards.http://yugioh.wikia.com...He starts on the roof of the Cellhouse.4. Link (The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time)This is the Hero of Time in his adult form, armed with the Master Sword, Ocarina of Time, and a slew of other items. He also posseses the Triforce of Courage.http://zelda.wikia.com...He starts on the roof of the Cellhouse.5. Kyogre (anime)Kyogre is a mythical Pokemon with the power to summon rain heavy enough to expand the oceans.http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...(Pok%C3%A9mon)It starts 100 meters west of the New Industries Building, 10 meters below the surface of the water.Well, tvellalot, let's see your team! Good luck!
Schools should be provided from the comfort of your own home

I will respond in the fashion my opponent expressed their argument:1) Students will fall behind the deadline point, and will not be told when they are wrong by a person, only a computer that basically says "Uh-oh, try again". Students CAN work at their own pace if they need to. Only thing is, if they can't keep up, they will be left behind, which is okay. And students will work at no pace if they choose not to work at all, which is not okay. 2) For one thing, a school is supposed to be a safe ground for students. In fact, many students report feeling safer at school than at home. If there is a concern with a child's safety in school, than the parents can pull their student out of school, or they can bring it up with the superintendent. 3) If a student is surrounded by family all the time, they will develop social problems, in a similar fashion when you don't socialize your dog, they are not kind around other dogs later in life. Am I comparing two different things? Yes, but in this respect, dogs and children are similar. Also, if the child is on the computer, they ought to be focused on the work and should basically have other people mentally blocked out of their heads.4) Students should learn independence, but they should also learn that getting help is not bad. I suffer from a problem where I don't ask for help when needed, like my father and my brother, because I was taught dependence. So, I am independent, but I also have a slow processing mind, as well as a poor short term memory, and a slow reading problem, so what would take the usual person 25-30 minutes would probably take me an hour. So, dependence is okay, just like independence. And, later in schools, students do learn self reliance. Students have to find their own sources for papers, and they usually, after a few questions need to solve math problems on their own. 5) There are plenty of technology skilled based classes like Microsoft Office, Photoshop, CAD, and technology isn't limited to computers so there is also woodshop classes and there are electricity classes. 6) Sometimes, a family should not be in charge of what their children learn. It can be very limiting. Children should be to exposed to all sorts of classes, ideas, hypotheses, sciences, and religions even if it challenges the families own religion. If I wasn't exposed to science and history classes, I would still believe in a god and I would believe the stories of the ark and other creationism stories that are painfully false in my opinion, and it all students should be exposed to all sorts of educational areas. Many people forget to teach small parts that later prove to be problematic.
Schools should be provided from the comfort of your own home

Online schooling requires a flawless internet connection. Also, eliminating the school setting severely damages social lives in some way. Also, at young ages from say 5-11, children shouldn't be home alone and if a mother and father wants to work, they cannot watch the child and they should not have to stop working for one reason. Also, if the child needs extra help and has learning disabilities, where do they go?
Schools should be provided from the comfort of your own home

I think you should have school provided for you or students from the comfort of the home because, I'm against home schooling but children should be on an online school because, you can get on their whenever you want. You don't have to go to a school meeting people you have never met. That's good but, it's alot safer to be on an online school because, when you're walking home with you're friend JimBob, and, you get killed that's really dangerous and upsetting. In online schools, you won't get killed and you can miss as many days as you want and not get in trouble.
Crime/Plunder is the easiest path to financial success

Interesting topic. My counterargument will be that while this could be successful on a personal level, This would ultimately fall on a societal level. 1. Frequency of Crime. While this would be an easy path at first. It's only a synthetic truth and it will change as the meta of crime changes. Once people catch on that this can be done, Then multiple people will attempt it and law enforcement will adjust accordingly. 2. Scope of success. Most crimes are not lifetime cash outs. Historically, Bank robbers are the best example of "lottery ticket crimes". Most bank robbers have to pull around 5 jobs during their criminal career assuming they never get caught. I'm actually not aware of anybody off the top of my head who as ever succeeded at multiple robberies on a life time scale. I'm sure there's a couple. Overall, While one person might be able to pull off a lottery ticket level crime, Such crimes would have to be opportunistic and therefore very rare. 3. Quality of life. Most people have communal roots of some kind, Even if they're loose. So for the average person, Robbing a bank or something like it would not be an option because they would likely have to change their entire life and look over their shoulder. They'd probably have to move out of the country in some cases and some people can't risk that. If you have to live in fear your whole life because one thing went wrong during the robbery, Then the ends will not justify the means. Conclusion == it's a short term plan at best. Your floor.
Crime/Plunder is the easiest path to financial success

The 'Plunder part I include due to some book called The Law by Frederic Bastiat. I don't think I ever read it completely, Though I tried to. Found it difficult for some reason I forget. My eldest brother recommended it to me. There is some line in that book. . . Ah, Here it is "Men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. " Anyway, This debate is regarding whether crime is easier than work in modern America. I'm taking the side in this that the answer is yes, 'tis. My reasoning is this - That a person only has to commit crime once in a spectacular moment, Seize enough that he never 'need work again, Or at the very least such legal work in the future will be trivial tasks that one does far far little work than he would have without his ill gotten gains. I'll agree with the notion that a career criminal is likely to be caught. But an intelligent enough person crafting together a single moment, Ought be able to lower his odds of failure to an enormous degree. He's not putting all his money upon red or black at the casino and riskin' all on a near 50% chance. He's putting together an opportunity of 97, 98, Or 99 % 'chance of success. In this modern world and culture, A person 'might put together a brilliant idea in some form of talent or product that captures the hearts of society. Ah, But 'might. A person might slave away for thirty or forty years and earn a retirement, But what a waste in years. What a drag! A shame! A slave! What an effort. Life 'is such a way we don't mind work for most part, Jobs are easy enough. Entertainment and living easy enough. Most intelligent people able to make there way through life easy enough, Succeed without reason enough to them to take the moral pain of physical risk of crime. So I pose this next thought. That most criminals are 'not intelligent, Which is why most get caught. So, It stands to reason that an intelligent person could commit and get away with crime easy enough. Most just don't have reason/desire to. So now I return to the debate. I say, There's too little chance, Though a safe investment in life to well by oneself. I say an intelligent person 'could get away easy enough with crime. And I Say that crime is the easiest way to finance for a person. If you have any questions or clarifications regarding the debate, Feel free to ask.
Rap Battle

How was that round even lyrical, those bars were just flat bad Half of it made no sense, and the other half was just sad You took 10 hours to come up those lines They still would have sucked with an infinite amount of time You lack talent, you lack skill, you lack the ability to write Your just another mark on my wall, time for me to live up to the hype Every verse that I spit is off the top of my head By the end of this battle you will end up dead Before a noob steps up to the plate to battle the king You need to get a bullet proof vest for the heat that I am going to bring Stab you in the face, bullet in the chest it will take you ten seconds to admit that im the best This battle is over and it was a waste of time Out of that entire last round, maybe 2 lines rhymed you wrote words not bars, and that sht is weak your at the bottom of the mountain, and im on top of the peak
Rap Battle

How dare you test my patience!Now I'm fired up and ready to beat your azz!You call yourself a king well it's time to be dethroned.Your castle's a fad and your crown is non-existant.You think I'm scared of the king of the lolipop guild?I don't need an equation because your bullsht is see though!Since you call this a massacre I guess your one of it's victums.I'm like Al Capone with an AK-47 I get it done.Since I major in crime I'll clean up the mess before your forensic friends come and discover whats-what.With time been enlightened I'm an S class assassin I have you in my sights.There's no need to fight.Put a bullet in our skull and make ya say goodnight.Have a nice flight!
Rap Battle

I love to battle this sht its like a drug I am actually battling a noob that thinks he a thug Guy just joined the site and he wants to battle the king Probably needs a few more seconds before he hops in the ring I can't even call this a battle it's going to be a fuking massacre A noob challenging me to a debate, the only way it ends is with disaster. He has no chance to win, and that sht is just the flat truth Call him abe lincon, because that would make me because that makes me john wilkes booth[1] Just that one line fuking murdered this guy Challenging the king, mother fuker has to be high. A bullet in the face and a knife in the heart this battle was over before it could even start [1] http://www.history.com...
Students should wear uniforms

It violates the first amendment because it says you have freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Both are not what you lose when you attend a school with no uniform. Racism and genders being discriminated is obviously going to be not allowed, because schools are supposed to be good places, and not places where people use racist terms. My opponent also says uniforms instill good discipline. This is not true, as many people don't wear the uniforms anyway, so therefore, get in trouble for not doing so. Students may look professional, but they might not act professional. I know many who have been forced to wear uniforms and they still saw jerks. Many kids take good care, but like all other clothes, have to be cleaned and it does not work well in the washer and dryer, according to many who have had school uniforms. My source is some of the comments on here about this topic: . http://ezinearticles.com... My opponent also says that students tend to perform better. You my friend are wrong. The two biggest high schools in my town are one that has no uniforms, and one that does. The one with no uniform gets better grades than the one that does. Going to public schools, I would still disagree because NONE of the public schools in my town have uniforms, and many of the students are good. And one last thing to bring up, they don't look professional in uniforms. In the high school that wears uniforms (I've been there for a field trip), they are terrible looking uniforms. They didn't even look professional. My clothing was far more professional looking than their uniform.
Students should wear uniforms

My opponent says that students should not be forced to wear uniforms because if violates the first amendment. This is not true. Schools are either privately run or government run institutions that have the primary function to teach students about well rounded subjects such as mathematics, science, history and so forth. When you attend school you lose several of your rights. For example, the 2nd amendment states that all citizens should have to right to bear arms. Should students be able to carry guns on campus based on the second amendment? Are high schools violating our rights? Are Jr. high schools violating our rights? Of course not. The first amendment also gives us the right to say just about anything we want, does that mean I can go around a school and use derogatory terms when speaking to people of different races, genders, and sexual orientation? I may be allowed to use the word, N*gger, K*ke, and F*ggot on the streets and it would be a violation of my rights as an American if I were forced to stop but in a school it shouldn't be tolerated and teachers have every right to punish me for using such language. In conclusion many of our rights as citizens are curtailed when we enroll in the public and private institutions of schools who enact and enforce certain policies to make schools have an effective learning environment. I claim that schools need to have uniforms to instill good discipline in students. It makes students look proffesional and forces them to take good care of their uniform as if it were their work clothes. When students are forced to take responsibility of how they look they look more proffesional. When students dress proffesionally and conservatively they tend to be more focused in school and perform better. I agree that students can experience bullying at schools with uniforms. That I acknowledge, but the Pros outweigh the Cons regarding forcing students to wear school uniforms.
If a Single God Exists and Is Responsible For Creating Our World, This God Is a Jerk

Ok your whole basic argument seems to be:God is all seeing and all knowing, so sense there is evil in this world God is a jerk right? Let's look at that claim. First of all anybody can see that we're both assuming there IS a God right? Now let's look at definitions. Since we've already established there IS a God, let's look at the word jerk... When you say jerk you seem to be using it as meaning "someone who does horrible things because he can for no reason". But using logic, like you enjoy doing lets now look at that.... what is horrible? WHY is it horrible? YOU might think it's bad, but since we've already established there IS a God than wouldn't he also define right and wrong? good and evil? horrible and not horrible? In your opinion he might be a jerk, but since He defines all things, than we can assume: A. Your knowledge of what a jerk IS, is wrong, and B. God can NOT be a jerk because he IS (as you granted already) "infallible, all knowing, and all powerful". If God is infallible than he is never wrong, if he is never wrong than everything he does is right, if everything he does is the right thing, than he does everythign for a reason, if he does everything for a reason than he can NOT be a jerk. You want logic, there's your logic.
If a Single God Exists and Is Responsible For Creating Our World, This God Is a Jerk

God created a perfect world, he warned man not to sin, they did, and he did what he promised he would. It's not God's fault it's mans. the wages of sin ar death.....not really a hard concept. Dieseases came after the fall of man, by man's choice. God didn't want to put them there but he said he would if man disobeyed, God sticks to his words. Except for on most floods are caused by the environment that God put in....and i challenge you to come up with a better one. If you don't want to get killed in a flood.....don't live near water, i don't see how you can blaim that on God.... You seem to just want ot strike out at God (judging from your other debates) could it be you have another reason to dislike him?
If a Single God Exists and Is Responsible For Creating Our World, This God Is a Jerk

~~~ My Main Argument ~~~ Claim: If a Single God Exists and Is Responsible For Creating Our World, This God Is a Jerk God is defined here as an infallible, all knowing, and all powerful being responsible for the creation of all that is. Somehow this God has managed to always exist and predate all that has ever been. Jerk is defined here as a being whose behavior is hurtful, self-centered, or particularly abrasive. My evidence is that God deposited some pretty nasty genetic diseases and natural disasters in our world, among other things. What a jerk, I know. Consider the disorder "familiar rectal pain syndrome" (Boy do you not want to get this) (1): "The disorder starts in the neonatal period (possibly in utero) and is lifelong. Its most characteristic clinical features are attacks of excruciating pain that affect various parts of the body, including the rectum, genitalia, face and limbs. In addition, other features reflecting autonomic dysfunction occur, including harlequin colour changes and pupillary abnormalities. Some patients with the disorder experience non-epileptic tonic seizures during severe episodes of pain. These may be associated with cardiac asystole." Now consider natural disasters such as floods. You've got the fatalities from drowning, physical damage to all your stuff, disease being spread, and damage to crops. All that sucks. That's that jerk God up to no good again. God knowingly created this flawed system upon which these terrible events occur. The fact that God has created both good and bad things is no excuse for the bad things that God does create. ~~~ References ~~~ 1. http://jnnp.bmj.com...
Federal Reserve System and the base of "capitalist" America.

Since 1913, we have kindly allowed The Federal Reserve System to monopolize the issuance of the currency market. The decision was based on the idea that having an oversight of such market would promise stability in our country's financial system. However, it has not carried out that promise at all. All it has created are a series of booms and busts that inevitably will drive us into the ground. That event is showing signs of possibility today. This system has become so commonplace that we have accepted the business cycle as a part of capitalism. That is not at all the true case. Money and capital of such that is the blood of any market, most so a capitalistic market. If the currency is not capitalistic or managed by its own market, then the system is not capitalistic at all. That is why it is not free market capitalism that brought us to where we are today and where we will go.
Federal Reserve System and the base of "capitalist" America.

I would like to begin by thanking Con for leaving out the ad hominem attacks in the third round. ---------------- Once again the reader will note that Con did not address the fact that recessions have been shorter and further between since the creation of the fed. This was not an insignificant point, and he chose to leave it unanswered. The only response he had on this point is that we have never had a true free banking period. My point that was before and without the fed, recessions occurred more frequently and lasted longer. If it is a free banking that Con wanted and was defending, he should have made a case for that. He never discussed how or why a free baking system is superior to the Federal Reserve. This debate was about whether or not the federal reserve had an overall positive or negative impact on the U. S. I showed on this point how the fed has had a positive impact on the U. S. Con did not have a suitable response. My opponent makes the claim that the long term consequences of both regulation and deregulation is recession, inflation, or stagflation. Again, he is technically correct - but only because the business cycle means that one or more of those are inevitable. The point that I have consistently made, and that Con has ignored, is that the Fed makes these recessions occur less often, they are less severe, and they end sooner. Finally, Con returns to the point of corruption. I made the comparison between the institution of the U. S. presidency. My opponent counters that the presidency is a public institution while the Fed. is private. Fair enough. But that does not defeat my point that past corruption ( or even current corruption) is not a sufficient reason to end the Fed. Since it has been shown that there have been positive benefits from the Fed. it would be better to reform it than destroy it. We can more closely scrutinize the Fed. to weed out the corruption, while keeping the benefits. ------- CLOSING ------- The only point relevant to the resolution that my opponent has made is that the founding of the Fed. is mired in corruption (and I extend for him that there may have been corruption at other points in its history, and it may exist now). However, I have sufficiently countered this point above. At first, Con blamed the Fed. for artificial boom and busts. He later admitted that this cycle is a natural part of capitalism. He implies that the Fed. makes them occur more often. However, he does not explain why, or why a free banking system would make booms and busts occur less often. Finally, Con did not respond to my main argument, that the Fed. serves its purpose of stabilizing the economy by making recessions fewer and less severe. This is undeniably a positive consequence of the Federal Reserve. Since Con did not make a sufficient case for the negative consequences of the Fed. ; nor did he make a case for the superiority of an alternative system; nor did he address my main argument showing that the Fed.