BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap Battle : Cloud (Pro) Vs Link (Con)

I'll turn your fantasy into a nightmare Then send you crying back to your mom After that I think I'll shoot you with another one of my bombs Listen dude, there's no chance of you beating me I've got the Tri-Force of courage b*tch Facing me is a direct link to your end You winning this will just as impossible as you finding a friend My master sword will slice your buster in half Everybody looks at you now and just laughs Your b*tch Tifa gripped my other master sword once, gave me a nice blow I let her take the rest in and absorb my flow Listen man, I'm gonna just end this right here I think that after this, you just dropped another tier
when in conflict the us should prioritze global poverty reduction over enviromental protection.

Ok let me say this then since you believe that we depend on third world countries and that they depend on there economie's agricultural society than why did the united states loose 600 million eggs due to a salamonella out break. why you ask it is because of all the disease that comes from oh let me think homelss people whom live in poverty. Where is the number one cause of AIDS and HIV'S and again this comes from malnutrition and poverty levels that are so extreme that no amount of money can help it. So tell me this why is it that you would rather let people suffer from hunger and no water and focus more on the enviroment. The enviroment changes naturally and goes through constant changes so what we are going through is just a natural cause.
when in conflict the us should prioritze global poverty reduction over enviromental protection.

I look forward to a good debate. "so if we get these people that are in poverty to house them and feed them maybe they will start helping out the enviroment in the long run so this debate can be leaned toward either side but i choose prioritizing poverty reduction. " REBUTTAL: In this point, Pro asserts that the poor would aid in helping the environment if we provided housing and resources for them. This is clearly a fallacy, as poor people wouldn't automatically become environmentalists if housing and food were provided to them. Additionally, the consumption of resources would harm the environment because various wastes that are produced in the aftermath of consumption. Environmental protection should be prioritized over poverty reduction. The environment is the source of natural resources that humans need to survive, including food. If we don't prioritize the environment, third-world countries will collapse since these countries' economies depend largely on the agricultural industry. For example, in Africa, desertification is currently affecting the state of its environment. If the issue of desertification is not prioritized, then by 2025, Africa would only be able to produce enough food to feed 25% of its population. Poverty will only continue to increase if the environment is not cared for because the environment helps produce food and other important resource. Source of desertification in Africa: . http://socyberty.com... I look forward to my opponent's response.
when in conflict the us should prioritze global poverty reduction over enviromental protection.

Our president is currently trying to find alternative energys for the earth. This is great and all but i believe that we must prioritze reducing poverty because the people who are in trouble with no food and water don't care about the enviroment because they are the ones who eat from the trash and drink from a pond. so if we get these people that are in poverty to house them and feed them maybe they will start helping out the enviroment in the long run so this debate can be leaned toward either side but i choose prioritizing poverty reduction.
DB/z/gt/super is Better Than FNAF

First off, I would appreciate it if you double checked your writing before posting, just so you have proper grammar and spelling, secondly, there has been theories done on Dragon Ball/Z/GT/Super On film theories channel and multiple websites, and sorry for my mistake on the amount of games the FNAF franchise had, BUT Dragon Ball Z ALONE has multiple movies (Fusion Reborn, Cooler's Revenge etc.) not to mention the Super movies! So I think that i've made my case clear, thank you for reading this and please vote for the Dragon Ball franchise
DB/z/gt/super is Better Than FNAF

To start things off, you're saying fnaf only has 5 games but they have 6. fnaf 1, 2, 3, 4, world and sister location how many is that? SIX!!!!!! 1)fnaf may not have any shows but it will soon have a movie. the fnaf community has alot of theori and majority of people are really nice. why don't you research game/film theory, he has a heap of fnaf theories but how many dragon ball theories has he made? NONE!!! i think my point has been proven already if you're reading this, vote for me and
DB/z/gt/super is Better Than FNAF

This is why I Think Dragon Ball Z (Anime, Games, etc. ) is better than FNAF: a) Dragon Ball Is a Wide Franchise, consisting of five animes (Dragon Ball, Z, Super, Kai, gt) Many Games and Manga, while Fnaf consists of 5 games. .. yep b) Dragon Ball Has a deep storyline going from Goku's childhood to Him being a Family man, with a wife and two children, And fighting for the sake of humanity!
Minimum wage

http://smallbusiness.chron.com... http://www.forbes.com... http://www.forbes.com... The above links show how much minimum wage hurts the small business. Raising the minimum wage hurts all business in the sense that when the wage is increased, some workers have to be let off. Now how are the companies supposed to decide to let people off? What if they let off the person who needed the job rather than the person who comes from a wealthy family and is just working a minimum wage job because he enjoys the work? "If an employee was working harder than another employee the minimum wage has nothing that keeps employee 1 from getting a raise." The company could not afford to do this without firing another one of the corporations employees because the company still needs profit. People who work at minimum wage jobs, like McDonald's lets say, and want a raise are not thinking ahead. The reason is because to afford this the company would then need to increase the cost of the burgers to pay for the increased wages. Now not as many people would want to buy burgers because of the cost increase, thus either the wage would have to be decreased or jobs would be lost. See the link below for more. http://theboltlive.com... Minimum wage hurts all business and their employees, which is why we need to abolish it.
Minimum wage

I'm sorry about the forfeit. You are correct that there is an unnecessarily large gap between the salary of a high level employee and an average employee. However, not having a minimum wage would make that gap grow significantly. Less money would go to an average person because the corporation was not legally obligated to pay that person more money. You said that the minimum wage gives people doing the same job many inequalities. If an employee was working harder then another employee the minimum wage has nothing that keeps employee 1 from getting a raise. http://en.wikipedia.org... A minimum wage is the LOWEST that an employee can get paid. It is NOT the amount that an employee MUST be paid.
Minimum wage

"Large corporations would give large amounts of money to higher up employees and little to nothing to the average middle class citizen." Even with minimum wage this happens, take for example Wal-Mart on the link it shows the average pay per cashier and other jobs. It shows that the average cashier is paid $8.88 per hour USD. Now I can guarantee the higher up employees are paid much more than that, if you don't believe me here is the link.... http://www.glassdoor.com... When a minimum wage is in place, people who have the same job have many inequalities. To prove one inequality let's use an employee stocking shelves for example. Now if employee #1 was working harder than employee #2 he is still making the same amount of wage as employee #2- how is that fair? Minimum wage allows for no one to succeed except for the top CEO's. Now when you said the average middle class citizen would basically get paid nothing without minimum wage, if this were true these middle class workers would go to a corporation who was willing to pay more- this creates competition. The CEO's would be smart enough to understand that all his workers were going to work at his competition he would raise the workers raises to ensure they stay with his/her corporation.
Who is Naturally stronger between Goten (pro) and Kid Trunks (con)

Without training I would like to state out that these two are some of the most powerful kids in the world and you would not want to mess with them. 1. Based on basic strengths Trunks would naturally be stronger. Why? Simple, their parents. Although, yes, Goku is the main character in the manga Vegeta's natural strength is higher. This means, because saiyen kid's power are based of their parents original power, trunks would be stronger PRE-training. SIDE NOTE: I personally love goku and have done debates on goku vs. superman etc. so this statement isn't biased in the least. 2. This second statement on your debate shouldn't be considered because you stated the training of trunks and Goten when you stated previously stated that we were doing PRE-training. Outside of that you also state that Trunks BEAT Goten, though not enough to do it easily he still does it though, meaning that he is stronger. Also because of this I believe I can state one instance POST-training. Training to beat Majin Buu they must learn the fusion dance to become much stronger, during this time Goku asks the two to raise their power levels to the limit, Then asks Trunks to LOWER his power level quite significantly meaning that he is stronger than Goten.
Who is Naturally stronger between Goten (pro) and Kid Trunks (con)

I by naturally, I mean no training, Goten is stronger. I would love to start this debate. 1) Goten might have lost the tournament, but that doesn't affect the natural strength of the two. 2) Trunks training was way more severe, but was not enough to defeat Goten easily, which was trained by Chi-Chi before the tournament.
The US should become a confederacy

The United States tried having a confederacy. It didn't work because the power of the Federal government is a necessity of the nation as much as I hate to say it. When the majority of the country reaches a conclusion such as slavery is evil, segregation is wrong, or that Texas does not have the right to declare war on another sovereign nation. (This one does not have historic precedent) While under the current government the states have lost many rights and their power has been overstepped in the process it remains important that change as nation with a shared culture and history can be achieved at higher level. The Constitution when followed lays out a near perfect model for a limited government. People can change this and the solution is much simpler than trying to reform government into a system that has not proven to work. People can effect change by first and foremost breaking the two party system and allowing small government minded people to bring this nation back to its roots as a constitutional representative republic.
Resolved: in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote

I took the core value assumed by Pro to be achieving justice. Pro claimed, "The creation of justice, by preserving the democratic society, is the pathway towards the achievement of the perfect democracy." Now Pro seems to claim that justice should be defined as whatever democracy produces, no matter how unjust. The vote of cannibals provides a simple example of the fact that democracy does always achieve justice. Moreover, the fact that democracy does not achieve justice is reflected in the U.S. Constitution by its establishing a republic, by using a system of electors chosen by state legislators "by any means," and by having a Bill of Rights that protects individuals from unfettered democracy. Moreover, the exclusion of minors and the exclusion of non-citizens is done to foster justice at the expense of unfettered democracy. Pro made no argument that justice would be achieved by expanding democracy. In his opening statement Pro asserted "If all of these Voters were re-enfranchised and 1726 more of those voters cast ballots in favor of Al Gore Rather than George Bush the presidential election would have turned another way." then in rebuttal he contradicts himself by asserting "Also felons are only 2% of the population not enough to win an election." Pro was correct in his first assertion, and the numbers Pro recited prove that 2% more than enough to swing an election. Pro asserts that recidivism rates are "mere speculation." It is not speculation that convicted felons still have a substantial interest in preserving a criminal lifestyle. When about 60% are rearrested and more are not caught, that is solid proof that they maintain that interest. It would be a fine idea to exclude felons who have never been caught from voting, but the lack of a practical way of doing that does not mean we should honor the judgment of those we know to have interests in weakening the justice system. Pro asserts that the only purposes of imprisonment are punishment and rehabilitation. I refuted that at the outset. An additional purpose is to prevent the offender from committing additional bad acts upon the public. Denying the vote to a convicted felon prevents the felon from committing the bad act of fostering criminal interests through the voting process. That can, fortunately, be prevented without imprisonment. Note that the proposition restores the vote to felon who are in jail or on parole, yet Pro seems to insist that the issue is solely about those who have completed their sentences. The fundamental error in the Pro position is the assumption that greater democracy always means greater justice. Clearly it does not. I therefore urge a vote against the proposition.
Resolved: in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote

I am Sorry for my Absense I lost track of the day count(I know a bad excuse but a true one) First of all My opponent proposed no criterion or core value and so mine are seen to stand. First point. My opponent gives the Cannibals and the missionary example. This is irrelevant because the cannibals are not necessarily felons and second in such a situation disfranchisement wouldn't exist because there are no laws. there is also no evidence the vote would be in favor of the missionary. 2nd: the only thing that makes the citizen of a democratic government different from a despotic one is the right to vote. Furthermore this debate does not concern what is currently being done but as to what we should do. So the constitution is irrelevant. re-build my own case (refutation of Marshall quote) I am Not suggesting they are equal but merely they get representation. If we disenfranchisethem we are turning what was once a two way street into a one way street. They are also paying or have paid there debt and further punishment hinders the rehabilitative efforts of society. Also the recidivism point is merely speculation without factual evidence and therefore is irrelevant. 2nd contention The point proposed by my opponent it simply un-democratic. It is turning towards Oligarchy which is, of course, not democratic and therefore denys justice 3rd contention My opponent is merely speculating with the recidivism rates and again therefore those statistics must be thrown out. Also if we were to include those who had not been caught we must consider all non-felons who may have commited a crime and advocate disenfranching them??? this destroys democracy not preserves it. Second the thought process used in felony and the thought process used in voting are entirely different things. Also the fact politicians would play to felons. this is infact not true, not politician would run a capmaign in prisons for the reason my opponent stated, cost. Also felons are only 2% of the population not enough to win an election --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The goal of the prison system is, ultimately, rehabilitation or deterrence from furhter crime. Felon disenfranchisement it nither and therefore overkill to the criminal justice system. again in a democratic society there is no such thing as a bad vote or else it would be moving away from democracy While this story is unfortunate it does not prove that felons disenfranchisement is warranted. It simply says felons ought to be punished. That is what the prison system is for and disenfranchisement does not solve the given situation. Because felons are required things of society they must be given all the rights of society and, therefore must vote. If they need government aid this is often times the fault of society for labeling them and not the fault of the felons themselves. Therefore in intrests of preserving democracy the resolution should be affirmed
Resolved: in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote

My sincere condolences are extended to opponent, as surely only a crisis of major propositions would have prevented him from typing the word "Continued" some time within the three day response period. Proponents for felons retaining the right to vote often suppose that withholding the right must be either punishment or retribution. Such is not the case. We imprison serial killers not only on grounds of punishment or retribution, we imprison them to prevent them from committing similar bad acts. Depriving a felon of the right to vote is unlikely to be a significant punishment to discourage criminal behavior. Even as retribution it would be trivial. However, removing the right to vote prohibits the felon from committing the bad act of voting for a candidate because the candidate is likely to weaken the justice system. As an example, consider the famous Willie Horton case http://forerunner.com... that came up during the 1988 presidential campaign. Michael Dukakis opposed George H.W.Bush. Willie Horton was a convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. However, as governor of Massachusetts Dukakis permitted Horton to be let out of prison on a furlough program that Dukakis thought would aid rehabilitation. During a furlough, Horton murdered another person. As governor, Dukakis commuted so many sentences for first-degree murder that the time actually served for life without parole was 19 years. (op. cit.) I have no doubt that Governor Dukakis was sincere in his belief that leniency leads to rehabilitation. However, felons will certainly want leniency regardless of whether rehabilitation occurs or not. The recidivism rate proves that most often it does not occur. We may therefore suppose that allowing felons to vote would sway close elections to the side of leniency, particularly when issues other than the justice system dominate the campaign. Felons should not have the right to vote in the interests of pursuing a life of crime. Suppose that there are no criminal justice issues evident in a campaign. We know that many convicted felons are characteristically averse to working for a living. They are therefore likely to vote for whichever candidate promises the largest amount of unqualified government benefits. This is also contrary to the interests of ordinary voters, who are likely to be willing to help the poor, but unlikely to want to support criminals. For these reasons, the resolution should be rejected.
Trains should stop being so boring.

1+1+1+...=infinity Now add to that and you get 1+2+3+...=more than infinity 1-1+1-...=x 1-(1-1+1-...)=1-x 1-1+1-1+...=1-x x=1-x 2x=1 x=1/2=1-1+1-... y=1-2+3-4+... +1-2+3-... 2y=1-1+1-1+... 2y=1/2 y=1/4 z=1+2+3+4+5+... -(1-2+3-4+...) z-1/4=4+8+12+... z-1/4=4(1+2+3+...) z-1/4=4z -1/4=3z -1/12=z=1+2+3+...=more than infinity=Their studginess I have proven that the studginess of a train is negative, and a negative times a positive is a negative. Therefor, trains have a negative amount of total studginess, and my opponent's only argument has been destroyed. In Cloncusion I have shown that Pro's argument really boils down to semantics and questionable debating tactics, a vote for him is a vote for Satan! Vote Con! #breakingtherules
Trains should stop being so boring.

Trains are the most boring things ever. We can prove it mathematically. P1) Trains are studgy P2) There are too many trains C) We should get rid of trains. That's another way of proving it. TRAINS' STUDGINESS No. Of trains = infinity (it seems like it at least) Their studginess = more than infinite (it seems like it any way) Total studginess = infinity x more than infinity = infinite studginess We should fix infinity because it is not a real number, so therefore we should fix trains with their boring and slow ways. SEE? TRAINS ARE EVIL! This is why we should get rid of them. THEY're a real menace. Con's argument is for trains rather than against them, so by power if arguing, his argument is way too boring and slow so you shouldn't read his argument. Read mine instead! Thank you.
Trains should stop being so boring.

" We all. .. died of boredom" Clearly not, as I am typing this right now. "If they weren't so studgy and humdrum, one good man would still be alive to this date! " While that is one way to go about the issue, it is certainly not the best or what we should do. The real answer is to make the trains go even slower, have duller colors, and make them all around more boring. This way, trains will take up even less space in a certain amount of time, let's say 100 km^3 as opposed to 1000 km^3. As shown by this proof, the universe is infinite: P1 There is a universe P2 There is everything in the universe P3 Everything=infinity C The universe is infinite Since 100 < 1000 there is a. A smaller chance of seeing such a boring vehicle b. An impossibility of seeing said vehicle as 100/infinity=.0 repeating 1, which equals 0. In fact, 1000/infinity is 0, so there is no issue in the first place. It is a logical impossibility for that man to have seen any train, and therefor was a government conspiracy.
Trains should stop being so boring.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...Recently, a man's body was found at a railway station in Southampton (that is over here in England). Hopping Hampshire Police said the death was being treated as "unexplained", however I think I know how that man died.In this PC* world of ours, people are afraid to speak out against things that are foreign to a lot of us, such as trains. We all know that the man clearly died of boredom, probably after he saw how slow trains actually are (1, 2, 3 and 4).My point is that trains should stop all this being boring business. If they weren't so studgy and humdrum, one good man would still be alive to this date!Fortunately for the whole of mankind, Police did serve one good purpose by sealing off the station so that nobody else could die of boredom from seeing the tortoiselike tedious trains. Pictured above: Police seal off areaThank you.Sources(1) The first video(2) The second video(3) The third video(4) The fourth video *- Politically correct http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...