BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Schools shouldn't have a dress code

My opponent agrees to the vast majority of my case including my scientific and empirical evidence that school uniforms cause increased academic performance and school safety. He also agrees that school uniforms would stop a lot of bullying in the status quo. His argument that we need better informed teachers falls because that can only take care of an incident after the fact. My opponent's next argument is anecdotal evidence and thus is fallacious. Just because one person interprets a uniform code as different for men and women doesn't mean that the system is broken. Second, I don't have sufficient information to properly address the point. What was she wearing? some things that aren't revealing on a man is revealing on a woman so simply stating you were wearing similar clothes is not sufficient evidence on sexism within school dress codes.
Schools shouldn't have a dress code

Most of the stuff my opponent is completely true and I agree on most of it and while I agree that allowing students to still have a little individuality with a uniform by allowing them to wear necklaces and jewelry, it just isn't enough. Allowing kids to be able to choose what they want to wear teaches them many life skills. Also Yes, Uniforms would stop a lot of bullying but bullying really doesn't happen that much if we just better educate our teachers on how to handle situations. Also about your argument on covering up. At the school I go to, I hear many reports that women are getting in trouble then the men for dress code violations when the men are wearing about the same amount of dress code violation worthy clothes. For example, I(Male) walk in to the school with my friend(Female). We are both violating the dress code at our school in the same way. A teacher walks up to the both of us and only addresses my friend and I don't get in trouble at all.
Rap Battle

I'll have your crew skate on ice, They go figureRun up in your house, Catch you before dinnerThis chopper will have your spirit in pieces, Like a soul splitterAfter that, I'm taking the bounty on your head like a gold diggerMore ratchets sitting at the table than a card gameWhen I swing, I'll hit this b-tch I got a broad aimEverybody can't miss your death, So they all cameI'm like a lion straight out of a cage, I'm hard to tameComparing the two of us is completely unfairI bet in your city, It don't even get real thereToo many shapeshifters in your circle, You a squareWhere you from, The handicapped make noise, They will cheerYou think you f-cking with Kvng? You smoking wire This round will tell y'all who's the dopest writerI hit this boy scout's camp, Let the pistol fly ya'This marshmallow get some more (S'more) if I open fireBars. Thanks for the rap battle!
Rap Battle

You tell me to take you serious, Yeah right, How can I? When you bring those weak a$$ rhymes when you know that they can't fly. You're just making mouth noise at the point it's just a rant, Guy. I'm the biggest bully on the beach I'll make you eat that sand dry. Your rhymes are too general, Be more specific. For example dumping your body in the lower rim of the pacific. This is a battle, Not a sewing club, You came to give, So give. Because you need to step your game up when you're dealing with Wrick It. You say it's a lucky win and a jackpot too. I would have said that as well, If I was in your shoe. {singular, Poor joke} Because relying on your skill in this case just won't do. Your only chance is if god exist, And he splits me in two. That's just an extra assumption. I don't think you have the gumption To get it bumping chump or turn it round and get this place thumpin. If you even tried to I'd vandalize your face like a pumpkin. You'd walk around for the rest of life straight forest gumpin.
Rap Battle

I'm killing you for that money, This is a contest Everybody, Take me serious. I'm a bomb threat Gun loaded and when it smoke, You'll catch a contact I'll bring a clip back like I was trying to rewind that I don't wanna have to give you this buck, I'm penny pinching I can get you wet all over, No skinny dipping A few jabs from my fists will have your blood dripping I'll target whoever I see walking I'm not cripping Don't brag too much about your potatoes, Do it secretly Or click clack like a kit kat, Share a piece with me I'll take some carrots too, Don't try to beef with me Or you could die over weight that's obesity Y'all deluded if y'all think this dude hot Another lucky win for me, This the jackpot I'll get your G shot on time like a wrist watch Because the heat go both ways like Chris Bosh
Rap Battle

Arm wrestle me? Please, Don't make me scoff. I'm 300 lbs. Your arm would fall off. I'd blast a hole in your chest from a well time cough. You couldn't be me while I was unarmed and you holding a trough. You might be riding, But you ain't ride or die. There's a reason you're only rolling on the passenger side. It's cause you're a side homie that's what your statement implies. You got a Pinocchio nose because you only tell lies. You couldn't take me with an infinite rifle Cause I'm Godzilla b! Tch, I tower over you, Eiffel I'll give you secular punishment, While you clutch to your bible. I got a solid foundation, Which only your arrogance rivals. You're a ham and a chicken, That's right you're cordon bleu I'm gonna eat with a side of carrots and potato stew. I'm gonna sh! T you out too, While I'm sitting on the loo. Then you'll be in the sewers, Looking like ninja turtle goo.
Rap Battle

If you arm wrestle me, I'll have your wrist aching I'm watching every move he make, No film making The way my bars are set up, I'll have you shaking Run, And it'll take one punch man, Your back's breaking F-ck them dudes you rolling with, I'm riding regardless Left side of the passenger seat with my arm rest It got a Pinocchio nose plus a long neck That mean the gun is extended so send the God bless I reach under that arm rest it could be your last day I get heartless when I'm letting that rifle spray Hand out the window like I'm dumping an ash tray No Jordan's, But your body gone be cool and grey I go ham on any bird when its beef So you chickens better duck or get served with the heat I get to swinging the ox, Your tail will swerve down the street When them bullets be flying, It won't be something sweet
Rap Battle

Oh look who it is! My Favorite Naruto Ninja. It's nothing personal, But I only came here to injure. So spare me your Nindo, But when you're dead I'll avenge ya. So put down the Nintendo, And turn down the Revenga. Because Your systems down you clown I'm gonna take you town. No a$$ pull in this anime one hit and your down. The plot twist happens when I spin your neck all around. three hundred sixty degrees till it separates from your crown. If you hope I get punished for killing you think again. I will lie to every single one of your family and friend. (singular) I'll say you fought your little heart out and you saved me in the end. Then they'll thank me for knowing you while I sit and pretend. Then I'll burn your village down just sweeten the pot. You couldn't beat me if you gave it everything that you got. You couldn't stop me if I had already revealed the plot. ;) Cause a Ninja with a weak a$$ Nindo isn't even worth a shot.
One plus one does not always equal two

The ball of clay scenario is different from the sand scenario in a way. When you mix one ball of clay with one ball of clay, you end up with one ball of clay, because they are able to mix together. It does not matter if it is two 'units' of clay that make up the last result, because technically the last result is only one ball, disproving your theory." Actually, this is no different than the conceded "pile of sand" clause, because the sand is a pile plus a pile making a larger pile, which is in fact an entirely different unit. "Now with the trickiness of the shoes. Nowhere in the resolution or in any of our arguments did we say that this is strictly on a mathematical sublevel. Inverting the words with pairs and individual shoes would henceforth be permissible because once again, technically, they do not break any rules we have established. one pair of shoes plus one pair of shoes is four shoes. See how I mixed the wording? I was able to allow the problem of one plus one to not equal two, and that is all I needed." You are trying to say that 1(2) + 1(2) = 4, which is by all means not 1 + 1 = 2. In this situation, 1(2) + 1(2) = 2(2), which opposes the resolution, because it was, in fact, a situation in which one plus one did equal two. You could also say that it was 2 + 2 = 4, but that really doesn't help anyone. Units are important in math. When you use the words "plus" and "equal", you are automatically using mathematics, because: Plus - with the addition of (http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3]) Addition - the operation of combining numbers so as to obtain an equivalent simple quantity (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Mathematical statement. Equal - an equal quantity (http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2]) Quantity - the subject of a mathematical operation (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Mathematical statement. Thus, this debate is about mathematics. "I intended this debate to be more abstract and perceptive. However, with school almost ending and finals coming, I believe my opponent and I would present better arguments at the end of school. I hope to debate you on other topics in the future. Thanks" Actually, I'd probably present the same arguments. Anyways, thanks for the debate.
One plus one does not always equal two

dude I'm three grades higher in math than my peers lol. I do not think my math could technically be "vomited" on, only kidding of course. The ball of clay scenario is different from the sand scenario in a way. When you mix one ball of clay with one ball of clay, you end up with one ball of clay, because they are able to mix together. It does not matter if it is two "units" of clay that make up the last result, because technically the last result is only one ball, disproving your theory. Now with the trickiness of the shoes. Nowhere in the resolution or in any of our arguments did we say that this is strictly on a mathemetical sublevel. Inverting the words with pairs and individual shoes would henceforth be permissible because once again, technically, they do not break any rules we have established. one pair of shoes plus one pair of shoes is four shoes. See how I mixed the wording? I was able to allow the problem of one plus one to not equal two, and that is all I needed. I intended this debate to be more abstract and perceptive. However, with school almost ending and finals coming, I believe my opponent and I would present better arguments at the end of school. I hope to debate you on other topics in the future. Thanks
One plus one does not always equal two

Thank you for responding this time. "1 ball of clay + 1 ball of clay= 1 ball of clay (because they would be mixed together and form only one big ball)" This is exactly like the sand thing. You took one unit of clay, shaped in a sphere, plus one unit of clay, shaped in a sphere, to get two units of clay, shaped in a sphere. This is, in other words, one plus one equals two. You conceded that with the sand. "1 pair of shoes + 1 pair of shoes= 4 shoes (notice that because we are not referring directly to math, the equation can be written in this notation)" You're trying to change the units in the middle of the equation. That should be reworded as, "One pair of shoes plus one pair of shoes is two pairs of shoes," or, "Two shoes plus two shoes is four shoes." This is not just an addition problem. You are also dividing the pairs of shoes into individual shoes, which violates the original resolution. Upon translation, in this situation, one plus one is still resulting in two, so as long as it can be translated this way, it is a situation that goes against the resolution. Any math teacher would vomit upon your "math". Thank you for your patience.
One plus one does not always equal two

As I have stated before, the only thing I must prove is one instance where one plus one is not necessarily two. Notice that nothing involving mathematics was clearly mentioned. By the way, I did not mean for this to be a one-sided debate. I looked for an opponent that could but up an intriguing argument, and I believe I have found one. You have a good idea about the sand, but I bet I can prove at least one instance where in fact one plus one is not necessarily two: 1 ball of clay + 1 ball of clay= 1 ball of clay (because they would be mixed together and form only one big ball) 1 pair of shoes + 1 pair of shoes= 4 shoes (notice that because we are not referring directly to math, the equation can be written in this notation) these are both instances where technically one plus one of something is not necessarily two, and that is all I have needed to prove
One plus one does not always equal two

Thank you for starting this debate. For one thing, I know that you are anticipating for me to fall into a trap. I am going to try to disarm your trap. You're probably going to use piles of sand, or something along those lines. However, the value of "one" plus the value of "one" when added together properly will ALWAYS be equal to the value of "two". Let's take the piles of sand incident. You have one unit of sand poured onto another pile of sand. You end up with two units of sand. "Pile of sand" is not a unit at all. "Gram" and "pound" are units. Alright, go ahead.
you cant find broad academic consensus against me- more guns corerlates to more homicide, gun contr

Listen. You sound like you're probably a freshman/sophomore level college student, and therefore think you are "super cultured and smart" what with all your classroom level, Debate 101-esque language. But you are now chasing your own tail! You did NOT refute MY argument in your last point, you called my evidence "anecdotal" even though, with the tables i presented (from the FBI, URLs and all) you can clearly map the trend through all 50 states. Besides, California IS arguably the state with the strictest gun control laws, and Texas IS, without a shadow of a doubt, the state with the least restrictive. I'm just going to give you a nice list of all my arguments again, to wrap this "debate" up. 1.) You WILL NOT find "Broad Academic Consensus" against gun control - your thesis is a non-sequitur. Academia is KNOWN for being overwhelmingly liberal, it's a pointless argument. 2.) You claim the evidence you found reveals More Gun Control = Less Homicide, and THIS is the argument i have addressed with my evidence presented. 3.) You claim my evidence to be "anecdotal" because i "am comparing only two states". But the evidence is anything but. Texas and California were the states with the most homicides in 2014 and also 2 states with POLAR OPPOSITE positions on gun control. Together with the ATF figures on registered firearms, it paints a CLEAR PICTURE. Not to mention this data came DIRECTLY from the FBI database and you can check out the trend through all 50 states, while... 4.) YOUR evidence is cited from KNOWN liberal, anti-gun, anti-republican, anti-violence, anti-war media outlets. Mother Jones, Think Progressive, HuffPost, Vox, Politfact; random op-eds by "Who Cares, Phd". THIS is the definition of "cherry-picking" evidence. Even your NCBI stats are 20 years old! YOU, not I, have gone out specifically to find sources that bolster your argument. I cited a Federal Database kept by the FBI. If ANYONES evidence here is anecdotal, it yours - in the sense that you have presented the very definition of BIAS with your sources cited. They all come from people and organizations who share the same opinions and agendas. My evidence is far more "scientific" than your Mother Jones Graph, which for all anyone could tell could've been drawn up by some "journalism" intern. "You cant find BROAD ACADEMIC CONSENSUS against me..." That would be like if i started a debate with - "You cant find a broad Republican consensus against me - Abortion is murder" OR "You cant find a broad consensus of Stoners against me - Weed is awesome and should be legalized, man" Good luck with that!
you cant find broad academic consensus against me- more guns corerlates to more homicide, gun contr

so con is basically conceding the debate cause he can't negate the resolution and find the support asked for. when con engages in the substance anyway, he relies on anecdotcal evidence, two states. why not look at the states with the most gun control versus the states with teh least? you're twice as likely to die in the states with the least gun control. con doesn't even try to negate the consensus i drew regarding gun control, he just goes off on some tangent about a couple examples he found. even if your examples are most favorable to your position, they do not represent larger rules. if your position was true, you'd be able to find scientific support for your position, which you cant
you cant find broad academic consensus against me- more guns corerlates to more homicide, gun contr

I just merely wanted to kick off the debate by bringing to light the lack of diversity AND (in some cases), lack of reliability of your sources cited. Vox? Seriously? Besides, your thesis is flawed, as i believe i pointed out in my initial argument. Of course theres no Academic consensus against you, and i explained why in the previous argument. Listen, i'm more or less debating the second half of your thesis. More gun control, less homicide? i think not, and here is why - FBI.gov https://ucr.fbi.gov... https://ucr.fbi.gov... According to THESE statistics: IN 2014... There were 1,697 murders in the State of California, 1,169 of which were committed with a firearm. California is also one of the States with the most strict gun laws, with....292,877 registered firearms in the state http://www.cbsnews.com... There were 1,141 murders in Texas, 765 of which were committed with a firearm Texas happens to be one of the states with LEAST restrictive gun laws. They don't even HAVE to register their firearms, but they tally in at around 337,309. Now, once again, that's just those who registered, with background checks and all. So the number is probably higher. So lets do some math: In 2014, according to Table 8, there were 8,124 Firearm homicides in 2014.(according to table 20) 1,169 of those murders were committed in California (the state with very strict gun laws). That means that about 9.7% of all murders in 2014 were committed IN CALIFORNIA, WITH a firearm. That adds up to about (WOW)...14.9% (ALMOST FIFTEEN PERCENT!) of all murders committed with a firearm in 2014 were committed in CALIFORNIA. Texas figures in taking credit for 9.4% (765 out of 8124) of Firearm murders in 2014. So.... TEXAS: lower population + more registred firearms + less restrictive laws = 9.4% of total firearm homicides CALIFORNIA: Higher population + less registered firearms + Highly Restrictive Laws = 14.9% of total firearm homicides Explain that.
you cant find broad academic consensus against me- more guns corerlates to more homicide, gun contr

so is con conceding the debate? i contended that he couldn't find the academic support bording on consensus like i can, and he doesn't try to say otherwise. he just says researchers are liberals run amok. if ninety nine percent of engineers thought a bridge was unsafe would you argue otherwise? would you use that bridge? his other points are beside the point of my thesis. but to respond. the world is not split into criminals who stop at nothing to get guns and good guys. good guys become bad guys. if a good guy doesnt have a gun, then have a temper tantrum, they aren't as likely to kill if they dont have a gun. but we're not trying to take guns away from good guys, not htat it doesn't have any effect. and bad guys sometimes follow the law. if joe isn't allowed to have a gun, doesn't get one, has a sudden temper tantrum, he isn't as likely to kill someone if he doesn't have a gun. as to the second amendment it's not as clear as gun nuts would have you believe. the phrase "bear arms" almost always meant to participate in the militia. to get around that, you hae to point out that the clause says "keep" and bear arms. so it is possible to think you have a right to a gun, not so much because of your right to bear arms so much as your right to keep arms, but it's open to interpretation. the first time i read the amendment with "bear arms" properly in perspective, along with the first clause that says "well regulated militia" it seems "keep" goes with bear arms not so much separate that your right to keep arms is only up to the point that you participate in a militia. that has been the conservative position of even the supreme court for decades. only recently do they try to change it. even some modern day hard core libertarians think the second amendment doesn't protect guns from states, cause the bill of rights is an indictmet against hte federal government, not states. they dont like trying to make it all apply to states. but anyway that was a long digression. it looks ike con has effectively conceded the debate for reasons stated.
you cant find broad academic consensus against me- more guns corerlates to more homicide, gun contr

First off, id like to note that many of your sources are openly Liberal organizations. But thats beside the point...Academia is littered with people who think they know whats best for everyone else. People who have spent their entire lives within the highly LIBERAL education system of America, within closed groups of snobbish individuals bouncing their arguments off of each other, only disagreeing about how much they agree with each other. Especially when it comes to the topic of gun control, most wouldnt know a Red Rider from an AK-47, and this much is made obvious every time theres a mass shooting. Point 2: Its the old, classic, overused yet seemingly still ignored argument: Drugs are illegal, but i guarantee i can go out and find anything your heart desires, within a few days...and i live in a COUNTY with a population under 12,000. In short, its not responsible gun owners with registered firearms out there killing each other, its hoodlums and criminals with black market, no serial number "Gats" blowing each others heads off because they were born on the opposite side of the Ghetto. But the HuffingtonfreakingPost isnt going to say that! That would be insensitive, politically incorrect, RACIST! Also, its the Second Amendment, and the 2nd Amendment wasnt put there for "hunting" or "sport". this amendment to the Constitution was made as a guarantee that the Power can stay with the People, that we have the ability to defend ourselves and our families from Domestic AND Foreign threats, (which, in this day and age, seems more and more likely to be needed) AND from the threat of a Rogue, Tyrannical Government, such as the one that would Strive to take that ability away. Now im not a "Radical" or a "Nut", but its important to know WHY this amendment is in place, and to know EACH SIDE of the "Gun Problem" in America, which are usually not included in the story the Liberal Media and Academia present.