BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is Donald Trump Racist Pro= yes con= No

Okay, why are they all starting to speak now? For all I know they could be lying through their teeth to try and stop them, I mean everybody was trying to stop Trump but they all failed, to me its all gibbering bs. Also, Trump has been ENDORSED by a African American, Dr. Ben Carson. Also if Trump was racist why would of all people let a Black preacher lead a prayer at a rally, also Hillary Clinton was endorsed by A grand-wizzard of the KKK and she has been calling trump a racist, I know u havent mentioned Hillary but I want to get that out of the way if you ever decide to bring that up. Also with the David Duke issue, Trump came out in an article that he didnt even know who David Duke was, also I never knew and I am majoring in political science for 3 years and never hear about him until now. "Well, just so you understand, I don't know anything about David Duke. okay? I don't know anything about what you're even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I don't know. -Trump on CNN 1) CNN 2) Trump Campaign Site 3) http://www.telegraph.co.uk... <--- That is the Grand wizard backing her up
Is Donald Trump Racist Pro= yes con= No

Framework: Trump is a racist.My Argument/Point:Donald Trump is a racist. Nothing more and nothing less. The source I have below shows the reasons why the Republican nominee, Trump is a racist. In the source, it says " “When Donald and Ivana came to the casino, the bosses would order all the black people off the floor,” Kip Brown, a former employee at Trump’s Castle, told the New Yorker for a September article. “It was the eighties, I was a teen-ager, but I remember it: they put us all in the back.”"Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Is Donald Trump Racist Pro= yes con= No

Okay first off when someone accuses Donald trump as being racist they point out to the video where he talks about building a wall as he does so in this speech. But where in that speech does he ever say Mexicans or Hispanics, he never did he talked about Mexico but never called blacks mexican or other races Coons or niggers or stuff like that he imply stated he wanted to stop ILLEGAL immigration 1) Youtube
developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change

C1. Thank you for the citation. Unfortunately, it led me to a page I have taken a screenshot of and saved to my pictures[1]. Substituting 'gov' for 'org' I reached a page which I then, after one click (the 'evidence sidebare') arrived at a page where NASA agrees that global warming is both happening and is 'very likely human caused'.[2] C2: My apologies to my opponent; I intended to say that the United States is not the only developed country. Thus, for example, my references to Australia. Australia is a developed country. C3: I would like to state that humans are sometimes idiots and have been known, on occasion, to not ban things that were harmful. Examples include literally everything that has ever been banned; logically these thing would have had not to be banned at one point. Secondly, the wording of the resolution assumes that greenhouse gases are hurting the environment; if they weren't no one would have any particular desire to mitigate the effects. My thanks to my opponent for the debate. 1. http://www.debate.org... 2. http://climate.nasa.gov...
developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change

The statement from the professor was from a BBC newscast in august of 2010. The articles are from BBC magazine. Unfortunately I can not post them online so we will scratch both these sources. My opponent stated in his last speech that the United States is not included as a developed country. Wikipeidia confirms that the United States is a developed country. My opponent also stated that my point on the EPA is irrelevant, This point is completely relevant because it is a organization funded by a developed nation which has come up with no successful solutions to climate change. My opponent has also not attacked my second contention so I assume that my opponent has accepted that developed nations have other bigger priority's. My opponent stated in his first speech that greenhouse gases are hurting the environment. If these gases are so harmful, how come there is no law banning them? Why are they still being pumped into the atmosphere? I would also like to pull through my point on NASA ( climate.NASA.org) stating that climate change is a natural cause. Lastly I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. No matter who wins or looses it was great fun.
developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change

Again, I must reiterate my desire to see Con's sources. C1: Citation, please. Secondly, regardless of what NASA thinks, 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are altering climate through carbon dioxide[1]. Nor does my argument rely on humans causing the increase in carbon dioxide; we can remove carbon dioxide from the air regardless of the source. C2: Firstly, this says 'developed countries' not 'USA'. Secondly, regardless of whether or not developed countries care, other countries will, and may (if they feel threatened enough) decide that they should enact sanctions on developed countries, or band together to attack them. Or present us with an embargo on their oil. Furthermore, global warming is predicted to cause: *negative effects in agriculture (wildfires, droughts) including to areas such as the Western United States and the Colorado River Basin *increased spread of mosquito born diseases (dengue fever, malaria) to places including the United States[2] *negative effects on ecotourism incomes as coral reefs die off (think Australia)[3] 1. http://www.skepticalscience.com... 2. http://www.nrdc.org... 3. http://www.skepticalscience.com...
developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change

I must apologise for the poor quality of my response; I managed to misplace my AlphaSmart and shall be unable to locate it until Monday at the soonest. Firstly, I would like to ask my opponent for his sources; I am unable to locate the BBC article and the only Martin Anthony I could find teaches at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Note that Con's arguments will be labeled C1, C2, C3, etc. ; mine will be labeled P1, P2, P3, etc. C1: The EPA does not only deal with climate change. It also deals with endangered species (though not to a great extent), hazardous waste disposal, and non-climate related pollution[1]. Furthermore, the efficiency of the EPA is irrelevant to a debate as to the moral obligation to mitigate climate change, unless it is showed to be common to all attempts to deal with climate change. C2: The greenhouse effect is well supported[2]. We emit greenhouse gases. If we stop emitting greenhouse gases, and even possibly start removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, then logically this would reduce the greenhouse effect, lowering the amount by which the world warms. P1: The Maldives are currently trying to buy land in other countries, as they expect to be underwater if nothing is done about global warming. If they do purchase land (in, for instance, Australia, which is one of their potential targets), then they shall definitely cause a problem as they, and the country surrounding them, adjust to having another sovereign country in the middle of them. Not to mention the possibility that some people living there might not take kindly the Maldives moving in. [3][4] 1. . http://www.epa.gov... 2. . http://www.skepticalscience.com... 3. . http://news.bbc.co.uk... 4. . http://www.guardian.co.uk...
developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change

I will be using the social contract where a country only has an obligation to its self "The EPA Has been funded highly in the last 10 years but has come up with little to no change to the environment what so ever" 2010 BBC Article I stand in firm negation on the resolution, Resolved: Devloped Countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change. My case is backed by two contentions: Developed countries already fund unsuccessful environmental programs Contention 2: There are other issues that are a higher priority to developed. On to my first contention, According to the Library of congress the EPA gets an annual budget of eight billion dollars a year, and rarely if ever come up with successful solutions to pollution or climate change. The BBC has reported multiple time of the success rate of the Epa and The british environmental conservation agency stating that both programs are failures and taxpayers should not be paying for them. As I have shown, developed countries have Environmental programs, countries like the USA, Britain , Canada, Australia, France,Spain and Portugal all have developed environmental programs, so countries have already accomplished the resolution. Also according to the British Environmental Conservation agency, climate change is only studied 3 months out of the 12 as stated by professor Martin Anthony of Cambridge university " what is the point of studying climate climate change if there is no way to control it. So if there is no way to control climate change why should developed countries make it a priority. This brings me to my next contention: Developed Countries have higher priorities. NASA States that climate change is a natural occurrence and as Professor martin Anthony of Cambridge university stated that there is no way to control climate change. Why should climate change be so high on the agenda? It shouldn"t, so the money used to fund these environmental agency"s in developed country"s can be used elsewhere, such as war effort, poverty and healthcare, the eight billion dollars that goes to the EPA can be used to minimize poverty, fund wars and fund healthcare. Climate change should not be a high priority in today agenda. In conclusion I have proven that Developed country"s already have funded programs that involved in environmental study and that climate change is not a priority to developed countries. With that I urge a vote in negation on the resolution. Thank you
Riddle

In the third scenario, its not stated that it is the manager who is giving the number: "A hooded man walks up to the manager and says what is my number"In this case the hooded man is the one asking for the manager to guess the number, not the other way around as painted in the first two scenarios. The manager says 10, the hooded figure says 5."The manager turns the man away because he said the wrong number. What was the correct number??????"^ In this sentence, 'he' is not specified, and can be referring to the manager OR the hooded figure. And my guess is the hooded figure. Therefore the correct number is 5I think......
Riddle

If con can solve my riddle he wins the debate, if he cannot or gets it wrong I will win. A man walks into a club and the only way to get in is if you say the correct number based on what the manager says. Manager: 12 Man: 6 ( Man walks into the club A second man walks up to the manager an wants to get in the club so the manager gives a second number. Manager: 6 Man: 3 (Man walks into the club) A hooded man walks up to the manager and says what is my number. Manager: 10 Hooded man: 5 The manager turns the man away because he said the wrong number. What was the correct number??????
Commentator's Choice - Rap Battle

This btch called me violent, and that is a fact I can't deny I am going to kill him both literally and metaphorically, he is really going to die I called you a metaphorical Mexican, and that actually hurt you deep down? You admit that hurt your pride, why would you even make a sound I don't know what your thinking because race does matter and your my pawn I am about to hand this guy a lawn mower and make him mow my lawn I guess those racists jokes are over done so much it sucks The fact is I don't give a damn, so you can counter the number of fuks Btch I already told you once, and what kind of meth I rep I smoke that walter white sht, you smoke that sht that brings death I told you that you would die, just be glad it wasn't from me I just pray to God that walking dead sht is true, I want you to come back as a zombie it wouldn't be much different though, your bars suck and you need to go home I'm going to Rick Grimes on you, and put a bullet straight in your dome Then I going to follow cannon and light your body up with fire Then lay back and smoke that blue meth, I am also going to be higher You think you can win but that's just a fukin joke Btch been rolling to much, hes needs to lay off and not toke When he snaps back to reality, he will learn the cold hard facts This is shakespere play and were in the final act Curtains fall down, the theater doesn't make a sound I stick a knife in your back and shove you to the ground Flip you over and then you realize I am about to bring you strife That one motion with the blade against your throat, it just ended your life Now your floating to heaven Hoping God will take your concessions You got to the gate, and you feel true oppression He said you sinned my son, time for you to learn your lesson Depart from me is the last thing you hear You feel hands grab you and your tremble with fear Your drug to hell and your memories are now clear The battle against me was end of your career.
Commentator's Choice - Rap Battle

Right off the bat we can see his true formThreatening to kill stuff is this guy's norm.He is an ingrate, a brute of a thug.Striking at kindness: ungrateful and smug.That's what he is, my opponent right thereA racist inside, admit it my dear.'You are a Mexican', this guy declares.Race doesn't matter, certainly not here.Mikal's not a man, he's a monstrous messYou wanted to stab me with stakes; confess!Filling his greeting with anger and death.Wanting to kill me: you on crystal meth?Giving a murderous thug such as CON,Even one point would be cheering him on - Let him spread hatred above and beyondTrash DDO with his ugly yarn.Do not let words of this garbage, this crapFool you to thinking that it defines rap.Thus, in light of the way that CON reactsHe loses all right to win - that's a fact.
Commentator's Choice - Rap Battle

I am going to start off nice and use them first round to accept I thank my adversary for obliging my request Even if you were nice enough to take any debate I am going to pretend your a vampire and offer you a stake Best of luck in the following rounds, I hope your bars remain true Any discrepancy in what you say , will be the death of you My bars are pure, they are crystal blue I have that walter white sht, and your from that random Mexican crew
Star Wars VII - The Force Awakens is a bad movie

I don't want to debate anymore. My opponent has cowardly ganged up with another debates. org buddy to bully me and harass me, it's not fair. 2 vs 1? They don't give arguments based on reason, as they know I'm right. They give arguments based on how much they like each other and how much they back up each others backs, in a coward way. Also, they insult me all the time, directly and beating around the bush, like low-life scumbags, thugs, weasels. I never want to talk to both of them again and have already blocked them on here. I only wish to talk to decent human beings.
The estate tax should be eliminated.

The estate tax is a tax imposed on property which is transferred to another upon the said person becoming deceased. However, this tax should be eliminated from the American government which is in place to simply make the government richer. As stated by presidential candidate Mitt Romney, people are taxed too often, when they make money, when the invest money, and when they pass the money on upon their death. I am not arguing the significance of the entire tax system in our government; however, anything in excess is a bad thing. I feel that Americans are being taken advantage of in the amount of taxes they are required to pay. Too often, taxes have become a major issue in the day to day activities of the American public. The government has a right to tax its citizens because without tax, there would be no funding, and without funding, the mere idea of government simply cannot be effective. The American people need a break from being forced to continually fund the American government, even up until the day that they die, literally. If the government can afford to fund a billion dollar war in Iraq as well as continually funding welfare programs across the nation, then it is obvious that, with proper cuts in unnecessary spending, the estate tax will not be missed if removed. With the hundreds of different forms of taxation that exists, one may wonder why the estate tax should be removed verse's other taxes such as sales tax, income tax, etc. However, the ease and significance of removing the estate tax is paramount. The estate tax is simple: the value of ones said goods is estimated, and a percentage of that estate must be paid to the government. Since the estate is an "extra" value to one receiving the goods, the tax is not often missed and causes little controversy. However, the belief that America can afford to loose a tax is major and clearly evident across the nation. The political impact that removing this tax can do for a politician is significant. Taxes need to be lowered in this nation, and a good first step is the removal of the estate tax.
We should return to the gold standard

First of all we were not supposed to go onto this aspect for too long, I will rebut but anything further will go toward a separate debate; First, unions are rare in the United States, and the few that exist are seldom get regarded by their employers. Yes the government didn"t, but this emphasized the reason to prevent inflation, the government is just not capable of increasing minimum wage according to inflation. Well I didn"t see anything else you are going to have to reinstate them. I"m going to compile these two into one paragraph ok; First off is that this point is true, but is irrelevant if said central bank caused the bubble in the first place, next is that that bank was a series of banks and was just an example. As far as that is concerned you are right, I am very well versed in this side of the subject, 1873 and 1893 were caused by bubbles, get rich schemes and other forms of Ponzi schemes, and yes, stopping it causes a recession now as opposed to a depression later, which is what Isais Hellman did, this is basically the same thing, the difference is that Isais Hellman did not cause the bubble, the Federal Reserve did. I see where I have confused you on my debate, first off any rapid economic change would be disastrous, I was advocating for a gradual change, say the federal reserve has to print an amount of money to replace deteriorating bills, the government would make 10% of that money to be gold certificates, and if anyone would come in with a gold certificate they would get a replacement gold certificate not counted toward the 10% as the gold has already been deposited, in this way the government would be able to have time to mine more gold and silver (which is very easy with our high amount of gold and silver) If you have any further rebuttals regarding the Federal Reserve please tell me in comments and I will create a separate debate.
We should return to the gold standard

Ok, so we abandoned the gold standard topic and switched completely to the Federal Reserve, I will quickly and efficiently slam your argument out of the debate so we can return to the gold standard subject, this does in fact tie in to what we were talking about, though I don't want to spend the rest of the rounds on one aspect of the issue, so here is my sum down of your points please notify me on comments if I missed anything; 1. Inflation is good for the economy. 2. Deflation is bad for the economy. 3. Recessions are good for the economy. 4. Booms are bad for the economy. 5. Inflation increases interest rates. Here is my rebuttal; Inflation is bad for wage workers, the minimum wage in 1950 was 1$, 1$ in 1950 is worth 24$ now, inflation destroys the middle class, my next point is that inflation cannot go on forever, it is not feasible for us to go on a dollar that is worth 1", but going off a dollar that is worth 100$ is feasible as it has happened before, and under a good economy. Deflation is bad for the economy, obviously any rapid change in an economic system Wil have negative effects, any rapid change will do so, gradual deflation will increase the minimum wage as 8$ will be worth more. A recession such as 1873 or 1893 turns beneficial for the economy in the long run, it eliminates fraction reserve banks, while conservative banks such as Isais Hellmans surplus reserve banks ( he kept 150% of what was in his clients accounts) survived, and had an increased trust because they survived, this was good because it stopped an already coming disaster, whereas the federal reserve caused the economy to overheat in the first place. I don't see how th at last one is relevant. Now that I destroyed your side of this aspect on this debate, we can continue on the gold standard, if you have a rebuttal, say so on comments and I will send you the link to the federal reserve debate.
We should return to the gold standard

So your rebuttals sum down to these: 1. You say that 5/6 of our recessions happened under the gold standard. 2. You say that I didn't back up my stating that gold did not fluctuate during the 1700s. 3. The government takes too long. 4. I didn't rebuttals your statement about inflation. So here's my rebuttals; I want to state beforehand, that the list of recessions were aimed at provoking my statement about the Federal Reserve being prone to cause recessions, but if you pay attention, and do your research, you will notice that all but 1873 and 1893 had nothing to do with the gold standard, the other four were caused by the central bank of the time, 1873 and 1893 did have a correlation to the gold standard, though it wasn't the actual cause, they were caused by fraction reserve banking, banks spent people's money and only kept a fraction of it as a reserve, if you want to get into technicalities, the unbiased truth is is that there was a gold shortage, that much you could blame on the gold standard, but it would not have started anything if not for fraction reserve banking, which meant that the two recessions were caused by not abiding by the gold standard. Actually I can back my statement, I will do so in comments as to not loose my work. You are absolutely right, the government takes too long, though my main argument is that the treasury could hold gold and silver reserves, and issue them to stimulate the economy if necessary. I did rebuttals your statement about inflation, but only partially, so here is a very simple fact, 1$ in 1929= 2$ in 1969, 40 years inflation with the gold standard and we loose 1/2 our money, 1$ in 1975= 4$ in 2015, 40 years inflation without the gold standard we loose 3/4 our money. As stated earlier I will cite my sources in comments as to not loose my work.