BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Spinozian Pantheism is Sound (Rap Battle)

The poor judgment here cannot be overlookedReason is not a good morality bookReasonable arguments can still disagreeThe arguments get uglier than Nanny McPheeWe can raise reasonable pointsOn all ends of the spectrumBut choosing who's rightIs the biggest problemI can argue genocideIs for the greater goodBecause the planet is runningOn a shortage of food.But does that make genocide rightDue to utilitarian rhetoric?Or is it still wrongDue to deontological ethics?Even now we prove my argumentBy presenting reasonable pointsAlthough we stand in disagreementMorality is at the toss of a coin.
Spinozian Pantheism is Sound (Rap Battle)

Your first mistake can be shown quite clearly You say that contradictions are entailed, and this will cost you dearly For while Spinoza's theory implies self-interest That's not the same as whim worship, and you can share that on Pinterest One must live in harmony with God Any other belief is just odd Killing a child is never right Nor is mugging or starting fights The reason is that one must be rational And rationality does not make men factional If 2+2 really does add up to four A group of rational men would always agree, now pick your jaw up off the floor Human nature cannot be denied Man needs to be rational, else he'll be fried And since all men share the same nature Killing another is essentially suicide, to use that nomenclature. As you can see, rationality lays a good framework For metaethical theories that stop people from going berserk My opponent's supposed arguments then flounder Maybe her parents should just ground her
Spinozian Pantheism is Sound (Rap Battle)

The idea is cool, but I found a contradiction,Where's the room for morality in this fiction?This particular theory doesn't have a provisionGreatest oversight in philosophical fusion.Because if god is everything, and everything is godThen god contradicts himself, no need to applaudOpposite actions are both considered consistentSo inconsistent actions are somehow consistent?If I murder a child then I am not in the wrong.Not even if I do it with a Justin Beiber song.All actions are taken as part of this god?So the universe is founded on some sort of fraud?This idea takes away the logic of natureFrom normality, reality, and standard behaviorYou cannot ignore it, the problem is majorForfeit and back off this philosophy, hater.So when you tell me to look for problems withinI think you overstepped yourself on the winThe problem is apparent, god is not god if contradictoryYou probably should've consulted your wictionary
Spinozian Pantheism is Sound (Rap Battle)

For future reference, a substance is something which can existAnd is basically independent of all other things, like a severed fistIt's like a medium through which other things are conceived It itself cannot be conceived through anything else, since it's independent, capiche? Spinozian Pantheism goes like this:There is one substance that you just can't dissThis substance is all there isTotally infinite in respect to attributes, gee whiz. First let me lay down some foundational argsSince they're needed for a project this largeThe Principle of Sufficient Reason says simplyThat all things have a cause, and this is the keyAll things may need a cause to exist is one sideBut also that all things that don't exist have causes of nonexistence, is this getting through to your mind?Therefore that which is not is not for a reasonAnd this reason must be either inside or outside the thing, no matter the seasonNow consider a riddle: how can you tell one child from another?Surely because they have differences, like the fact that they have different mothersIf there are none of these differences that you have soughtThen surely the number of reasons for calling them different things is naughtNow let's get into the core of this battleEnough of this preliminary rattle Imagine a substance which is unlimited in sizeIt has infinite attributes, and these aren't liesHow could you tell this substance apart from any other one?That's a trick question: if you could, then the infinite substance would not have an attribute posessed by the other substance, which is a contradiction in terms. Isn't this fun?So now we know that if an infinite substance existsIt must stand alone, not like a hen with its chicksThere could be nothing outside of itself, not even a ratOr a single one of the Mafia's many gatsNow let's consider if it's possible for such a substance to not existRemember how we know that for it to not exist it must have something keeping it from existing, that's the twist!If it's true that the substance must always be all by itselfSuch a cause of nonexistence can have no source, unlike Donald Trump's wealth!The only option left is to look for an internal contradictionBut the idea of a "substance" already preassumes existence, isn't that a shocking use of diction! If a substance contradicts itself internally Then by defininition a substance it could never be.So an infinite substance must exist and must be universalNothing extending beyond it, neither in spring nor in fallThis substance would be infinitely perfect and all there isSo calling it God would not, in any way, be amiss.I have given you more than enough reason to vote PROYou should definitely do it if your ethical code isn't base and low.
Apple Has Better Products Than Samsung

"Apple's A7 chip 'is so much better than its rivals' states MacWorld. If you would like the proof, visit their direct article."A place called "Macworld" sounds like it would be pretty bias towards Apple and Mac products. Anyway, I'm not going to go find this source. As it was not given, it doesn't exist. Therefore this entire quote doesn't exist."Since you seem to believe that Wikipedia is a reliable source, I have the right to use it as well"A study [1] found that Wikipedia (Nine years ago mind you) had a around the same error rate as Encyclopedia Britannica. It's not perfect but it's not unreliable. The article I used also had no known problems with it. In fact, the only way I used it was to show when the iPod Touch came out. It also appears that the cited information was copied and pasted straight out of wikipedia."I would encourage you to look up (on wikipedia) the newest Samsung device's design and hardware."Not doing Pro's research for him."IT CANNOT COMPARE."Of course it can. One can compare rocks to apple juice if they so wish."How about we look into that court case back in 2011. The one where Samsung ADMITTED to copying and violating design patents and other patent infringements."Pro is completely missing my point here. Apple did not invent finger print scanning. They may have been the first to add it to their phones, but they did not invent it. "Well if we are going to keep a scoreboard of points for each company or "team", I would call that ethics. So, in fact, you have just made this "ethically relevant." What?"Samsung needs some points deducted for copyright infringement."Nope. As has been stated multiple times, this is about the product, not the ethics of the company that manufactured it. If Samsung adds something to their product that makes it better than Apple's then their product is better. "you used another meaningless word: 'borrowed.'"Definition of borrowed (According to Google): "Take (a word, idea, or method) from another source and use it in one's own language or work." This definition fits what Samsung did. Also, due to the fact that "borrow" has a definition, it's not meaningless."The facts I have provided have given proof enough to anyone to go with Apple's line of devices."Pro has not provided any evidence. He copied and pasted some information about the processors from Wikipedia and attacked Samsung's ethics. As I have stated multiple times, this is about the final product itself, not the company that made the product. The AK-47 was a very good gun. The fact that it was made by a country ran by Stalin doesn't change that. ---I believe that I have made the case that Apple products are not superior to Samsung products. The ethics of Samsung may not be great, but that's irrelevant. [1] http://news.cnet.com...
Apple Has Better Products Than Samsung

Even if Apple's system does not run faster at a constant, quantitative number, the system is still proven to run much faster than Samsung'sSo where is this proof?"Speaking of having numbers with no evidence..."I was off by one year. The iPod Touch came out nine years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Which actually makes my point even more valid. "If you read what I ACTUALLY said, I said they invented the Touch ID, which is the name of Apple's built-in feature. I said nothing about them inventing the original finger print scanner. "I didn't say that Pro stated that Apple invented the finger print scanner. I included this because one cannot claim that Samsung stole the technology from Apple."I like how you said Samsung 'added it to their own products'"Yeah, the act of including something that was not previously part of the original thing is adding. Apple also added many things to their product."Here are some FACTS to prove that"The information provided just showed how Samsung borrowed ideas from Apple. If anything, this makes Samsung products better. Let's attach some numbers to this. An iPhone is worth 6 points and a Galaxy is worth 5 points. Galaxy takes some features of the iPhone that are better and as a result adds 2 points to themselves. Now iPhone has 6 and Galaxy has 7. Ethical? Maybe not. Is the ethicality relevant? Nope. "If you are going to accuse me of gathering 'un-sourced numbers', then you better be right. This time, you weren't."What? Pro failed to cite these numbers until the second round. No citation was provided, therefore it was un-sourced."Unfortunately, this debate is not about how much water Samsung dishwashers save compared to others, or how much energy a samsung TV will save you every year. "Actually this is exactly what it's about. The debate is regarding profucts. Dishwashers and TVs are products, both of which Apple does not have. ---So far in this debate, Pro has merely attacked the ethics of Samsung, and not their products.
Apple Has Better Products Than Samsung

"That's quite a claim, and as it has no source or evidence, I will assume it to be false."Even if Apple's system does not run faster at a constant, quantitative number, the system is still proven to run much faster than Samsung's. "This is not a debate about who made better products eight years ago"Speaking of having numbers with no evidence..."Apple did not invent finger print scanning"If you read what I ACTUALLY said, I said they invented the Touch ID, which is the name of Apple's built-in feature. I said nothing about them inventing the original finger print scanner. "Samsung saw that consumers liked it, so they added it to their own products." I like how you said Samsung "added it to their own products" You're right. They took Apple's idea, then "added it to their product." In other words, they stole it from Apple because Apple had the better idea. Samsung doesn't usually come up with original ideas. Here are some FACTS to prove that :) Apple creates the first touchscreen smartphone --> Samsung comes out with their own months later The voice recorder app on Samsung's Galaxy S II phone looked just like the one on the iPhone. http://www.businessinsider.com... Samsung's charger port on its first Galaxy Tab looked just like the one on the iPad. http://www.businessinsider.com... Samsung created Samsung Wallet, an app that stores coupons, tickets, boarding passes, etc. after Apple introduced Passbook for iPhone. http://www.businessinsider.com... After Apple created the Smart Cover for iPads, Samsung comes out with their own cases called Smart Case. http://nicklazilla.tumblr.com...; Apple's software comes out with a beautifully designed keyboard. Months later, Samsung releases its "newest keyboard" Look at this picture if you don't believe me. http://nicklazilla.tumblr.com...; And many more! "More un-sourced numbers. Even if this is true, number of apps does not equal how good a product is. I will never need one million three hundred thousand apps."If you are going to accuse me of gathering "un-sourced numbers", then you better be right. This time, you weren't.Apple's recent Keynote session, which I watched and looked over, gave this fact of the Apple Store currently housing 1.3 million apps. Google, Bing, Yahoo!, and other search engines will all provide the answer to the simple question, "How many apps are on Apple's App Store?" That is called FACTS. (AKA sourced numbers)Let me just say that with this plethora of apps, Apple CAN do more than Samsung. "How good are Apple televisions compared to Samsung televisions? Oh that's right, Apple doesn't have TVs. Apple doesn't have printers either. Or cameras..."Dear Samsung users, if you would like to purchase any of the above listed Samsung products, feel free to visit http://www.samsung.com...;Unfortunately, this debate is not about how much water Samsung dishwashers save compared to others, or how much energy a samsung TV will save you every year. This debate is comparing Apple's devices to Samsung's devices.
Apple Has Better Products Than Samsung

"Apple's entire system runs 5 times smoother than Samsung's"That's quite a claim, and as it has no source or evidence, I will assume it to be false."Do you know who invented the first touchscreen smartphone?"This is not a debate about who made better products eight years ago, this is about who makes better products in 2014."Apple invented the Touch ID which gives your whole device an extra layer of security."Apple did not invent finger print scanning. Apple added it to their product, Samsung saw that consumers liked it, so they added it to their own products. "Apple currently has 1.3 million apps on their app store. 300,000 more than Samsung. Another reason Apple devices can do more."More un-sourced numbers. Even if this is true, number of apps does not equal how good a product is. I will never need one million three hundred thousand apps. Plus there was that whole debacle of nude pictures being stolen from the iCloud. ----How good are Apple televisions compared to Samsung televisions? Oh that's right, Apple doesn't have TVs. Apple doesn't have printers either. Or cameras.Or washing machines.But Apple dishwashers are fantastic! Oh wait...As we can see here, Samsung has a much wider variety of products available.
Apple Has Better Products Than Samsung

Apple's entire system runs 5 times smoother than Samsung's Let me start with a question: Do you know who invented the first touchscreen smartphone? The answer is apple. Do you know who, in a court case, admitted to copying Apple's design? The answer is SAMSUNG. I don't ever want to hear that "Apple has copied Samsung." It is a lie. Apple's operating system runs the smoothest out of any smartphone device. Apple invented the Touch ID which gives your whole device an extra layer of security. Samsung, after introducing their S5 to the market, suddenly have a NEW touch sensor! Wow! New huh? Didn't apple just do that a few months ago? I call that copying. AGAIN. Apple currently has 1.3 million apps on their app store. 300,000 more than Samsung. Another reason Apple devices can do more. Samsung will never be able to keep up with that.
Should humans and animals be cloned.

I agree to debate the topic of cloning with you. Based on you taking the pro position; I am under the impression you are for cloning. Please make a definitive statement of your position at the beginning of round 2. I.e. "Animals should be cloned", or whatever you are going to be trying to prove. Then make your case for the statement. Thank you for posting this debate, I think it has a lot of potential for the exchanging of ideas.
Batman is, on balance, a positive role model

Full Resolution: Batman is, on balance, a positive role model.My opponent and I will be representing opposing positions on the above topic. I will be arguing in favor of the resolution, while my opponent will be arguing against it (i.e. Batman is, on balance, a negative role model). Each debater will share the burden of proof.For the sake of consistency, this discussion will focus on the most common and longstanding representation of Batman (a.k.a. Bruce Wayne) [1]. Other incarnations (e.g. cartoons, movies) are free for inclusion insofar as they accurately represent the spirit of the comic book canon. The first round of this debate is for definitions and acceptance. Rounds 2, 3, and 4 are for arguments and rebuttals. No new arguments are to be introduced in the final round. Also, unless otherwise specified, all words are taken at their common, appropriate definition. The intent of this debate is clear and word meanings and interpretations of the resolution are to be consistent with that intent. Definitions- positive: tending to emphasize what is good or laudable; constructive [2]- role model: a person whose behavior, example, or success is or can be emulated by others, especially by younger people [3] ** As we are discussing what type of role model the fictitious Batman is, it is assumed that he meets this definition for the sake of this debate.References1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://dictionary.reference.com...3. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Batman is, on balance, a positive role model

It is unfortunate that my opponent forfeited the previous round, as I was looking forward to a spirited debate.Con is now in a problematic position. He has dropped my arguments and both of his arguments have been wholly refuted. As no new arguments are allowed in the final round, he has nothing to present. My case, which showed how Batman's actions, ideals, and qualities are worthy of admiration and emulation, stands and the resolution is affirmed. Remember, we all have a little Batman in us, and it's usually the most badass part. Thanks for reading! http://www.youtube.com...
Batman is, on balance, a positive role model

==Opening Arguments==Batman kills criminals, as well as innocent people.In this image [1] shows Batman taking human life through the use of some odd machinery.In this image [2] Batman kills a “giant” by strangling him.In this image [3] Batman kills a petty crook and shows no remorse [4]Here [5] Batman attempts to kill DarkseidBatman's “arrival” created the super villains. [6] “Batman's presence in Gotham City generated a new breed of criminals, no longer the simple thugs and gangsters involved in Gotham Organized Crime, but more dynamic personalities.”List of villains inspiried by Batman to become super villains.-Catwomen-Hugo Strange-The Joker-Scarecrow-Riddler-Poison Ivy-Mister Freeze-The PenguinSources[1] http://t0.gstatic.com... [2] http://t2.gstatic.com... [3] http://www.blogcdn.com... [4] http://www.blogcdn.com... [5] http://www.blogcdn.com... [6] http://dc.wikia.com...(New_Earth)
Homeopathy should be banned

The last few years have seen particularly in UK an intensification of the establishment's fight against homeopathy with numerous people calling not just for the government to stop subsidizing it, but to ban it outright. If you accept this challenge, you would be arguing for banning homeopathy, while I am arguing against banning (i.e., to maintain the status quo). If you find it too difficult to argue for banning, I will also accept arguing for simply delisting (i.e., "unsubsidizing") it if that would allow you to bring forward at least 3 good arguments. Invented in 1796 by the German physician Hahnemann, homeopathy is based on the on the idea the "like cures like" (law of similars) and furthermore, that high dilutions intensify the effect of the cure. In the "classical" approach, the homeopath conducts a lengthy interview with the patient, where an inventory of all the unpleasant / undesirable symptoms is taken, together with certain somatic characteristics such as "laterality" or on which side of the body are adverse effects preponderantly observed. Each symptoms has a number of "remedies" associated with it, all listed in "repertories". The homepath then choses one or several remedies which are often common to most of these symptoms, then establishes a concentration based on the severity of the symptoms, with the lower dilutions being prescribed for the less acute symptoms. The dilutions could however be extremely high, such as 10^-23. Such high dilutions have caused opponents to claim that the active substance is no longer present in the remedy (see Avogadro's Number) and that the only successes recorded by homeopathy are due to the placebo effect. However, to the best of my knowledge, there is no study that proves that homeopathy is harmful. Before listing my constructives, I will patiently wait for my opponent to structure his :) http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.1023.org.uk...
Con will get more votes than Pro.

I hate puppies. now they have to vote for you which means i win but i lose which means i win but i lose which means i win but i lose which means i win but i lose which means i win but i lose which means i win but i lose which means i win but i lose which means i win but i lose which means i win but i lose which means i win but i lose which means i win but i lose which means i win but i lose which means i win but i lose which means i win but i lose which means i win but i lose which means i win but i lose which means i win but i lose which means i win but i lose which means i win but i lose which means i win but i lose which means i win but i lose which means i win but i lose which means i win but i lose which means i win but i lose which means i win ahhhhh
Life on earth has no intrinsic value.

My opponent seems to believe that I am saying that without God we would be worthless, but my opponent seems to forget one simple fact when he tells me to assume that God does not exist. My opponent seems to forget that without God, there would be no people at all. for God created all human beings. In debate you need to have fact, and all of my proof comes from the Bible. Here is a verse about how God created man: Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." So with this fact, it proves that you are wrong and I shall not be joining your side, for your side is incorrect. That also proves the point that if there were no God, we would not be here, therefore we would not even have life. Here is another Bible verse that supports my point: Isaiah 42:12 Let them give glory to the LORD And declare His praise in the coastlands. You see, God has created everything and our purpose in life is to glorify Him, because (you may not understand this) if you glorify God in everything you do (which is not just doing good things. you must ask Christ into your heart and believe, and you will receive everlasting joy) and believe in how holy and wonderful He is, then if you do these things and trust in God through everything you do, God will tell you "Well done, my servant!" in heaven, and you may live eternally in heaven where there is nothing horrible at all, and you will live FOREVER in heaven with God"s grace and joy. If you do not, He shall say to you in heaven, "Depart from me! I never knew you!" and you shall live forever (eternally! it never stops!) in hell burning, and there is nothing good in heaven. Now do you see the value of life? If we just go out there and murder these unsaved people, they shall burn forever in hell! Also, if you go and murder these Christians, they will be unable to spread the good news of Jesus around the world! I suggest that you take action now and read the Bible and go to church and ask your local pastor about how to get saved, and you will realize the TRUE purpose of life!