BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
ERB #1: Mahatma Ghandi vs. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Note: FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU...I misspelled "Gandhi!" How could you, Rev, how could you! *headdesk* Also, I've decided to post only eight lines to make it seem more like a real ERB with each person using eight lines each round. The opponent may still write under twenty lines if she pleases. _________________________________ I'm the lord of tranquility, listen to my rap's stability This motherf*cking nigga here needs to learn some humility You have no sensibility, your life has no fertility Now tremble underneath the might of my invincibility Fear me more than the KKK, cause my win's obvious than your toupee[1] I have more influence over you than Bombay[2] Run from the hose like Judgment Day, you can't escape so watch it spray[3] Your ignorance inspired Obama to ruin USA[4] [1]Making fun of King's semi-bald hairstyle [2]Bombay is another name for the Indian city Mumbei. This line also indicates that King looked up to Gandhi and followed his ideals. [3]The hose was a tool to oppress King's Birmingham campaign [4]Statistics showed that Obama has increased debt and poverty significantly during his presidency.
ERB #1: Mahatma Ghandi vs. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I'm reinstating my ERB from my old account, but with more famous people in history. You can choose to sign up in the comments if you're interested. First round is acceptance only, and you forfeit all 7 points if you rap even one line (because of the numerous rappers who post in round 1 -.-). First round is worth two points, second round is worth two points, and the final round is worth seven points. There can only be a maximum of twenty lines for each round. Standard voting criteria for all rap battles. Well, let's begin. ____________________________ OOOOOOOOH EPIC RAP BADDLES OF HISHTOREHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH MAHATMA GHANDI VERSHUSH MARTIN LUTHER KING, JUNIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOR BEGIN
ERB #1: Mahatma Ghandi vs. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The truth nobody wants to tell is that their racist inside Call me a niggah? Let me ask you, who's the one with pride? [2] You never seen a race except for your own kind You probably have but this is why I call you blind! Love and hatred contradict Why you hate people who afflict Then you love the people who are sick? Stop fooling others cuzI hate getting ripped, bittch! Ima humanitarian, you a vegan and ya live in your own world Hypocrite, you're bashful and shy, after you talk you go hurl [1] Maybe you look stable but not as much as me, Ima king! Patience is a virtue but love is better, that's what I sing! [1] http://www.biography.com... [2] http://www.prideful-dignitees.com...
What leds to the war during 1900s

Here is some opening thoughts. Political turmoil The years before the 20th century were those of strife. The ottoman empire had fallen, Austria hungary was crumbling, And russia and spain looked on this in fear. Would they be the next to collapse? Not to mention the sudden emergence of Germany. Prussia had merged with parts of austria to become the greatest power of the time. Despite their overwhelming power, They were denied the colonies traditional european monarchs had. Even the netherlands had more colonies then Germany. Germany had all of this power and they felt like europe was denying them of what they deserved. Then there is the world leaders of the time. Germany had been unified by a skilled leader and diplomat, Otto von bismark, The iron chancellor who did what was thought impossible, Unifying germany with a prussian head instead of a austrian one. Otto however had resigned, Refusing to work with germany's new incompetent kaiser wilhelm II, Who decided to replace Otto's foreign policy with quote "in favour of a war of aggression". Czar nicholas was a leader with a inferiority complex, Always feeling like everyone though of him as weak. A war, No matter the scale, Could make him seem a strong leader. All of this brought great tension to europe, Which erupted into the first world war.
Abortion Is Murder

Ok.. Human Life - It happens at conception -- the most common pro-life position It happens when blood first appears -- a new interpretation based on the Bible It happens later in pregnancy -- the most common pro-choice position It happens at 14 or 22 weeks gestation -- two novel arguments It happens during childbirth -- the traditional Jewish position These are all definitions of when "Human Life" begins. The whole controversy with abortion is that people don't know when human life begins. My original definition was just life if you excuse me, but human life is something completely different. Abortion is not murder. First the main reason is that abortions are justified. Thank you
Abortion Is Murder

OK, this will be mostly a debate or a sort of reasoning of the definition of life. Because to be able to prove that abortion is murder is life is to prove that a fetus at any stage is a human being. So at the moment I would like to talk about my opponents current definition of life. "The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism." If we go by this definition then all human life is, is functioning, an scientist can keep a body working even after the person is gone. So according to this I would like you to please define human life in new terms. Thank You
Abortion Is Murder

Thank you pc1114 for posting this debate. Now I will start with my definitions. 1)Life- The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism. 2)Murder- The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Abortion is not murder. My opponent must first prove how abortion is the killing of human beings. Not only that but from the a supreme court decision, abortion is justified therefore it is not murder. http://womenshistory.about.com...
Abortion Is Murder

For my opponent, I personally believe that human life begins during childbirth or even later when the individual is able to make his/her own decisions. After all, what does it mean to be "human?" For many, to be brain dead and just laying there alive because of medical wonders of modern day is just as equal as being dead. To be Human is to be able to make choices and think for ourselves. This is what separates us from animals, the ability to be inquisitive.
The first cause argument for God is invalid

Pro has dropped his argument his deductive causal argument. I never said the argument was scientifically invalid. Pro does not address my response. On paper, taking only science, it may work. In the actual world however, it holds. Simultaneous causation Pro drops this argument. He presents a possible creation from membrane universes. If I were to concede this, this doesn’t explain where the multiverse came from. The idea of an infinite amount of membrane universe bares philosophical absurdities. One is the fact that it violates Occam’s razor. One universe is much simpler than many. Furthermore, these membranes must be finite, otherwise we deal with the consequences of infinity. In order to get to the point “now” we would have to cross an infinite amount of time in this set. Lastly, there is no experimental support for any multiverse ideas [1]. They are essentially speculative. Pro in his conclusion agrees the argument is philosophically sound. Since philosophy does indeed make claims about the actual world, he is basically conceding my point. Pro has dropped many arguments in this debate. His argument from a forward progression of time, his argument from simultaneous causation, and his only hope is an argument that is based on speculation that bares absurd consequences. Thanks. [1] video http://www.youtube.com...
The first cause argument for God is invalid

I never said the CA was invalid in a scientific sense. What I’m saying is, if this argument is true, premise one still holds because of philosophy.But for the argument to work in reality it would have to be scientifically valid too. This debate was about whether or not is it a valid argument for the existence of God in the real world. The problem with atheistic simultaneous causation is very simple. In order for there to be the act of SC there must be potential for it to happen. This is true by definition. If something has no potential it can’t happen. My opponent must then account for this potential.One possibility is that membranes collided(M-Theory.)CONCLUSIONThe first cause argument is valid philosophically but for it to actually work in reality it would have to be scientifically valid which it is not.
The first cause argument for God is invalid

I wasn’t trying to disprove the notion that time is a forward progression of events. I was trying to refute the idea that causality can’t exist without time. So, my opponent agrees with me. He stated I conceded because simultaneous causation refutes the CA. This is false, for reasons I’ll get into later. Inductive Causal Argument I never said the CA was invalid in a scientific sense. What I’m saying is, if this argument is true, premise one still holds because of philosophy. The objection says you’re only narrowly looking at scientific possibility and not philosophical impossibility. Taking science and science only it would be possible, but premise one is a claim that stretches into metaphysics as well as physics. On paper, it may be possible, but in the actual world there would be no uncaused events in a singularity. The evidence for premise one is culmative, so my objection holds. Pro then goes onto concede his singularity objection is unsound. He then says he’ll move onto the argument that simultaneous causation can explain the universe’s existence without God. Simultaneous causation The problem with atheistic simultaneous causation is very simple. In order for there to be the act of SC there must be potential for it to happen. This is true by definition. If something has no potential it can’t happen. My opponent must then account for this potential, which brings you to the same problems. It wouldn’t be the beginning of the universe because something would have to be existing. Appealing to simultaneous causation as an atheist only pushes the argument up, it doesn’t refute it. Theism can explain this potential for the act of SC easily. Furthermore atheistic SC doesn’t explain the universe as well as theism. Why did this act of SC happen? Why did it just randomly happen? Why atoms? Why not something else? This makes theism more probable as atheism has no explanation for this. I have pointed out Pro’s straw man and shown his new argument from simultaneous causation is flawed for two reasons. One is a defeater and the other makes his position less probable.
The first cause argument for God is invalid

"Pro states that since time is a forward progress of events a caused first state of time is incoherent. Because causes precede effects. The problem with this argument is that cause and effect can happen in a simultaneous manner."Cause and effect happening simultaneously doesn't disprove the notion of the forward progression of time; you can't go back into the past(to our knowledge) which proves that notion. Also this could be considered conceding the debate since simultaneous causation also invalidates the first cause argument.There are three problems with this argument I will point out. First, this only would refute a scientific justification of premise one. The physical laws of causality may not apply, but this says nothing about the philosophical justification. Scientifically, it may be possible for an uncaused cause, but premise one is based on the metaphysical principle ex nihilo nihil fit. Out of nothing, nothing comes. An effect can’t have nothing as a cause. It may be possible in the scientific realm, but philosophically, P1 still holds.The first cause argument is supposed to prove God's existence which means that it has to be valid in all senses including in a scientific sense.Without the singularity my argument is invalid so I will move onto the argument that simultaneous causation can explain it without God.
The first cause argument for God is invalid

In this debate the concept of time that will be used is time in relativity.THE FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The Universe began to exist. Therefore, the Universe had a cause. This argument is based on causality; the relationship between cause and effect. However without time(or having time but not being the "forward progression" time), causality cannot exist.MY ARGUMENT AGAINST IT In the singularity that inflated to form the universe; all the physical laws were present and so was space-time; however because it had infinite density(kind of like a black hole), relativity and quantum mechanics break down. Relativity describes the warping of space time but if it breaks down then that means time must be breaking down too; because of this causality can be violated. That means that the big bang could've been an effect without a cause or the big bang could have been the effect and the cause happened after the effect.
This house believes men should make the first move.

hi Thanks for your reply and i gave you the opportunity to set up the debate because you are the proposition. ok lets go back to the debate. I believe that women should make the first move and i am gonna give you my reason. if we go back to history, women had not right and they were considered as second class citizen. Things have changed a lot and today women are playing important roles in our societies. I focus this debate on a relationship or love. I have always seen that whenever a woman comes to a man and confessed to him, she kind of loses her value or dignity and people might think she is a serious woman or she is a prostitute and that is wrong. We believe that only men should make the first move. for example proposing to a woman and i belive women should now make a move and that move should be seen as normal. The main reasons for this is that i believe women have feelings like we men do, they have the right to express their feeligns as we do, they have emotions, they have love and they can fall for men too like we fall for them and since we all have the same needs, they should then have the right to make a move first and nobody should criticize them for that. I believe men should chnage their behavior on that issue. i mean just imagine sitting in a restaurant and a lady comes to you, talk to you, take your number, call you and invite you out and then you know let you know of how she feels.. how will you feel? most men will not feel good about that and it might even be difficult for the man to love her back because he will be thinking that she is like that. I believe that is not right and that is why i say women should also make the first move too and the whole is that i believe that move should be normal. They should be allow to divorce a man first like in most culture, only the men can do that. anyway there so many issues but i focus the expression of one's love. Thank you
The government story on 9/11 isn't truthful.

Pros only claim in regards to the twin towers seems to be that towers should have survived the impact of the planes that he mistakenly refers to as 747’s, instead of 767’s. His support for this claim is that the steel melts down to 50% at 1600 F* while jet fuel burns at 600 F*. Pro has given no source for his claim which is factually incorrect, and also completely fails to take into account the damage caused by the planes that crashed into the building at approximately 500 mph. Pros numbers seem reversed as Jet Fuel can actually burn up to app 1,800 F*(1) while steel would have lost half its strength at app 1,200 F* (2). Given that Jet fuel has the capability to burn far hotter then the point where steel would have lost half its strength, the claims made in the official story are not surprising. Nor is it surprising in retrospect that the buildings would have collapsed due to this and the damage caused by 767's crashing straight into them. Pro also claims that there was no wreckage of flight 77 found at the pentagon. This is blatantly false. Many pieces of flight 77 were found and photographed by workers inside the pentagon. I invite my opponent to look at them. (3) (1) http://www.mepetroleum.com...(2) http://www.sciencedirect.com...(3) http://www.rense.com...
The government story on 9/11 isn't truthful.

I'm sorry for a late answer. I shall note from you that terms are edited to your and my terms. The official report states that a 747 jets crashed into the towers, but , The tower most likely could've survived the impact the steel was weak. Now before I crunch numbers I shall state that most of the impact was finished when the weak steel gave. There was no out side fire on the airplane. Steel weaks down by 50% at about 1600 F* Jet fuel burns at 600 F* The tower would be weak but shold've fell. In the ruins of the Pentagon no traces of a plane was found.
The government story on 9/11 isn't truthful.

Thanks to my opponent for instigating this challenge. The resolution states that the government’s story on 9/11 isn’t truthful. The negation of this resolution is to show that the government’s story is truthful. This is my burden in this debate. Pro states that I must prove said story to be 100% true. This is an impossible burden for anyone. As we are all human beings there will always be some miniscule element of every story that is later found to be incorrect, this does not negate that the story told was true. I do hope my opponent intends to argue some of the main facts about 9/11 and not some minor and insignificant perceived inconsistencies. Pro also states: “Bare in mind I don’t always have a chance on the internet, if needed the missing rounds in the comments”. If pro is saying that he can forfeit a round and post it in the comments I will remind him that this is widely considered an unacceptable practice by the members and the moderators of this site, as the comment section should never play a role in voting. There are 5 rounds, if Pro forfeits a round there should still be plenty left or him to make his case.
The government story on 9/11 isn't truthful.

R1 is acceptance For me to win this debate, I must at least give you THREE lies or ' impossibilitys' 'story'=Is the widely accepted theory on 9/11 You must prove that said story is 100% true. USA is said goverment 9/11- Is the attack on the Twin Towers( including WTC7) and the Pentagon. Bare in mind I dont always have a chance on the internet, if needed the missing rounds in the comments.
School Pupils Should Be Required To Wear School Uniforms

The main reason that uniforms are actively in place is to control the sexual "distractions" on campus between the sexes. I agree with all of your positions, but where I'm from, the schools could care less about school spirit or equality. In fact, I believe my school system is rather sexist with their dress codes and I've just recently written an essay about it in my English class. Most dress codes in the United States are purely based off of male sexualization. For example, the censorship of basic things such as legs. Many people argue that men find them attractive, but I believe that women find arms very attractive, and the thought of censoring a body part so simple as arms is ridiculous, like legs aren't simple and necessary. I don't think dress codes and uniforms should be in place because they are mostly one sided and unfair.
School Pupils Should Be Required To Wear School Uniforms

I was shocked to see that one of the most contested opinions on DDO were that pupils should have to wear school uniforms. I'm from the UK -- most schools require a uniform to be worn -- and this isn't even considered a debatable issue. I'm interested in hearing someone's opinion on this topic.School pupil: Any student below the age of 16You will be Con -- against school uniforms.I'll start this off with a quick list as to why I believe uniforms are beneficial.1. Creates a school identity/team spirit2. Kids can focus less on fashion and trends, and more on education3. Rich or poor, everyone is equal4. Sets the pupils up for adult life; office jobs, uniformed work, dress codes etc.5. Kids do not need to 'express themselves' through clothing; this is not appropriate in many jobs6. Kids wandering out of school without permision can be easily identified and the school informed -- this prevents possible abductions and other incidents where the child can blend in without bring detected
Killing of stray dogs good or not

Of course everybody has a right to live. Humans, that is. I will argue that if the Porphyrian Tree is accurate, we cannot give rights to non-human animals. The Porphyrian Tree:For those unfamiliar, the Porphyrian Tree is basicaly a "scale of being." Everything that exists has a place on this tree. There are five levels of existence:-Subsanative (existing)-Body (material)-Living-Animal-HumanFor example, if we were to take, say, a rock, we would say that it has a body (it is material), and that it is substanitive (it exists). If it were a dog, we would say that it is an animal, it is living, it has a body, and it is substanitive. In essence, anything that fits above annother branch of the tree has all the properties of any branches below it. Here is a picture of the tree for reference, to help understand my argument.https://docs.google.com...From this, we can prove that non-human animals cannot be given the rights to life, liberty, and property in the same way that humans are given those rights by using a logical argument.1) All things that are given rights are humans.2) No non-human animals are humans.3) Therefore, no non-human animals are given rights. Provided the premises are true (which are proven by the Porphyian Tree), we can then take the conclusion of this statement as true.Con?
Obama's Stimulas Package Was an Utter Failure and a Second Stimulas is Unacceptable

1. These tax rebates are occurring, I personally received one [3]. I'm entirely unaware of reasons why you would not have received one. 2. This contention was in no way answered. Please extend: "Public opinion favors the package. Ergo, it is pleasing and welcome". "2". The expectation of money is certainly pleasing. Also, 100 billion dollars (1/10 of the package) certainly constitutes a pleasing, and welcome tax cut. My opponent has not presented a case, as Pro. Further, he has not successfully rebutted my points. Thanks for reading, thanks for the debate, and Vote Con. [3] http://www.usatoday.com...
Obama's Stimulas Package Was an Utter Failure and a Second Stimulas is Unacceptable

1. I have not seen any tax rebates or cuts in the middle class. The only group that got a tax rebate that I can see was the retirement class. People 65 and over got $500 each but that is not the middle class. America is defined by it's middle class which got no stimulus money or tax cuts. 2. How can it be pleasing when 90% of the money can't be spent until after 2010? That can't be pleasing now and today. I would like to wrap up by saying that the first stimulus package obviously did not work. Barely anyone saw any of the money go anywhere and a second attempt at this is totally unacceptable. The first package can't even be spent until 2010 so why create a second one when the first one hasn't even taken full effect yet? The whole thing seems stupid and I encourage people to vote Pro. Thank you.
Obama's Stimulas Package Was an Utter Failure and a Second Stimulas is Unacceptable

1. Approximately 30% of the stimulus package consisted of direct rebates and tax cuts [2]. My opponent's point is clearly false. 2. For now, consider my argument extended. Also, public opinion aside, the Stimulus Package itself is undoubtedly pleasing. Only its long-term consequences may, or may not be welcome. [2] http://www.savingtoinvest.com...