BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christian rapper (me) vs. atheist rapper

Alright listen, i know i've screwed up in the GCL drama with my sexist posts I stumbled in arrogance like the Assyrian king who conquers and boasts I know i sparked some controversy among members of the community Attemptin' to disrupt the unity to disunity at every single opportunity I know i was selfish with aggression, but in this rap session i make a confession of all the sins i committed, they're forgiven now lets all make some progression Isn't it ingenious? That before you could slaughter me as you get to prying that i nailed myself with Christ to the cross, the solution is spiritually dying (1) s://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com...; alt="" />Yes i know i believe in God by faith alone even if it means without seeing But you believe in the human being not by thinking but by emotional feelingWhy? Why are you always attacking the Bible? your greatest rival? Is it because it has the key to your movement's survival in it's primal? Philosophically, i thought light was stronger than darkness That lies were so light, they were completely harmlessBut knowing that Christians have something you don't bothers you Is it just because your just jealous that we can die for what's true? That we can stand for something whereas you fall for any and everything? Like a leaf that has beef with the east which is why you are worryingBecause you have no culture of your own nor is anyone on your side so you chill with a bunch of misfits refusin' to submit because of pride You don't believe God exists? Well i don't believe in atheistsScientists have just discovered that fact you just will dismiss (2) So stop thinking that you always follow evidence, just admit That your ignorance is as dark as primordial "mythical" abyss Whatever it is, lets just be honest, confess you have trust issuesNot with God, just with trusting yourself, now here's some tissues As soon as someone puts a gun to your head you cry "oh my God!" I should slap you with Moses' rod for being such a hypocritcal fraudWhat are the odds of you being just a human who is terribly flawed? Claimin' that you don't need morality well here comes the fool The one who greedily stole the golden rule from Sunday school Just because it's golden, biblical morals are upholden n' established You ramble on about your self proclaimed intellect not accomplished So what if i believe that God did miracles from Moses to Jesus I've yet to hear solid reasons from this "genius" and his thesis On why we should be fully open minded about his naturalism (3) Anymore than we should be open minded about Bible evangelism Sources: 1. Galatians 2:19 "For when I tried to keep the law, it condemned me. So I died to the law--I stopped trying to meet all its requirements--so that I might live for God." 2. http://www.science20.com...;3. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Having so many labels for genders and sexuality is good.

Of course giving label helps you find community, but, you are more likely to find community when using a more common label than a more specific one. For example, some people consider themselves demi-boy, or demi-girl, which is pretty much just half being non-binary, and half having a gender. This may be a term used to make someone seem unique, when they are more likely to find community being non-binary, or having a gender. (not saying this is always the case). Let me be clear, I did not say labels were bad, I am saying many of the new, specific ones are unnecessary. Some "new" sexualities are more like a fetish, or "a form of sexual desire in which gratification is linked to an abnormal degree to a particular object, item of clothing, part of the body, etc.", such as "objectumsexual", or sexual attraction to inanimate object. Labels do help express oneself, but you don"t need some new, and uncommon, label to do so, in most cases. As for your counter arguments, you have a good point with many of my points be more centered around specific people, you are right about that. I do not have counter-arguments to your counter arguments. PS. I"m sorry that this is half-assed, I am totally still busy from being about to graduate. http://poshhelpers.tumblr.com... http://nonbinary.org...
Having so many labels for genders and sexuality is good.

Today, we have many, many labels for different genders and sexualities. We have male and female, people who are both, people who change, people who don't want to be either. And we have multiple names to describe people who are attracted to males, females, neither, or all of the things considered to be genders. We have names for things that differ slightly from straight, like certain things in the greysexual range. People will passionately defend these labels and say they are real things. A lot of them are "real things" and should be defended. Others are unnecessary, and uncomfortable. Why do some people feel the need to describe their sexuality or gender perfectly? Many say that it's so they can be a special snowflake for being slightly different, when maybe they aren't different at all. Like, some people may come up with a label for being a male who is slightly feminine, and then claim they are queer for it. Normally, I would say, what effing ever, you do you. But these people sometimes get so mad if you don't recognize them for what they want to be recognized as, often without even explaining it first. Some claim they have struggles when maybe they don't, really. Like a problem someone may claim to have is people assuming they are male or female, and misgendering them before they get a chance to explain that they are nonbinary. Then they get mad, even if a person had no idea, or any reason to have any idea. It's making the lgbt community look a little ridiculous, when some people of the community face real problems, such as transgendered people being less likely to be hired in some places, and some queer people being in unsafe situations due to their sexuality, or gender. Your problems of being misgendered is also taking attention away from things that actually need attention. Your problem can be solved by simply explaining what you are. Even if that wasn't the case, the people defending these labels kind of pressure you to label yourself, when sexualities can be so complicated and fluid. If you give yourself a label, you might be pressured to live up to it. It's such a headache, and that's why labels that are a little more general are a good thing. For example, I identify as bisexual, even though sometimes I am more attracted to girls than guys, or vice versa. It's a more general term, and leaves room for that. Not to mention that sometimes multiple labels mean the same thing, and people won't know what you are talking about. That's okay, I suppose, if people weren't offended by another person's lack of knowledge. So let's stop having so many weird labels.
The Pharoah's of Ancient Egypt were NOT black

The reason I wanted to discuss this is because I have a bad habit of reading YouTube comments and finding people getting into very heated arguments for, what I think are, all the wrong reasons. Race is still a sensitive issue for a lot of people today and my opinion is that some people let their anger, pride, prejudice, suspicion (call it what you want) cloud their judgment on issue's that are easily researchable. Personally I don't think there is such a thing as white history and black history. .. Only history. The idea that a group of modern day people would try to claim an historical figure as one of their own seems a little silly to me considering they lived thousands of years ago and have little in common with us. Example. Here are some video's of the 2007 protests outside the Tutankhamun museum exhibit. I want to get one thing clear before I carry on. I am not saying there were no black Pharaoh's in Ancient Egypt (there were), I am saying that the Egyptian Pharaoh's in general were not black. The fact is there was about 30 different dynasties in Egypt and they had varied backgrounds. For example King Tut (from above protests) was part of the 18th dynasty which originally came from Thebes (upper Egypt) invaded lower Egypt and defeated the Hyksos rulers who were Hebrews(13th to 17th dynasties). As I said earlier there were black Pharaoh's when the Nubian king defeated Egypt to start the 25th dynasty. There were also white pharaoh's after Alexander the Great conquered Egypt. The argument that the Pharaoh's were black is simply false and the evidence I've seen to support this argument is highly flawed. This is the case I am presenting and will leave it there for now. I'm interested to read what my opponent presents to support the opposition case.
The Pharoah's of Ancient Egypt were NOT black

There is an awful amount of misinformation out there today about Ancient Egypt being a black country with black Kings and Queens. The so called evidence they use is speculative at best but my biggest problem is that this nonsense is not only presented as fact but they claim the truth is some kind of racist conspiracy. Too many people believe this stuff for one reason or another so I'd like to debate some one with this point of view in an attempt to open their eyes to the far more fascinating truth of Ancient Egypt.
Human Beings Have a Responsibility To Preserve Biodiversity on Earth

I am Back Belle and I don't think you should take that note as a forfeit. 1.The number and variety of organisms found within a specified geographic region. 2.The variability among living organisms on the earth, including the variability within and between species and within and between ecosystems.-that will explain my part. Quantity of plant and animal species found in a given environment. Sometimes habitat diversity (the variety of places where organisms live) and genetic diversity (the variety of traits expressed within a species) are also considered types of biodiversity. The estimated 3 – 30 million species on Earth are divided unequally among the world's habitats, with 50 – 90% of the world's species living in tropical regions. The more diverse a habitat, the better chance it has of surviving a change or threat to it, because it is more likely to be able to make a balancing adjustment. Habitats with little biodiversity (e.g., Arctic tundra) are more vulnerable to change. I am deeply sorry I got the sides mixed up in my first argument. society, no, the world should preserve biodiversity on earth.
Human Beings Have a Responsibility To Preserve Biodiversity on Earth

While my opponent has provided an interesting history lesson in regard to the term "biodiversity" I fail to see how copy-pasting more of the wikipedia article I cited furthers this debate at all. I also wonder whether my opponent understands what side he is taking, since his sole argument is that "these spacies can be hazerdous". As of yet my opponent has provided no support for the resolution that human beings are responsible for preserving biodiversity on earth. I would ask that he does so in the next round.
Human Beings Have a Responsibility To Preserve Biodiversity on Earth

I simply want to give brief info. than refute,Biodiversity is the variation of life forms within a given ecosystem, biome, or for the entire Earth. Biodiversity is often used as a measure of the health of biological systems. The biodiversity found on Earth today consists of many millions of distinct biological species, which is the product of nearly 3.5 billion years of evolution.The term was used first by wildlife scientist and conservationist Raymond F. Dasmann in a lay book advocating nature conservation. The term was not widely adopted for more than a decade, when in the 1980s it and "biodiversity" came into common usage in science and environmental policy. Use of the term by Thomas Lovejoy in the Foreword to the book credited with launching the field of conservation biology introduced the term along with "conservation biology" to the scientific community. Until then the term "natural diversity" was used in conservation science circles, including by The Science Division of The Nature Conservancy in an important 1975 study, "The Preservation of Natural Diversity." By the early 1980s TNC's Science program and its head Robert E. Jenkins, Lovejoy, and other leading conservation scientists at the time in America advocated the use of "biological diversity" to embrace the object of biological conservation. I do not agree with my apponent, these spacies can be hazerdous.
Human Beings Have a Responsibility To Preserve Biodiversity on Earth

I will leave it up to Pro to decide how they would like to argue this one. To expand on what I mean... "Biodiversity is the variation of life forms within a given ecosystem, biome, or for the entire Earth. Biodiversity is often used as a measure of the health of biological systems. The biodiversity found on Earth today consists of many millions of distinct biological species, which is the product of nearly 3.5 billion years of evolution." http://en.wikipedia.org... Many argue that this state of variety ought to be important to us as a species, either in itself, or in relation to our survival, and as such should take precedence over other concerns. I contend that this is not the case, that the state of biological diversity on this planet need not concern us when considering the consequences of our actions and policies. I look forward to a rousing debate :)
9/11 was not an inside job.

As I understand it, you have BoP to show it was definitely not an inside job; where I have BoP to show how we cannot be certain. It is a far stretch to say there is definitive evidence one way or the other. I agree that some of the evidence is deceiving and requires many assumptions, but some of it isn't. Regarding Building 7: There are many issues when considering the official story of Building 7. First, the BBC reported the collapse 20 minutes before it even happened. () No assumptions necessary here. There are a lot of problems with the NIST report on Building 7. Since this is the first round, I'll give you a link:. http://www.911truth.org...A few issues covered here are: NIST ignored all invitations from independent investigators to discuss or debate its findings or the alternative theory. NIST’s previous reports show no evidence that NIST considered alternative theories at all. Only one small disclaimer was made in the final report for the towers, and only after public criticism that no mention of alternative theories was made in the draft report for the towers. 9/11 family members and independent investigators have had to pursue legal avenues to seek the truth from NIST, including a request for correction that has ultimately been ignored by NIST. Those citizens who have successfully criticized NIST in public have lost their jobs for doing so. NIST makes no mention of the mainstream scientific articles published in support of the alternative theory. We can discuss specific issues in later rounds if you'd like. NIST did actually say that Building 7 fell at free fall speed. The 9/11 Commission makes no mention to the collapse of Building 7. There is no video evidence proving that a plane hit the Pentagon. People at the scene admitted there was no sign a plane hit the building. Some eye-witnesses said they saw a plane, others said they did not; however, unless we have conclusive video evidence, we cannot rule out a JASSM. The Pentagon surveillance video is missing the critical frame that would allow us to see what hit the building. The government is excellent at keeping secrets. Research Gulf of Tonkin and Operation Northwoods. For me, I get very suspicious when I read about foreknowledge of 9/11. Specifically this document, a President's daily brief: . http://en.wikipedia.org...;The 9/11 Commission is also suspect at best. Less initial government funding was given to it than the Clinton-Lewinsky investigation. It took 441 days to begin; compared to 7 days for the JFK assassinationHenry Kissinger was originally supposed to head the commission. Kissinger is the principal creator of the US-instigated coup in Chile. Kissinger also had a critical role in extending the Vietnam War among many others. . http://www.globalresearch.ca...I know my response is fairly vague and goes off in quite a few tangets, so give me some bullet points and I'll attempt to address them. I'm not saying I have all the answers or that it was certainly an inside job, but I do believe there is plenty of doubt surrounding the official story.
9/11 was not an inside job.

The evidence for 9/11 being an inside job is factually deceiving, and requires many assumptions. For example, claims that the buildings fell at freefall speeds ignore the obvious debris that fell faster than the collapse, seen in this image: http://i.imgur.com... Also, claims that WTC 7 was destroyed in a controlled demolition do not take into account any of the information from the NIST report which explored WHY the buildings fell. The investigation showed that the load bearing side of the building fell in, then the rest collapsed. This left a shell which fell much faster than it would have done if the inside was still intact. Many other claims use totally incorrect facts, such as that no debris from the planes were found at the Pentagon or the Flight 93 crash site. A simple Google search can prove this to be untrue. In general, all arguments in support of 9/11 being an inside job assume that the US government is almost flawless, and can keep a secret that thousands know for 13 years. In fact, the US government are not very good at keeping secrets, as shown with the NSA leak and the 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman' incident. If someone who believes it was an inside job could provide some arguments, that would be great.
Robert Kennedy's dream of "a world without civil rights problems" is never going to come true

Wow, you've done your research! In the South, many children are taught that blacks are inferior BECAUSE they are black. Sometimes the teachers reference studies that blacks aren't as smart as whites (such as Performance Series, COGAT, etc.), but most of the time teachers just teach that blacks are worse than whites. And this is NOW, not the 1960s! Another thing is that almost everyone in the US has a biased opinion of black people (even some blacks!) Research shows that most parents unintentionally teach their children to have biased opinions of black people. Why? Because the parents are biased toward blacks. Our government may have forced our outside to change and allow black people to get jobs and all that, but we still are all biased.
Robert Kennedy's dream of "a world without civil rights problems" is never going to come true

You reference a study (I believe the Implicit Association Test (IAT) that found white and biracial people tend to favor white people and tend to associate more good with white people. A big problem with using this test to correlate some implicit degree of bigotry into the general population is that the question of why this bigotry exists is not answered. Is it inherent or inherited from our culture? You need to provide causation to substantially link the study in support for your prediction. Humanity has a great deal of evolutionary baggage that it's learned to cope with and compartmentalize. Human history indicates we are moving in towards a more fair world. Note the way we have changed on slavery, women, LGBT, all in just a century.
Robert Kennedy's dream of "a world without civil rights problems" is never going to come true

Robert Kennedy was too optimistic about the coming "civil rights revolution". This is due to the fact that even if we abolish poll taxes and segregated areas and murder of unfortunate blacks/Mexicans/Chinese/whatever, internal opinions are still always biased against blacks. Research done by the Implicit Harvard Project shows that most people are biased toward blacks subconsciously (or non-subconsciously) and that people still don't want to be around black people in general. 80 out of 100 white people say that they do not want to be around people of different race, and 70 out of 100 white people don't want their kids to be around even the best behaved blacks, saying they're "bad influences." Many people just don't enjoy being with Negroes:(
Gay marriage should be illegal!

I think my opponent isn’t going to post any arguments, so I’ll make this round brief. I will have one contention and one rebuttal. Argument #1: Unalienable Rights In the Declaration of Independence, one of the United States’ most important documents, it states that all people have three unalienable rights; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Hence, those rights cannot be taken away from someone. Taking away a homosexual’s right to marry violates all three of those rights. Hence, homosexual marriage should be legal in order to protect the unalienable rights of homosexuals. Rebuttal #1: Religion My opponent made a religious claim to defend his argument in the beginning of the debate. “I believe gay marriage should be illegal its inhumane and against the bible.” However, religious arguments aren’t relevant. Part of the First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” So, we cannot use religion to make something illegal or legal. Therefore, this argument that my opponent uses is irrelevant. Conclusion: With two important US documents, I have established not only why homosexual marriage should be legalized, but why religious viewpoints aren’t good for arguments against homosexual marriage. This has been very brief, but like I said, I’m pretty sure my opponent isn’t going to continue this debate. Resources: http://billofrightsinstitute.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Gay marriage should be illegal!

I accept. The following is the resolution at hand. "Gay marriage should be illegal! "Since I am con, I will be arguing in favor of legalizing homosexuality. Since my opponent gave a brief explanation of his opinion, I will do the same. Then, I will argue freestyle in the last four rounds. According to some of the principles in the US, the right for homosexuals to marry should be available. In addition, since my opponent has taken a religious stance, I will point out that religious freedom is also a principle of the US (making religious arguments irrelevant).