BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap Battle

I accept your challenge: My name is Mr.Fun I'm a poor man's son A man who makes his money on the streets selling buns I'm here to preach, common word See if I can reach, top of the herd And now allow me to begin as I spit out cruel words You think youze a really pretty money man But chu know only how to ignore the needy hand Cash rules everything around me Cream take the money Like the Wu Tang Clan? Hell no(e). You po(e) You just like me We don't got nothing anymo(e) Stop thinking you up high Just come back down low Sit with me and cry In our shady box home Man you don't got nothing And you know i don't toooooo What you trying to burn me on? On our precious firewoooooo? Man, control yourself Note the LSD on your health Stick it into memory And maybe Just maybe the future might be swell.
The U.S. ought to Privatize Amtrak

R1: Definitions and AcceptanceR2: Arguments and RebuttalsR3: Rebuttals and Conclusions*No semantics*No original arguments last round*No forfeiting-----A violation of any of these three rules is an automatic forfeiture of all points.Amtrak Subsidies: Amtrak is a railroad corporation which receives approximately $1.5 billion in federal subsidies every year, to increase railroad usage among the American population.In this debate, the contenders will argue whether or not the federal government ought to subsidize Amtrak, or if Amtrak should be privatized and "cut off" from federal subsidies, amounting to approximately $1.5 billion every year.Good luck.
Ugly people should be mutilated. (Ad hominem attacks are welcome, in fact encouraged.)

"Many religions of today mutilate young babies by cutting off their foreskin. This is un-justified and does not benefit the baby at all. However, this shows mutilation is legal and is an on-going practice." This is due to the Religious reasons behind it, this argument cannot be used to justify the mutilation of unwilling victims as this is a completely different, unjustified situation. It is also still illegal to attack and mutilate someone. "My proposal is to mutilate the genitalia of ugly people just enough so that they cannot reproduce; this is because ugly people produce ugly offspring. How unfair it is to bring a child into this world who will have to live the rest of their life as an ugly outcast, this is truly barbaric! This is borderline child abuse, why should children have to be born ugly? We have many beautiful children in the world that need to be adopted, if ugly people want children, then they should adopt, not bring more uglies into the world." Ugly people, as you call them, do not necessarily pass on their traits, there defects could be non-genetic or their partner's genes could take prominence. Regardless ugly people are on a whole not treated differently in society and can still be very productive, because of this mutilating anyone based on their appearance is completely unjustified. "To argue for ugly people being allowed to brood babies is to overlook what is best for the baby. Being ugly is not what's best for the baby. let's make a difference and mutilate the genitalia of uglies." Preventing babies from being born by using population controls is also not whats best for babies, but you gloss over that don't you? You also completely ignore my argument about Human rights, it's quite clear you can't justify your points.
Ugly people should be mutilated. (Ad hominem attacks are welcome, in fact encouraged.)

Many religions of today mutilate young babies by cutting off their foreskin. This is un-justified and does not benefit the baby at all. However, this shows mutilation is legal and is an on-going practice. My proposal is to mutilate the genitalia of ugly people just enough so that they cannot reproduce; this is because ugly people produce ugly offspring. How unfair it is to bring a child into this world who will have to live the rest of their life as an ugly outcast, this is truly barbaric! This is borderline child abuse, why should children have to be born ugly? We have many beautiful children in the world that need to be adopted, if ugly people want children, then they should adopt, not bring more uglies into the world. It is every parent's responsibility to give their child the best start in life, if said parent fails to meet this responsibility and decide to make an ugly baby, despite knowing that baby will look ugly and thus disadvantaged in life, then it's clear they're not fit to reproduce. Thus we should remove their mating privileges. To argue for ugly people being allowed to brood babies is to overlook what is best for the baby. Being ugly is not what's best for the baby. let's make a difference and mutilate the genitalia of uglies.
Ugly people should be mutilated. (Ad hominem attacks are welcome, in fact encouraged.)

For a start you present no valid reason for why 'ugly people' should be mutilated, this in it's self gives me more than enough material to have an argument as unjustified harming or killing is a crime, and even if it is justified it can still be considered so, but I will continue. Regardless if someone is ugly, disabled ect they are still Human, and that means they have rights. Attacking someone on the grounds of their appearance is breaching their Human rights and so is wrong.
Ugly people should be mutilated. (Ad hominem attacks are welcome, in fact encouraged.)

Just a quick debated concerning ugly people. By ugly what I mean is the repulsively ugly people. The genetically defunct, anus for a face looking mother f****rs. There should be no debate as to what ugly means, nor anything about how "subjective" being ugly is. Ugly is ugly, don"t try to justify natures hideous eyesores. You will be defending the ugly peoples right, not to be mutilated.
God can, and has sinned

Thank you, once again, for this debate. Words followed by ">>>" are going to be what you've said in this debate. The words followed by "--" Are going to be my replys. >>"Your definition of sin neglects a couple other definitions. According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, a highly trusted tool, a sin is defined as "an offense against religious or moral law b: an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible." Therefore, by this definition, God could either go against moral law or commit an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible....This definition leaves determining sin in the eye of the beholders - not the person performing the action." --The whole reason things are seen as sins, are because they don't follow something God would like. The " action that is felt to be highly reprehensible" part was added so that people know even if a particular thing isn't written down, it's still a sin in God's eyes if it's bad. Not to apply that standard to God himself. We only have "sins" because there is a religion. Religion (at least the one where the word 'sin' come from) is derived from God. Therefore, you cannot attempt to throw out morality being a key issue, nor can you remove the fact that the true definition of sin is "An act that is regarded by theologians as a transgression of God's will." In understanding this, you see that it is impossible for God to sin. You can say it limits God's power if you'd like [...] but put it this way; It's not that God can't do it, it's that God CAN not do it. :-p >>>". No choice is ever completely free of the past. Choosing to debate this was likely encouraged by some event in my opponent's past. Free Will is in no way a guarantee." --True, I was influenced to debate this by something in my past. However, I still had the choice of clicking it or not. My influence was just that, an influence. I was made or forced to by anyone, and I was under my own control. Put it like this. We're lab rats and God is the scientist. The cheese represents what we want in life. Now, we have a choice between not doing anything in the maze or going for the cheese. It even has the choice to stop breathing or take its own life if it wants. Although we still have that choice, God (the scientist) knows that we will go after the cheese. >>>"I will concede that. But in no way does that give him an exception to morality - which he did not create." -- How can you concede that God created the world, God has you as an experiment, God is all knowing and all powerful, but then say he didn't make the word "Morality." That would be like saying whoever invented the football didn't invent nerf footballs. It is based off of him! he doesn't need to invent it, he's DIRECTLY responsible for it. You don't need to give him the exception of morality. Morality is based off of good and bad decisions in God's eyes (when you look at it in a religious "sin" standpoint) AKA it is in coherence with God's will. And once again i'll state, if it's God's will, then it's not a sin; being that he doesn't go against his OWN will, he connot sin. ___________ In Conclusion ___________ God Cannot, has not sinned, and will not sin.
God can, and has sinned

First, I never have questioned God's immortality. I just called him an immortal hypocrite. Your definition of sin neglects a couple other definitions. According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, a highly trusted tool, a sin is defined as "an offense against religious or moral law b: an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible." Therefore, by this definition, God could either go against moral law or commit an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible. Obviously, as God created the religion of Christianity so that he WAS the religion, he cannot go against moral law. However, as I have shown previously and have yet to be refuted, morality must come from some source other than God. This in turn puts a limit on the power of God. Also, as for actions which are highly reprehensible, I sincerely believe that the Great Flood, the Plague, the killing of the First-born - all of these are reprehensible. This definition leaves determining sin in the eye of the beholders - not the person performing the action. The free will argument, as I have already stated, is based on an assumption that has yet to be proven. Merriam-Websters defines free will as the "freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention." A man named B.F. Skinner developed a theory of behavior known as radical behaviorism. This theory states that, if he knew the past of any person he could predict with absolute certainty how they will behave in the future. He "conditioned" animals to behave in a certain way - meaning that, at the end of a period of time, he will have altered their will and made them incapable of choice in a certain situation. No choice is ever completely free of the past. Choosing to debate this was likely encouraged by some event in my opponent's past. Free Will is in no way a guarantee. If this is an experiment should there not be ethics involved? How would the scientific community react if one of their own suddenly killed a fake world full of monkeys except for a handful that made a boat? I refuse to live under the impression that the Earth is like the Truman Show. Imdb it if you don't know it. My life may be a radical experiment by God. I will concede that. But in no way does that give him an exception to morality - which he did not create. God can sin.
God can, and has sinned

>>By this logic God could wipe out the entire universe and not call it a sin. If God does not follow the rules that he himself has created he will be an immortal hypocrite. To concede that God is incapable of being in the wrong is to say that he can DO no wrong. This means that nothing he does can be considered flawed. God made the universe. He made people. If this is the case, why did he not create humans in such a way that we also could do no wrong? Or, why did he allow Lucifer to survive? If he is perfect, as doing no wrong implies, then why didn't he create a perfect world? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, because it's very hard to assume that GOD is immortal! [...] Are serious? A sin is defined as : A) Estrangement from god and B) An act that is regarded by theologians as a transgression of God's will Now, how cam GOD, either go against his OWN will, or seperate from himself as a result of hostility? He can't, simply, because everything he does, he has wanted to do. And if he has wanted to do it, it's not against his will. Sins aren't just wrong because they're wrong. They're wrong because it's not what God wants you to do. Which is why he can't sin. You're whole argument is that he has killed people in the bible via floods, plagues, etc. However, if you're going to accept this form of God from the bible, you must also accept why he hasn't created a perfect world according to the bible. And within the bible, it states that God wants us to have free will. He wants us to have the ability to choose bewteen right and wrong in order to see what we'll choose. Besides, how do you know we aren't an experiment for God? How do you know we aren't doing EXACTLY what he wants us to do within the experiment? How do you know we aren't "perfect" in his eyes? How do you know, that to him, we aren't perfect?He created us to live and have free will, so in a sense, we have the ability to be alive, have feelings, and choose WHATEVER IT IS WE WOULD LIKE TO CHOOSE. Wouldn't that mean we are doing exactly what he wanted us to do? Sounds like he was 100% perfect/sucessful in what e was wanting to do, to me. besides.. How fun would a perfect world be anyways :-P
God can, and has sinned

By this logic God could wipe out the entire universe and not call it a sin. If God does not follow the rules that he himself has created he will be an immortal hypocrite. To concede that God is incapable of being in the wrong is to say that he can DO no wrong. This means that nothing he does can be considered flawed. God made the universe. He made people. If this is the case, why did he not create humans in such a way that we also could do no wrong? Or, why did he allow Lucifer to survive? If he is perfect, as doing no wrong implies, then why didn't he create a perfect world? I believe this where the argument for free will would enter in. To head this off I would state that free will is by no means definite and to assume so is to base an argument on an unproven assumption. As God obviously can do wrong, or do things imperfectly, can he be considered incapable of sinning? Granted, the 10 commandments can be seen as not applying to a hypocritical God. But then we have the Euthyphro question, "Are actions good because God commands them, or does God command them because they are good?" Is morality independent of God or dependent on him? If it is dependent on him then yes, he would be incapable of sinning because he IS morality. However, as God feels the need to write certain moral codes down, some of these are more important than others. For instance, lying is obviously less immoral than murder. Furthermore, if morality is dependent on God then it is ever changing. What is moral today could very well not be tomorrow. As some have been written down, the possibility for fluidity has been greatly reduced. Morality must be said to be independent of God for it to hold permanent merit. As morality exists independent of God then God would have to follow the same moral codes as people. Given that people have found numerous ways to break these moral codes, so too, can God.
God can, and has sinned

My opponent is under the misconceived notion that, simply, because God has given the commandments, he also has to abide by them. This is a logical fallacy (looks about right, but then again under inspection you realize it's not). Just because he has given them a set of laws to abide by, doesn't mean he is also constricted under those laws. For example, if your parents tell you "Son, your bedtime is at 10:30 pm," and they stay up past that bedtime, this doesn't mean that they are breaking the rules. The commandments were something he issued the people of the world to follow, not something he issued himself to follow. So therefore the resolution IS INDEED wrong. God has not sinned , is not sinning, and will not sin. Resolution NEGATED
God can, and has sinned

God created the 10 commandments and gave them to Moses. Among these are "Thou shalt not commit adultery" and "Thou shalt not murder." Adultery in biblical times meant a married woman having intercourse with someone other than her husband. Although Mary was not technically married to Joseph, the intent was there and they were married in all but name. There is a minor technicality here in that God only tempted Mary into being unfaithful and granting the use of her body to him instead of being sinful himself. But this leads to a very slippery slope. Also, the tempting is supposed to be done by the Devil. Where would one end and the other begin? Secondly, the 6th Commandment, "Thou Shalt not Murder," has been broken by God in no small way. Anyone remember the great flood and Noah and the Ark and all that? With the exception of Noah's family/spouses God murdered the entire human race! And his way of apologizing? What a pretty rainbow....... God has sinned.
Double predestination is a truth supported by the Bible

i dont think God has deilberately made anyone to go to hell... 1 timothy 2 "God our Savior, 4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." i could go on with the verses. there might be a play on ideas, in that God created people who he knew would be saved, condemned etc. but he hasnt created anyone who would be damned by their design etc. in any case..... we all have free will, and predestination at its essence violates that. if you defined predestination to include free will and God's foreknowledge etc, then it's properly not reallly predestination.
Double predestination is a truth supported by the Bible

This will be my first debate, so I leave the floor open to a challenger who is more familiar with the typical format to establish any sort of ground rules, accepted definitions, and so forth. I will do my best to make some sort of minimal introduction here. This argument is based solely on Christian theology, and necessitates evidence from the Bible to support the majority of the arguments that are put forth. The term double predestination, as I understand it, refers to the Calvinistic belief that God has deliberately created specific humans to be brought to Heaven, and he has deliberately chosen others to be sent to Hell. Unless another acceptable definition is presented in round one, this is the definition that will be utilized throughout the debate. Burden of proof is shared.
Violence is clearly an issue, not just in the United States but EVERYWHERE!

Firstly I would like to state that video games are not the sole leading cause of violence in the world. I was not able to find anyone prove to me that this was the case. In places with high crime rates and conflict poverty have been responsible for so much strife. [1] Now I would also want to draw fact to the decrease of violent crime in the US even though there has been a sudden boom of Video games as a main street medium for art. Also even though the US currently has the highest firearm murder rate in the world, other countries where video games are more popular per capita seem to have lower firearm related deaths. [2] Also many of the studies 'proving' to find a link between violence in the real world and video games have had major flaws and didn't follow the scientific method properly. Most don't use an effective way of measuring aggression e.g noise blast tests. Aggressive thoughts have also been confused with aggressive actions and there is no long term study on the effects of video games. [3] Video games have been able to do interesting things in that rather make people violent and agitated, creates a therapeutic effect where players are encourage to punish the 3D models in game rather than taking the anger out in the real world. This is debated among professional scientists but is widely believed by players of video games (myself included). I feel as if this pointing fingers at this medium is generally a way to put the blame in a medium that many people still do not understand. Similar things happened to movies, books, comics, opera, dancing and radio during the early days but have now been accepted as the norm. [3] [1] http://sfbayview.com... [2] http://theincidentaleconomist.com... [3] http://videogames.procon.org...
Abortion

My opponent has not refuted any of my arguments and has only made unsupported claims that he did not effeciently defend or provide evidence for and he has not given me an answer to any of the questions I asked him. I therefore extend all of my arguments from the last round as they all went untouched. To provide some form of content for this round: "Everyone has rights."Including the mother, so why do you think her rights should be broken for the rights of something that is not born?"If you want to abort someone, then go ahead."This is completly against your pole: should I read that as a consession? "Kill something that was supposed to life." Can you prove that statement? It is not a human any more than your sex-cells are humans. The act of abortion is just as immoral as using birth control. Are you going to defend that those should be illegal? Birth control prevents the would-be fetus to be born and thus kills something that was supposed to live. Why should bc be legal if abortion isn't? are you proposing that the only valid sexual intercourse should be for reproduction?Abortion protects the life of the mother. the reasoning "Don't because it kills something that has no self-awareness!" is not going to hold valid."Again, morally abortion is wrong. "How so is it morally worse than forcing the child upon an unwilling mother? My opponent cannot ignore this point and must answer it, along with all others, in the next and final round.
Abortion

I accept these definitions. Your definition of aborition is right, but morally it is wrong. Abortion is the action of killing what is supossed to be human. Making abortion legal would be unethical. Abortion is wrong with exceptions to rape or incest. If someone had sexual intercourse and got pregnant, why didn't they use a condom. Like I said in the previous round, Abortion is basically killing a person. If you legalize abortion, you are basically legalizing murder.
Abortion

Few definitions to avoid semantics: abortion əG2;b;6;H0;@3;(ə)n/ noun 1. the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks. legal G2;liH0;g(ə)l/ adjective 1. relating to the law. "the European legal system" 2. permitted by law. moral G2;m;4;r(ə)l/ adjective 1. concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour. Standard DDO rules along with the common etiquette and rules apply (no plagarism, no forfeits, cite all sources, show proper debating etiquette, con shall post no new arguments in the last round e. t. c)Let's try and avoid debating semantics, definitions or topic resolution. The resolution resolved permits to the following:"The act of Abortion is wrong[immoral] and should not be legal. "If my opponent does not agree to these definitions and my understanding of the debate resolution above which I shall be abiding to he shall object to them either in the comments or in a PM BEFORE posting his next round, the opening case. If he posts the second round and thus starts the debate without both objecting and resolving the issue with me he has agreed to the definition and resolved resolution along with the rules. Neither party of the debate may object, change or challenge to the terms and definitions once the next round has been posted and the debate has been started. Failiure to abide to any of these terms results in a 7 point forfeit if deemed appropriate and valid by the voters. You may state your case, assuming you agree to this round.