BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mandatory Hamster Wheel Running

In order to combat global climate change and obesity, we should implement mandatory running on hamster wheels (except they would be larger to fit people). This would generate clean, renewable electricity, and would reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. It would also help reduce obesity by giving people the opportunity to exercise when they might not be able to otherwise (if they can't afford to go the gym, they don't have time, ect.). People with disabilities and people under a certain age would be excluded from having to participate. Exceptions would also be made for people who exercise regularly and commit to promoting clean generation of energy (buying solar panels, using public transportation, going vegetarian, and stuff like that).
Rap Battle

Is my g for real?, man shut the fvck up n make me a bloody bread wine meal Cos im a motherfvckin boss, n u kno il scar u for the rest of ya life b, me? Well Il have be in paradise with 72 wife b, jealous . Whaaaa hold on hold on rewind, how man say that ... Wolfy u aint paki? I kno homie, but after im done w/ this chump, fvckin AlQaeda gona ask me 4 advice, dats how hard i am b. I see you reppin Peter P, u aint no spider man, fam u on some peter pan sh1t, wot u been smokin Cos ya immature, n you already know what ya nans doing,, n we all kno it aint canoeing Yep, she nuttin butt a wholesale whore, like its her everyday chore. Wolfy that was a bit too peak, calm down b FINE, fvck ya nan, n ya senile ol gran, n lets talk about ya hopeless life plan O wait u aint got 1, cos u dumb son. U callin me a b1tch yeah, boii watch yoself, il fvck with ya mind like u tryna fit an ikea shelf My creative genius is unmatched, u?-, livin in a basement n aint even detached Fam ya mums eggs unbatched, ya out of date, n i kno ya fate. Look at u haters tryna crucify the sain, Sit down or il make ya faint. Dont u know there's a correlation between creative genius and insanity, Which is why humanity, aint reafy to be redeemed.
Rap Battle

Killer? Yeah right, Your flow needs a rewrite, Of course no one will f**k with you, Everyone looks and goes, "Ew, ew, EWW!" So much for me gettin' "slayed early," Son, this mornin' I woke up early To prop-erly slaughter your haphaz-ardly Awkw-ardly assembled banter. Nope, my a$$ ain't sore, I don't sit as long as your fata$$ sh*t-store, As Em would say, "it's the calm before the storm," While you get some coke to snort My weakness? I can bear witness To your own skull's thickness, And you think you're the lord of me? B*TCH, Jesus is king, that"s blasphemy!
Rap Battle

So this is our first encounter b, but after i'm done wid ya, you'll be sweeping up sh1t at ya local meat counter b. Talk about d1cks cos you take d1ck up the butt on a regs, n I swear I seen you scavenging for coins outside Greggs Apples n pears, ya bars tanked like no one cares Lame, you blatantly have no game Killer, i'm a lethal killer, like a bee, sting hard cos I'm the realest G n Everyman knows not to fvck with me Raah, so don't even try step, cos I own the game like Pep. Read that again, bcos I think you been stalking me, maybe cos you admire the wolf stalker, everyman knows you are just a fat porker or is it because dragons aren't real, ouch how do you feel? Boi Ya getting slayed early, go fvck yoself or eat a curly wurly. sore, ya a55 is sore, n ya nan's a whore... here have some cream, before I crush your one n only dream... Man, people like you will end up senile, living in de-nial too scared to admit your meekness, such is the peakness YES I'm ya gawd, boii u best bow down to the lord.
Rap Battle

Finally, somebody else, A new opponent for myself, May I ask? Do you have insurance for your health? Because you'll need full coverage once I'm done with yourself. Looked through some of your debates, Your opponent's position, you can't negate, Battling you might degrade - me, But I'm obligat-ed to denigrate thee! You say you're East Indian, Small willy n all, Condoms are too big for y'all, (http://news.bbc.co.uk...) No girl's gonna be enthralled. Alrighty, last four bars, Before I disembark, Until the next session, Unless you want to release your concession!
Rap Battle

Seems like you are obsessed with my d, why is that b? You know I how said creativity goes hand in hand with insanity, well just read this ish, this ones called confessions of a nutter, go grab some butter. Now yeh sure, i may be unbeaten in the rap battle department, but can I honestly say mans man?, no...Why?! Cos I am a fool, n I have the social ability of a ghoul Huh? Cos I am weak, n I am comin at u like a freak What? Cos I am stupid, fvck knows how I got a degree, cupid? Yeh thats right ima die alone n fat, Cos ima thick twat N I hate myself, but dont wish for my health 40mgs of antidepressants n on the verge of suicides stealth 22 years of walking around aimlessly, Half of which, wasted on porn, shamelessly But know this, I am toxicity personified, no doubt N I will cut ya throat right out, cos im a KILLER, never been iller!
Rap Battle

Alright, last round, Before I get crowned on this battleground, It"s too late for you to turn-around, This wolf belongs in the POUND. You think al-Qaeda will ask you for tips? Your grammar"s so bad, it looks like some Arabic sh*t. Insultin" me for my Spidey pic? SH*T, your profile pic looks like some fairytale sh*t! F*ck with my mind? Gee, No one wants your willy, F*ckin" with you ain"t even newsworthy, Like Donny and Stormy. Look at you, Your last line won"t even rhyme, Let me give you a clue, Aw, f**k it, I already beat the sh*t outta you this time!
Mormonism is false

so let me get this straight, you believe that people living over a thousand years after baptism was established as a key component to their religion, still didnt have a single scripture that mentioned baptism? and that even people living 6,000 years after adam and eve, still didnt have a complete set of baptism rules written down into scripture, until joseph smith wrote them? if god really did have a prophet in the old testament times, why wouldnt god have had his prophet write down the doctrine surrounding baptism? the type of god that mormons believe in is very strict and organized about things like baptism. mormons must keep official records and genealogy of everyone who they've baptized, including baptisms on behalf of the dead. there are many strict rules about baptism that must be followed, like full immersion, and who it is who can or cant baptize or be baptized, what priesthood you need to perform it and how you get that priesthood, at what age you can be baptized, the laying on of hands, and the words you speak when performing it, rules for baptizing the dead, etc. if one small thing is not done right, the baptism is void and doesnt count, and that person wont be able to advance in an afterlife until they are baptized properly. of all the detail the old testament goes into, god and his followers would have made sure that it was put in the scriptures as a priority."Also, even though the old testament does not directly mention baptism, it does have a lot of mentions of events that symbolize baptism."there arent a lot, there are a few, and that doesnt mean that baptism happened in the old testament. those scriptures were written as an analogy for for why baptism was created in their time."the old testament did believe it was important, and symbolized it a lot because of this."so Naaman got leprosy so that he could symbolize baptism? and how does moses parting the sea, or noahs flood show any kind of deliberate effort to symbolize baptism? moses parted the sea to escape, not to be baptized. and they didnt even enter into the water, the ones who were saved because of noah and moses, were saved by avoiding the water, not by going into the water. and it is so easy to find analogies to baptism in a book. i could find things in harry potter that relate to water, or repentance, or sacrifice, or forgiveness, but that doesnt mean that the writer intended to symbolize baptism.
Mormonism is false

The fact that there are no direct mentions of baptism in the old testament does not mean that it was not important during those times. Most of the time, the scriptures don't mention the names of the people who were baptized, or even if they were baptized. Also, the LDS church does not just believe in the old testament, they also believe in the new testament, the pearl of great price, the doctrine and covenants, and the book of mormon, which all mention baptism. the old tesament did not need to explain baptism because it would be explained in all of them. Also, even though the old testament does not directly mention baptism, it does have a lot of mentions of events that symbolize baptism. In the story of Noahs ark, all of the sin is purged from the earth. Another example of when the old testament sybolizes baptism is the story of Moses when he parts the red sea. The israelites are saved by water, and the egyptians (who represent sin) were destroyed through water. (Paul talks about this in 1 Corinthians 10: 1-2) The last example that I am going to give is the example of Naaman. He was healed from leaposy after obeying Elisha's instructions to dip seven times in the river Jordan. These are only a few examples of when the old testament mentions baptism symbolically. if you want more go to http://cgca.net... or http://studiesinscripture.com... They both mention a lot of other examples of symbolic baptism in the old testament. Even though baptism is not directly mentioned in the old testament, it is mentioned symbolically, and is also mentioned a lot in the other books that the Lds church believes in. His claim that, "it is clear that baptism was popularized around the time of jesus. this contradicts mormonism, so mormonism isnt true" is not true because the old testament did believe it was important, and sybolized it a lot because of this.
Mormonism is false

according to mormonism, baptism is a major part of the gospel and it was widely practiced throughout the old testament times and Adam was the first to be baptized http://www.lds.org...however, in the Old Testament, there are absolutely no mentions or descriptions of baptisms. if baptism was so crucial to their gospel throughout the Old Testament times, they must have written a lot about it in their scriptures, but they didnt. it is clear that baptism was popularized around the time of jesus. this contradicts mormonism, so mormonism isnt true
Moral Accountability

I'll let it slide now, but please, it looks bad if you have 3 days to write less than 8000 characters, and you can't do that. 1. So your first and only argument is that if you break the law, you break the law, and therefore must be punished. You justification is that laws represent morality. If you break the law, you break moral laws, through the infringement of rights. However, it is not only the law that determines morality. All of us have a sense of morality, no matter how small. We are all given a sense of right and wrong in this society. Morality is not determined by laws. You claim that even if that person has no idea of the law, he should be punished. However, if that person doesn't know it is against the law, by your logic, he doesn't know it is immoral. This person does not deserve to be punished, as I will show. First, though, I want to talk about my opponent's refutations: 1. This is not crazy. This topic is a hypothetical situation. This will never actually happen in real life. Everyone has a sense of morality, instilled in them by society. From the moment we are born, society is shaping us and showing us what is right and wrong. This being a hypothetical topic, we cannot apply real life situations to this. Because we all have a "moral compass", murderers, rapists, and etc. know that it is wrong to do what they did. therefore, they should still be punished. This point my opponent makes is not part of the topic, so should be disregarded. 2. First off, there is no such thing as an example that downplays a topic. Either an example illustrates the argument, or it doesn't. My example is valid, and proves my point. Therefore, it cannot be disregarded, as you want to do. Also, you just make a claim as to how it is bad. You have not shown how. We cannot accept that claim. My arguments: 1. My point still stands, since my opponent has not given justification as to why we should. And if we don't have justification, we shouldn't do an action. 2. This point still stands since my example has proven my point, so the point stands. At the end of these speeches, here is where we are at: My opponent's point has been shown to be both extra resolutional and wrong. My points still stand. Thank you
Moral Accountability

I agree with the definitions that my opponent presents. I think that a more effective way to analyze the resolution is as follows: The resolution presented is a maxim, one that states that it is okay for one to not hold others responsible for immoral actions when they are not aware that such actions are immoral. The way to determine if an action is right or not is to see if it can be applied universally to all situations where said action would be involved. Pro needs to uphold the righteousness of not holding others responsible for immoral actions when others are not aware that such actions are immoral in all situations. While con needs to show that this maxim simply cannot be universalized. I contend that: 1. Penal law [in civil law or common law format]in a democratic society (Such as the United States) are close representations of what is considered moral and immoral in said society, and are designed to protect the rights of others. To violate penal law in the United States means that one infringed upon the rights of others, either by performing an act against someone or performing an act against the enforcement of the law. These acts vary broadly in type and style, however they all share a commonality, the fact that they violate the rights of others. Two examples of what I speak would be if one were to distribute pornography involving minors. The person might have not been aware that the people in the porn were minors, or he may have not been aware that distributing porn with minors is against the law, and considered immoral. Either way, this person deserves to be punished because he or she infringed upon the rights of others, and broke the law. More to come, I have 45 seconds left. Opponent 1. This is crazy, then we would need to let murders, rapists etc all free. time up
Moral Accountability

Lets debate, indeed. Ok, so I want to start with a couple definitions. Morally:of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior Accountable:subject to giving an account Account:a statement explaining one's conduct Subject:owing obedience or allegiance to the power or dominion of another Wrong:something wrong, immoral, or unethical Unaware:not aware So if you put it all together, the topic in laymans terms is: People should not be responsible for a immoral action if they are not aware that action to be unethical in relation to principles of right and wrong behavior. Topic Analysis: This topic requires us to think in moral terms, since the topic asks us a moral question. The Pro has to prove that you should not punish someone for their actions if they don't know their action is wrong. The Con has to prove that it is ok to punish someone for an action, even if they were unaware that what they were doing was wrong. 1. We have no justification. The person has no idea that what they are doing is wrong, and we decide to punish them? The logic of that looks like this: Person A commits a crime. Person A has no idea that it is a crime and is wrong. We punish Person A for committing an act, even though they didn't know it was wrong. That hurts the person more than helps them, since they will not realize that what they did was wrong. They will only realize that someone is punishing them. Until they realize that they are being punished for a wrong action, the punishment will only do more harm than it will do good. 2. We would be committing an immoral act because we would be taking advantage of the fact that that person has no idea that what he/she/it did was wrong, You wouldn't punish your child for stealing out of the cookie jar. You would teach your child that stealing is wrong. After the child realizes that what he/she/it did was wrong, you might punish him/her, but only after you had taught your child it was wrong to steal. It would be wrong to punish your child, and leave the child confused because he has no idea why Mommy and Daddy want to punish him, since he doesn't know what he did was wrong. Thank you.
Moral Accountability

Before I start, I want to put up some ground rules: 1. We both have to prove our side. I have to prove the topic I'm going to state below, and you have to argue against it. The burden of proof is on both of us. 2. This round shall not be used for presenting arguments. This first round shall be used to answer any questions my opponent might have about the topic. 3. No semantics. We all know what we mean by something. Don't be nitpicky on the words. It's the arguments that count. These are the 3 main ones I can think of. If there are anymore rules my opponent wants to add, they can be suggested in his first speech. If I think it will help keep this round fair and the debate about the topic then it will be accepted. The topic of this debate is about Moral Accountability. The resolution to be argued is as follows: People should not be held morally accountable for a morally wrong action if they themselves are unaware and do not know that specific action to be morally wrong. Any questions can be fielded in the next speech and in the comments section, and by sending me a message.
Supporting Ron Paul is a fad and considered "cool" by college students.

I agree with you, many people stop caring about an election after it ends, but they shouldn't stop caring aout the candidate(s) they support. It is a fad, in that the majority of people supporting Ron Paul now with enthusiasm will cease to do so after he loses, and he will lose. I don't think the "love" argument could be made for other politicians because values and strength have always been desireable attributes of a president. Love, traditionally has not been. Althought I think it should be, I think the Ron Paul people are using it as a gimmick, playing on the love and hippie trend that has become popular as of late. "Ron Paul's appeal is that he actually wants to talk about things such as philosophy of government, causes and effects. When terrorism is brought up he doesn't just spew out something stupid like, "they are freedom haters," but actually uses history to explain why things are the way they are." This is true, but it's also true of almost every democratic candidate and many other Republican candidates as well. I think that issues "you feel" are important. I have listened to Ron Paul and his ideas and I think they stray from Libertarian values on top of at times being non-sensicle. I'm not a Libertarian and neither is he, but almost everyone who supports him is. I think a lot of new Libertarians don't understand what it means to have libertarian ideals and mistake them for Republican ideals. "If they were getting involved just to be cool, they would probably support Rudy Guiliani since he has been on Saturday Night Live." I don't think that's true, besides, I'm not claiming that he's cool because of any of the conventional ideas of what cool is. He is radical and that may play a factor, I don't know. "Besides, when I go to Ron Paul rallies, college students make up the small minority." That may be true for you, but I disagree. Although I've never been to a Ron Paul rally, I find the people most passionate about talking about Ron paul are college age kids. I just think that Ron paul supporters spend their time talking about what they think they know about his campaign, and spend for too little time researching the constitution for example which they seem to mention a lot of. Or any other candidates. This may not be you, but in my experience, it's a lot of Ron Paul supporters.
Supporting Ron Paul is a fad and considered "cool" by college students.

In a way, supporting any politician is a fad. A fad is short-lived enthusiasm for something without regards to its qualities. After the election is over and candidates win and lose, enthusiasm dies since there is no more campaigning to do. But without regards to quality is where you are wrong. To say that Ron Paul is gaining support because he has "love" on the Ron Paul revolution signs is a weak argument. I could say the same thing about any other candidate that had "values" or "strength" written on their campaign signs (which, the Ron Paul revolution sign isn't the official Ron Paul logo, but rather made entirely by grass-roots supporters.) Ron Paul's appeal is that he actually wants to talk about things such as philosophy of government, causes and effects. When terrorism is brought up he doesn't just spew out something stupid like, "they are freedom haters," but actually uses history to explain why things are the way they are. Ron Paul actually brings up things you have to think about, while other candidates just pander to "value" voters on issues you "feel." Some of my friends used to not like Ron Paul, just assuming he was some fringe candidate. But after actually listening to him in the debate, they have come to favor him because of his ideas. I'm not so sure why college age kids would find it "cool" to support a gravely, 72 year old man, other than they thought his ideas were worth working for. My friends whom I never even imagined would care for any thing political have become staunch Paul supporters because they find him to have a certain candor about him and policies that make sense. If they were getting involved just to be cool, they would probably support Rudy Guiliani since he has been on Saturday Night Live. Besides, when I go to Ron Paul rallies, college students make up the small minority. So I think the Ron Paul "Revolution" is something real and seemingly magical and can almost bring hope back to the political process that this kind of grass roots activity exists.
Supporting Ron Paul is a fad and considered "cool" by college students.

Recently I have gone from detesting Ron Paul, to detesting Ron Paul supporters. Most Ron Paul supporters are college kids who don't know much or even care much about politics but are absolutely in love with Ron Paul. It speaks for America's youth that a candidate can get support by merely including the word "love" on his banners in a semi-clever way and name dropping websites like google and youtube. Are my peers so impressionable? Or is it just that I live in red state Arizona? This is less a topic I want to fervently debate than get some insight to. If you are angry after reading the topic of this debate, please do not debate me.