BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There must be cell phone policies in Public Areas

To begin with, I would like to state rather simply that the motion put forward is absurd. To say there "must be" policies is a matter of severe opinion and can not be proven. To claim there "must be" policies insinuates that there should be mandated cell phone policies in public places, but this is not true, and would be a severe over-stepping of boundaries by the government. Take for example, movie theatres. They do have cell phone policies, even though they do not have to. Movie theatres drafted cell phone policies out of their own accord, because they believe that it is what is proper. And do people obey these policies? Let me note that the repercussion of breaking these policies are not jail time are a legal fine, as it would likely be for a "mandated" cell phone policy, would only insult in the perpetrator being asked to leave. The answer is yes, for the most part, they overwhelming do. There are also examples of places like Museums which do no allow flash photography. Again, the only repercussion is being asked to leave, but people overwhelmingly obey the policy. To simplify this point, it is simply unnecessary to mandate a policy for all public areas. Leave it up to the administrative body of that particular public area to draft their own policies has worked for years and there is no need for change. Even more abhorrent, is the fact that my opponent overlooked how things such as "streets" and "roads" are considered public places. To state that people should not be able to speak or text on their phone while walking down the street is simply ridiculous. To conclude, I would like for voters to reject the motion put forward as it is simply ridiculous and as I have clearly shown, there is no need for such a severe change.
There must be cell phone policies in Public Areas

I've decided to start this debate, for I've observed how many people who just cannot live without their phone. Personally, to each their own. However, I've been in many disterbing situations where cell phones should have been turned off, for the sake of respect of the ocasion. I don't think it's appropriate to be texting in the front row of a concert hall or at dinner with a group of friends nor with an individual partner. You either focus on where you are and what you're doing, or on the people that can't wait for you to respond because it's a real emerjency? That's the excuse people make nowadays, "What if it was an emerjency? Come on, people, I bet if someone was in a life or death situation it would not come to their minds to call everyboddy because they set focus on the present situation. I'm not saying unexpected events don't strike, all I'm saying that not all the texits, tweets, emails etc. are not always important, therefore, there's no reason why people should be on their phones all the time.
Myspace is better than Facebook

Discaimer: This debate has a 1k char limit. 1. and 2. So? What's amazing about adding music to your profile? The site is directed at younger people, who only care about music, and cool pictures. Also music and pictures can be deemed offensive, or distasteful by friends and family members. Someone may want to check out on the well being of their nephew, to be confronted by vulgar rap or screamo music, or see skimpy pictures of girls in the background, etc. This adds as an instant detterant to them wanting to be on the site. Pictures and music can be pursued on someone's own time. What benefit is there to having them forced on people who click on your profile? 3. Pretty sure you can blog on facebook too. 4. Facebook is about 10x easier to navigate than myspace ever was. Myspace requried knowledge of HTML, and coding. Older people, or naive people had a harder time navigating myspace. Facebook, is easy for everyone to use and doesn't discriminate the stupid people. Conclude: Facebook
No School, Public or Private, Should be Allowed to Teach Religion

You mentioned that banning religion in all schools violates separation of church and state. A church is not a school. A private school may not be funded by the state, but it would still be more on the 'state' side, than the 'church' side. So technically, separation of church and state includes separation of religion and educational facilities. Instead of picking quotes from your argument and refuting them, I'll just summarize my argument right now. Even though I don't agree with it, I have nothing against people practicing their own religion. What I do have a problem with, is educational facilities teaching religion to children as if it were true. Sure, kids can be taught ABOUT religions, but they shouldn't be taught that any religion is true. I think a law stating that something can't be taught in an educational facility if it doesn't have evidence what solve this problem. People should have the right to practice religion at home, or in their church/synagogue or other religious building. But not to teach kids in a SCHOOL that religion, something that has absolutely no evidence to back it up, is true. This may not apply to every child, but religious schools certainly churn out extremists, discriminators, and people who could even be politicians running the country one day, after having all that biased religious education. The country has enough freedom restrictions from religion. It's time for the country to move forward, not hold back with it's 'religious values. ' Why should the next generations be taught this mythology?
Beliving in technology that will make the world easier will lead to the end of life as we know it.

First, my opponent cites two movies as to why better technology will mean the death of civilization. I have seen Terminator. Let us recall what happened in the Terminator series. Did life perish completely? No. Not only that, but IT'S A MOVIE. It's not a reflection of reality. I have not seen this other movie. But yet again, let us recall that it is a movie. It is like me citing Harry Potter as evidence that magic exists. Fiction, my friends, cannot be used as evidence. My opponent then cites something from 2001. In this, we learn that back in 2001, some hackers tried to use denial-of-service on the Department of the Interior's National Business Center, the U.S. Geological Survey's site and Pacific Bell Internet Services. I would like to point out that this has nothing to do with the end of life as we know it. Denial-of-service attacks are not dangerous as far as people's lives are concerned. Nor do they damage data. They basically just force a server to go offline. That's it. Next, an article where an internet security firm reports that there is a great deal of danger to our country as far as internet attacks are concerned. First, let's realize that this is an internet security firm saying this. Next, let's realize that these supposedly 'massive' attacks back in 2007 had basically zero impact on any of us. This is because security is good enough, and it always will be. Next, an article about Denial-of-service attacks on Estonian sites, including some banks. Oh no, they're going to force the servers to go offline for a bit! How will life as we know it continue to exist?!?!? Next, another report about some Muslim hackers starting an internet Jihad back in 2007. Did anyone ever feel the effects of this? No. Because only unimportant sites have major security weaknesses. No major problems for life as we know it have been caused by 'cybercrime' thus far, and none probably ever will. Why? Because things are only getting more and more secure as the age of the internet comes into maturity. There is nothing wrong with "Technology that will make the world easier." My opponent has not given any evidence as to a real danger to life as we know it. We can therefore take the default position that rather than it ending life as we know it, it will simply make the world easier.
RAP BATTLE: See Whose Dope? KEBENZIS vs. BEASTYBOY

•He forfeited the round which made me concerned, •Did this BEAST of a rapper finally get burned? •Rule one for a child is to not play with fire, •then not to run with scissors, and not to run near the pool •You rap battlin' me, makes you look like a fool •Who think he's so cool; because he can spit a few bars •My rap is so murderous; deemed as illegal •Capable of sentencing me to 25 to life behind bars •While you go play in the sandbox, •Going off road on the sand with your toy cars. •If you're going to bounce back after a forfeit then you're sadly wrong •I don't even need to set up bars that are 50+ lines long. •No need for me to do so because already I got this in the bag. •With black circles, causing your eye-bags to sag •While you composing and coming up with the dopest lines •This rap battle is like HISTORY, recorded in the magazine: "TIMES" •Staying up all night trying to finish strong •Your fan base is dropping •And once this battle is done, your crowd is long before gone.
RAP BATTLE: See Whose Dope? KEBENZIS vs. BEASTYBOY

1.You think you a beast because you think you got it all, 2.I can't really take you seriously bro, you're two foot tall. 3.Calling me a chump because I challenged you to one, 4.After your new set of bars, the audience clearly knows who's done. 5.You're the Goliath and I'm the Godzilla 6.The next few rounds will determine who the "RAP-GAME-KILLA" is 7.You setting up bars are predictable, like an Asian acing a Math Quiz. 8.Think you murder people, smoking the game I see? 9.I think I'm seeing something wrong, can you check my eyes for me? 10.Think you the BEAST with all that confident chat? 11.Smack a b----, make it rain, dude; you ain't all that. 12.Get your mind straight son and set the round up, 13.So washed-up, straight-up, and stuck-up 14.A wannabe 50 cent with terrible bar set-up 15.Stop thinking you hard because you call people whack; 16.because tightly-written punch lines and such is something that you lack.
RAP BATTLE: See Whose Dope? KEBENZIS vs. BEASTYBOY

Hahaha this guy tryna make a fool of me I wont let that happen by a little cheat Ur a rapping artist imma little kid but just let you Know imma come bak so when you really ready For the pump come over and see me u little chump Ur a real punk punking on girls i see you in another world You should really stop drinking beer cuzz to me when you Do you become the weird so after the stuff is done you can Come bak and ill serve you none, from me to you is a chump Letter 'cuzz when we in a rapping battle ill make you serve me better So when i win ill see the money blowin' in my face like change spreader And when its really time to gett repps and get rackss ill smack that... She'll make it clap even on the road your just kill to me and my buds Who are truly real when i rap with you i stay chill 'cuzz to me im rapping With kool-aid just staying still when i see my prey i walk past it like b**** And when you really wanna see whos the REAL BEAST come with me and We will have a feast to all the upcoming fans i will sign off every single hand But when they see you they will walk past and say "PLEASE YOU?" and After i get the champ belt ill rubb it in your face and say (see whos one?)
RAP BATTLE: See Whose Dope? KEBENZIS vs. BEASTYBOY

I am responding to this set of bars: ________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. OMG this guy from of the street calls out the beast 2. See imma little kid but my flow is so inconceivable 3. You wanna see my well lets take it to da streets 4. Cuzz' im the King when it come to speak really 5. Imma boss when it come to talk, so even though 6. Imma kid i can still spit flow like 50 cent so if you 7. Want to battle me i need to see ur record of the street 8. Look to me your a wimp to me im a HERO so if you want 9. The beef come see me in 20,000 B.C.E hahaha ________________________________________________________________________________________ Alright check- 1. So this kid call himself the beast of the streets 2. I'm slay him like a dragon, cut him up into sets of meats 3. Carve him out like a butcher, slaughtering this little fool 4. Thinking he's intimidating like a monstrous ghoul 5. Throwing the first hit with the intent of winning this debate here 6. I am the only one here who you should be the one to fear 7. Sippin' on a glass of beer- 8. Battling' this here little queer 9. Thinking that you dope? NOPE! What are you – 50 cent? 10. What is you thinking, is your mind straight or bent? 11. Set my record on the street, man there's no need 12. I let you go first and already you're on a bad lead? 13. 9 BARS that's cool no correlation 14. SETTING THESE BARS WITH THE INTENT OF RETALIATION 14 bars, keep it going. -BARS UP.
RAP BATTLE: See Whose Dope? KEBENZIS vs. BEASTYBOY

OMG this guy from of the street calls out the beast See imma little kid but my flow is so inconceivable You wanna see my well lets take it to da streets Cuzz' im the King when it come to speak really Imma boss when it come to talk, so even though Imma kid i can still spit flow like 50 cent so if you Want to battle me i need to see ur record of the street Look to me your a wimp to me im a HERO so if you want The beef come see me in 20,000 B.C.E hahaha
RAP BATTLE: See Whose Dope? KEBENZIS vs. BEASTYBOY

I am actually a writer who on occasions like to rap or simply write lyrics; trying to make them witty as possible. This challenge is for beastyboy who is challenging people to a rap battle and I want to see if I can get a crack at it. There are some ground rules I want to set though: - It can be about anything (bragging rights about yourself) and throughout the time we can rap just like Grind Time Now or King of the Dot (Look them up through YouTube) - Refrain from excessive use of foul language as best as you can. - Set them up as bars (lines), there is no limit of bars but being sure to separate them into different segments so it can be easily read. If you need to, you can seperate them through dashes of number the bars. - Punch lines are to be set up through CAPS only to indicate it. - If you're doing Yo, Yo, Yo… do it like Yo (3X) so you won't take up the lines. - Plagiarism is not a creative way to score a easy win. It is often done (through the audience that people check out if the lines have been already done. If you're using someone's line, indicate it through the rap or cite it. 98% of the rap should be original. Don't cheat (bite), it's been done before and it's really looked down upon. Hope that my challenger accepts this battle and of course, get your bars up. I hope we have an audience looking out for this possibly heated battle. Since I am challenging the person and I need to accept it, he'll start out first to get the rap battle going:
Second try "Is this Post Post-modernist poet any good"-as first debate was a sham

An absinthe lounge! It was an absinthe lounge! I didn't even know you could buy absinthe anymore, but apparently there's a bar for horny drunks to invite poets who write erotica. Being asked to read poetry by drunks is not a measure of worth. No, I have already gone through the poems as an English student and found nothing of poetic quality. Just because some absinthe drinkers invite him over doesn't mean he's any good. I'm going to kill you if you put up any more debates about erotic poetry, Duncan.
Second try "Is this Post Post-modernist poet any good"-as first debate was a sham

con says ' Being invited somewhere doesn't validate you as a poet anyway,.... The burden of proof to explain why this poet is any good still lies on you" I have given objective proof of why this poet is good ie that he was invited to give a reading of his poetry con has only given his subjective opinion why the poet is no good his statement that "Being invited somewhere doesn't validate you as a poet anyway" that may be true or untrue but being invited somewhere can mean the poet is good thus con has not proven conclusively that the poet is no good thus I win '
Second try "Is this Post Post-modernist poet any good"-as first debate was a sham

Did you even read my answer? There is no poetic quality to the poem, your accusation that this is only my opinion is canceled out by the fact that you evidence for its quality is your opinion. And did you forget this is a freaking absinthe lounge? You know, one of the strongest drinks in the world? Being invited somewhere doesn't validate you as a poet anyway, unless you want to bring up the time I was invited to the Nation Poetry Recital final in Ireland. Yeah, I do poetry, and just like a music student can analyse a song for its qualities, I can do the same to this poet. And there is no talent behind his poems. They are repetitive, and are literally marketed towards horny drunks. The burden of proof to explain why this poet is any good still lies on you. Awaiting your response, Duncan.
Second try "Is this Post Post-modernist poet any good"-as first debate was a sham

hi con your cliams about the poem being no good are just subjective opinions and based on arbitrary criteria you say "First of all, you are prop! Burden of proof IS on you" and I have proved it by giving the link to the site where it says the poet gave a poetry recital at The Bohemian Absinthe Lounge, TIME on Sansom St. in Philadelphia in the USA http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com... To get an invite for an Australian poet to give a recital in America the poet must be good that is my proof not some subjective opinion based on arbitrary criteria
Second try "Is this Post Post-modernist poet any good"-as first debate was a sham

As an A student (in English only), I have studies poetry, and you may remember me as the one who first challenged you on this stupid erotic poem. First of all, you are prop! Burden of proof IS on you, not on con. but I'll humor you. Using "The Voluptuary" as source, I find this poet to be of poor standard. There is no point to the rhyming in this poem, and while rhyming isn't even necessary in poems, he just has each line end with all, and overuses the word sensation. The only poetic method that can be seen other than repetition is alliteration, just because of the repetition. There is no poetic method to his poems, and so I find them to be lacking in quality. I recommend you attempt to remain emotionally stable during this debate. And as my final point, any poet who reads to a room of absinthe drinkers is wasting their time. They should read to them in their sleep while they're at it. Awaiting your response, Duncan.
Second try "Is this Post Post-modernist poet any good"-as first debate was a sham

I am posting this question a second time as the first debate with Stephen_Hawkins was a sham Stephen_Hawkins acts in bad faith Stephen_Hawkins argued the con position ie that this post post-modernist poet was no good yet he admits he has not even read the poetry secondly, no, I didn't read the poetry. ." http://www.debate.org... if he has not read the poetry he cant even have a debate as how can he tell us the post post-modern poet is no good if he has not read the poets poetry thus his whole debate is a sham Stephen_Hawkins actually lied in the debate he tells us "None of this, of course, exists in the poetry above, because it does not have any pretences to being postpostmodernism" he cant tell us what exists in the poetry as he has not read the poetry -as he admitts- thus he lies " and can you believe Enj voted him the winner of the debate it even after I asked Stephen_Hawkins to tell us why the poet was no good-which he did not really address because as admits he had not read the poetry http://www.debate.org... so again if you are not going to read the poetry then dont bother to debate as it will just be a sham like last time I argue this Post Post-modernist poet is good http://www.scribd.com... It is claimed this Post Post-modernist poet is an "untalented poet and philosopher from Australia " http://www.debate.org... but I will say the poet has to be good as the poet gave a poetry recital at The Bohemian Absinthe Lounge, TIME on Sansom St. in Philadelphia in the USA http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com... To get an invite for an Australian poet to give a recital in America the poet must be good
It is possible that in at least one of the below listed debates my opponent had the advantage.

This round will be relatively short as all I need to do is cover three points by my opponent. ========== Point 1 ========== The first point bases itself around the idea that there is no gaurantee that my win ratio suddenly dropping multiple points means people are trolling against me. This is a true point by my opponent, there is no gaurantee. It is simply, as this resolution suggests, a possibility. Also on this point my opponent puts forth the idea that everyone can have multiple accounts to vote for themselves. This is also a possibility however it is a possibility that often times leads to accounts becoming banned. However this point still matters little as in order for my opponent to prove that it was an equal advantage for everyone he would first have to prove that everyone has the same amount of multiple accounts. And even if my opponent could prove everyone has this equal advantage the advantage would still be tipped out of proportion by point 2. ========= Point 2 ========= My opponent puts forth the implausible idea that everyone has the advantage of spiteful voters. This is also true however it is not an equal advantage, thus my opponents analogy is rather flawed. Not everyone on this website is going to have equal spite, thus some people are going to have more of an advantage than others on this field. This is where my first point ties in. Even if my opponent could prove everyone has the equal advantage of 20 extra accounts he could never be able to gaurantee equal spite. Thus the spiteful voters with their multiple accounts would give an advantage to a debater. This can be seen through the fact that my opponent complains about spiteful voters attacking him on 6 different occasions while I have only had this happen approximately 4 times. Other debaters have never noticed such a phenomenon. ========= Point 3 ========= Anything is possible in reality.
It is possible that in at least one of the below listed debates my opponent had the advantage.

These are a majority of the debates I have lost: http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... While I large majority of these were against very good debaters, they were all won by my opponent by one or two votes. Thus my reasoning is as follows. Occasionally my win ratio will drop 10% in a day; the only sound rule I can deduce from such happenings would be that someone is angry at me and goes through and votes against my tied debates. Therefor considering that each of the above listed debates was lengthy, which possibly discouraged legit debaters from reading them, it is possible that my opponent had an advantage due to illegit voters. Finally, something that has been annoying me for sometime. The debater conspicuous_conservative was found to have multiple accounts by the webmaster and was thereby banned. However this was not before all 20 of his accounts voted against me in my debate with him, thereby making me the loser. http://www.debate.org... I am interested to see if that will change now that he has been banned.
God exists

Thanks for the debate, Pro.I accept.I also agree to the definitions provided.I would also like to provide some auxiliary definitions to keep the debate on track.Definitionscreator - a person or thing that *creates*.http://www.dictionary.com...creation - the *process* of bringing something into existence.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...process - a *series* of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...series - a number of events of a related kind coming one *after* another.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...after - in the *time* following an event or another period of time.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...Thanks again for the debate Pro.I agree to negate this resolution.