BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap or poetic competition

Gentlemen and Ladies, your attention please!!! I have you now within my reach, emboding your minds like a leach. Have you completely focused on me! Now introducing! Pennington, thats me. Now just breath allow me to explain please. To start, this is too easy for me, and apparently, my opponent thinks he is a G. He's a mental weakling, a phoney obviously, He cant hang with me, please.Vastly out matched noob MC, I'm the adversary who's a triple OG. You can just call me, Major D, boldly spitting homey, its my homily. Its a hearty melody, as you can plainly see, I don't get filthy. So, I advance on to say, I appreciate DDO for tuning in today. Speculate on this you'll get spayed, annihilating Con's rap fate you may say. You can take that all the way to the bank, I obilerate, I'm never fake. Convey chin checks till ya faint, find your eyeballs vacate in the paint. My opponent is left saying, "Wait! He's to much, I can't." First round was kind of a fluke, more of a bloop. I stepped back and regrouped, put on my bullet-proof. Words bottled like brew, they ooze like glue, thier uncontrolable spew at you. Aimed straight thru you, eat this game like food. Its a two man table, your weak and I'm able, your Cain and I'm Abel. This is not no fable, no scramble for a logo, place my symbol on my foe. Trample his toes, twice, Pro cant cope, no mo' committal to be nice. This battle is no throw of the dice, We can do it twice, or maybe even trice. If not, then this must suffice, have to make it precise, end all speculation tonight. Ready to do whatever it takes, failure's impossible, I cant be replaced. Pro can't survive this game, I bring the pain, grim-reaper on ya brain. Here I reign, I'm taking the claim, bringing the rain mixed with octane. I'm mentally insane, look pro went in his pants, theres a stain. I put laughter into slaughter, this just a starter, we will go farther. You about to be marter, on DDO, being lead to the slaughter. Make it Slow, its 4 rounds, put you under my dope. Chop you up, intestines & guts, I smell blood, your flesh is tough. You been snimped and tucked, after being stacked up, your just a pup. I hold the King's cup, have you for lunch, and then bunch, with grape slush, soak it up. I'm wit it when I spit it, the savage, the brit, kick my skit. Can I transmit before I flip? I got my lyrical kit, believe it, no code to submit, straight forward rip kid. My seed has been sowed, its time to end this flow. My led can only grow, time to go, Goodluck Con dont choke! In round 3 I'll bring mo', its cold, bring a coat, and the rope, let's end this show. -->Back to you yo.
Rap or poetic competition

Hello! This will be a battle of minds. Trying to see who has the best rhythms. This round is for acceptance not trying to shine. The remaining three rounds is for that time. Some rules are required if you do not mind, just a few to keep us in line. Rule 1, no plagiarism on other rhythms, 2nd, voters discretion, whatever tale they like, 3rd is, round 1's acceptance, I mentioned that right, 4th and last of all, no utter profanity would be nice. So, accept if you will, for a good thrill, just for fun, no one gets killed. Rap what you will, not my business, that's your deal. Good luck to Con, Let's get it on.
It is cruel to keep animals in zoos

Imagine being locked in a cage nearly your whole life. Separated from your family when you were only a baby, you had no choice but to be thrown in a cramped space where you were most likely to live the rest of your life. Living a lonely life with strangers of your own species, you had no friends, no family and no one to be there to comfort you. Each day you were given a certain amount of food, and each day a lot of people paid to watch you either eat, play, roar, swim or just breathe. You had a boring life, and all you could do was try to make the best of it. Everyday you had the same schedule, you did the same thing over and over again. To you, it seemed like everyday of your life was on repeat. You had no instincts whatsoever, and all the thanks to your new home you lived in with a cold cement floor and metal bars all around you, and it was called a "zoo". Some people would say zoos are beneficial for animals. Others say that zoos are animal abuse. Many people think zoos are not helping animals, and still some people think zoos help prevent animal extinction. The definition of a zoo is an animal prison. It is cruel to keep animals in zoos.
These Arguments Against the God of Christianity Are Valid - 1D.

I'll list major points, and then respond. 1. Other options to Free Will --> Christian Framework: Free Will is assumed for this debate. (Not assumption as in the totality of assumption, but we must assume it either exists or it does not.) --> He never provides a warranted option. His moral perfection option does not stand in this round because he gives no brightline as to what moral perfection is, and even if it does exist it would contradict the loving God burden he placed for the round. 2. Natural Evils --> My opponent agrees with my externality vs. inherency argument. --> He then makes the point that God either directly or indirectly created the event that comes from it. I thus pose a new argument (which links to an old one): ~ As I have stated before, for good to exist, evil must exist as well because w/o it good has no value. Therefore, take rain for instance. Rain can be detrimental as in a hurricane, but rain is also necessary to grow food for our survival. 5. "Form" Claim --> He argues that a boy would still be a boy even if all girls were killed off. This is true, however turn this argument agaisnt him. He concedes that the girl existed first, and then was killed off. However if the girl never existed, then no difference can be made in gender because no other gender would exist. This extends into another argument I make where in the context of a Christan framework evil exists, thus good exists, however God can't abolish evil because that is doing an evil to an evil and thus God would not be omnibenevolent. --> He then argues that I presupposed a deontological framework. I didn't presuppose this, I rather incorporated it as an ethical argument for the sake of brightlines. 7. Abolishing evil --> I'm sorry but I guess I point was a little bit muddled. My argument was that to fit the burden of omnibenevolent then God can't abolish evil because that is evil. When I say abolish I don't mean like what you said "abolishing Satan to Hell", I meant abolishing as in making it cease to exist. [Extension] - He dropped my theory argument Ok, moving to voters: 1. My opponent claims that I have not won the FWD. This is not my burden in so far as since its a Christian framework we must presuppose its existence. Furthermore, he gives you no warranted option. This wins me the round immediately on an offensive position. 2. Remember the burden I placed in the NC, he conceded it but have not met it. It was his burden to prove its validity, it was not my burden to prove its invalidity. He explains why my arguments may be wrong, but he gives you no clear reason why his are right, he merely says my arguments don't disprove them. Yes, but he never once proves them. Refuting a rebuttal point, does not = argument validity. 3. Theory Argument made in the 2NR. 4. He never truly refutes my argument that evil exists as default to good. This is important for the round because you need to throw away my opponent's whole argument about evil for the fact that it is non-unique, it can't be resolved by either the aff. or neg. Thank you ladies and gentlemen
These Arguments Against the God of Christianity Are Valid - 1D.

He argued the following: 1. My burden to prove free will w/o moral perfection --> Free will is not free will if we are morally perfect. For example, I am given a bunch of choclate chip cookies right? I can only eat these cookies, do I have free will then? Obviously not. If God gave us moral perfection he is stripping our moral choice, and thus removing our free will. My opponeent will try and make the argument that free will isn't just moral decisions, however, since the debate is in the context of Christianity, then that is the given framework for the round. Meaning, under christianity, whenever the bible talked about free will, it was talking about the ability to choose good or evil. Taking away the evil side, removes the free will. 2. Natural Evils --> Are natural evils, evil? They are simply circumstances that can cause negative externalities, however they are not inherently evil. Thus, it has no intrinsic link to inherent good or evil. 3. Heaven negates my "form" claim --> Example: A boy and girl are opposite correct? A boy does't need to have a girl inside him to make him opposite. Cross-apply this to my opponeents claim that heaven wouldn't exist because I am arguing "form." In the case of Heaven, Hell exists as it's opposite. 4. Automation ppl, no free will --> Cross-apply by burden explanation from the free will discussion 5. Actions by themselves are not evil --> Remember the Christian framework for the round. E.g. Killing is inherently wrong because it strips life away. By God abolishing evil, he is doing an evil towards an evil, thus not acting loving. He gives some examples of intent vs. action. I argue that morality is dependant on 3 things: a. Inherency, b. Intent, c. Externalities. The action of killing is wrong inherenty, even if killing provides some good externality or the intent behind it is good. Abolishing evil fails to uphold the inherency burden for ethical/moral actions. 6. Argument of non-belief a. God desieres us to know --> He gives u absolutly no warrant to this claim, drop it b. Highest Desire --> This falls because premise 1 has no warrant to it 7. Jesus' coming is debateable --> Yeah, and so is everything else. Saying it is debateable is the reason we are debating it? 8. Rape and free will --> He misses the point I make. Forcing yourself on someone else is wrong and evil. Thus God, since he is omnibenevolent would not "rape" us persay. And cross-apply my free will defense argument at top. [Thoery Argument] Place a theory argument agaisnt my opponents "Non-Belief" Argument. This argument is compltley abusive because if you accept it as a voter for the round, then there was no way I could have won this debate at all. It is clrealy an abusive argument. Thank you ladies and gentlemen
These Arguments Against the God of Christianity Are Valid - 1D.

lol, the Skeptic has been waiting for this moment for awhile. So, w/o further adieu, let us begin. Ob 1 - The resolution asks the question: Are these arguments valid? Thus the burden is on him to prove their validity. It is not my burden to prove the validity of pro-God arguments, rather it is my burden to prove his invalid. Ob 2 - Sufficiency in negating. The resolution is unconditional on the side of the affirmative, thus if you have any questions in mind against the aff, you must vote agaisnt him. I concede his "omni" characteristics he has placed for the round. 1. Argument from Evil A. Evil Exists in the world I argue that following: First, God gave us free will to choose what path we want to take. Thus, we can choose the opposite of good. Second, evil doesn't exist in "form." Basically this means that evil is just the absence of good. When God created good, he created a default evil. a. If evil doesn't exist, then good wouldn't exist either. E.g. there is no value to life, if one cannot die. Third, it is because God is so loving that evil exists. God would not be all loving is he abolished evil. This is true for two reasons: 1. Abolishing evil creates automation people, with absolutely no will. 2.If God abolished evil, he would be acting evil towards evil, thus not acting loving. B. Natural Disasters/Viruses I argue the same idea that if evil didn't exist, good cannot exist either. 2. Argument from Non-Belief This argument is inherently flawed for the following reasons: First, it assumes that God wants us to know his existence w/o a doubt. Second, even if you don't buy this, a Christian would argue that Jesus' coming was that sign for hunaity, but some do not believe it. And third, even if you dont buy that argument, cross apply one of my previous arguments that stated God forcing himself on us is not love, but rape.
These Arguments Against the God of Christianity Are Valid - 1D.

*NOTE* - The "1D" notation is for searching/browsing purposes. I hope to have more of these debates. The resolution is simple and brief: I am here to argue that the God of the Bible and thus the teaching of Christianity does not exist, i.e. has no solid evidence for it's existence. Common attributes given to this God is omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence , omnipresence, and many others. These 4 "omni-attributes", however, is what I will be focusing upon. =====Arguments===== For this debate I will be utilizing two popular arguments: the Argument from Evil and the Argument from Non-Belief. 1. Argument from Evil If an all-loving God exists, then why does evil and suffering exist in the world? Christians commonly use free will as an excuse for the evil in the world. But then, the burden is placed on my opponent to show why God would prefer us having free will rather than us not having free will, or having free will with moral perfection. Secondly, the Christian has to somehow account for natural disasters that cause millions of deaths, tons of parasites that feed on humans, and of course bacteria and viruses. While some bacterias and viruses are human-made or proliferated, it's foolish to say every virus and bacteria does. So what of the virus that kills an infant in 4 months? 2. Argument from Non-Belief I will paste the syllogism that Theodore Drange[1] formulated, based on J.L. Schellenberg's original formation of this argument: 1. If God exists, God: 1. wants all humans to believe God exists before they die; 2. can bring about a situation in which all humans believe God exists before they die; 3. does not want anything that would conflict with and be at least as important as its desire for all humans to believe God exists before they die; and 4. always acts in accordance with what it most wants. 2. If God exists, all humans would believe so before they die (from 1). 3. But not all humans believe God exists before they die. 4. Therefore, God does not exist (from 2 and 3). =====Conclusion===== With both my arguments laid out, I await my opponent's rebuttal. ---References--- 1. http://www.infidels.org...
Russia attempted to sway the 2016 US presidential election

For one, there is no proof that the emails released were false, so if they were true, then there is no reason to fret over it. On Nov. 8, Americans went to the polls all over the country, close to 129 million people cast their ballots, and by all measures, including after some admittedly limited recounts in a few states, it is clear that our fundamental democratic process of having our votes cast and counted was not interfered with. As a result of our election, the Electoral College vote, and its certification by congress, there has been a peaceful transition of power in our republic. And while we all, as citizens of this great country, continue to have the obligation to question the new administration, to criticize, even to protest, almost all of us do it in the hope of changing policies and outcomes, not in the hope of undermining our country or our system of government. Our republic survived this election cycle, bruised perhaps, but it survived. A transition has taken place. And there was no outside tampering with our most fundamental democratic process. Upon reflection, many have questions about our Electoral College system of electing a president, especially in light of the election results where Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by a margin of almost 2.9 million votes, with 65,844,954 (48.2 percent) for Mrs. Clinton to President Trump"s 62,979,879 (46.1 percent), according to revised and certified final election results from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Then, to top it all off, there were many surveys that showed that if there was a re-vote, President Trump would have won more than the first election. There is really no evidence that actually shows that Russia hacked the United States.
Russia attempted to sway the 2016 US presidential election

I do not think that Russia swayed the 2016 election because there is really no proof. It is probably accurate that Russia tried, but FAILED. Even so, many people try to sway the story to try and say that just because a democratic woman lost, it doesn't mean that it was rigged. The election was close, and the swing states happened to go into a more republican side. Donald Trump also seemed like a better president than Hillary Clinton would be. I feel like the democrats brought that up just because they were upset that their candidate wouldn't win. Also, if you watched the election, the votes WERE in Clinton's favor at the beginning, and then Trump pulled ahead. I think that it is just an accusation that got caught up in the media, and it means nothing.
The Men's Rights Movement is Unnecessary

Yes, Because men ARE the #1 health threat to women. While yes, There are definitely good men out there - I'm not disputing that - the fact of the matter is that enough men are bad to make every woman afraid of doing normal everyday things. I can't tell you the amount of times I've been told to take self-defense or carry around mace, And I'm not even in college. I'm sixteen years old and I've been aware of the very real possibility of being raped for seven years, Since I was nine. A nine-year-old shouldn't have to worry about that. A sixteen-year-old shouldn't have to worry about that. NOBODY should have to worry about that! Nobody should have to be constantly vigilant because if awareness slips for a moment, If the veneer of confidence cracks to reveal even the slightest vulnerability, There's a chance of being taken advantage of. Regarding the false accusations - again, Statistically, The chances of being falsely accused are basically negligible. And you're talking as if being raped doesn't destroy a person mentally, Emotionally, And physically in many cases. The amount of men being falsely accused is miniscule while the amount of women who have been sexually assaulted and/or raped is so large that as a nine-year-old girl I was taught to always defend myself. Rape is a heinous crime. It's crippling. It tears people apart, Knowing they've been violated in the most invasive way. The way you're debating makes it seem as though rape isn't that bad, And that the real horror comes in seeking justice. Looking forward to your closing arguments! :)
The Men's Rights Movement is Unnecessary

Looking at the statistics of false rape: https://www. Ourresilience. Org/what-you-need-to-know/myths-and-facts/ - This website shares that only 2-8% of reported rapes are false. Again, The National Sexual Violence Center estimates that 3 out of 4 rapes are never even reported, Which makes that 2-8% suddenly only 2-8% out of 25%, Or 1/2-2% of all rapes. That's not taking into account the cases when charges are dropped or there simply wasn't enough evidence to rightfully convict someone. All things considered, That is a tiny, Tiny amount of rapes. In saying that some men don't want to be alone with women because they could make up a story and get him in trouble - women are afraid to be alone with men because they could rape us. Statistically speaking, The number-one health risk women face is men. More women have been killed simply for being women in the last decade than in both World Wars. Women everywhere are afraid to even step outside at night, Knowing that what started as a midnight stroll could turn into a life-changing and traumatic experience. We are urged to take self-defense classes and carry around pocketknives and pepper spray because the odds are stacked against us in the sexual violence department. And then, When a rape does happen, When a woman comes face-to-face with those one-in-three odds - many times, She's not believed. Historically, It's taken the accounts of several women to even be considered feasible for violence to have occurred. While we're making progress, Women are still scorned when we come forward. The social and political stigma of speaking out about your experience as a victim of sexual violence is why so many rapes are never even reported. Putting yourself into that position for the sole purpose of ruining one man's life? It's practically unheard of, Especially in the general public. I understand your point, And I'm not disagreeing with your statement that not everyone is truthful. Because that's a fact. But to say that a men's movement is necessary because there's a negligible chance that he could be accused of a rape he didn't commit? I'm going to have to disagree with you there. I look forward to your next point! :)
The Men's Rights Movement is Unnecessary

In light of the men's rights movement as a response to the #MeToo movement, I thought it could be insightful to start this debate. In my opinion, The men's rights movement is unnecessary and offensive to women who have been victims of sexual violence. Now, That's not to say that there aren't men who haven't experienced sexual violence. I'm aware that this happens to all genders, And the fact that it happens at all is despicable. However, To say that this is - as our President said - a "scary time for young men" is deplorable. Rape, And sexual violence as a whole, Has always affected more women than men. That's a fact - look it up anywhere and you'll see the statistics. White middle-aged women have around a 1 in 4 chance of being raped. Black and native American women have around a 1 in 3 chance. Teenage girls have a 1 in 3 chance. LGBT+ women - especially bisexual women - have a 2 in 3 chance of being raped in their lifetime (half of which occur before adulthood. ) Transgender people have about a 1 in 2 chance of being raped. Men have about a 1 in 33 chance of being raped, Baseline. This statistic fluctuates to about 1 in 10 if a man isn't heterosexual or cisgender. So why would it be a scary time for men? Ah, Right. The elusive false accusation. Some quick research shows that of all reported rapes, About 2-8% are falsely reported. Under the umbrella of false reporting fall cases when charges are dropped and when evidence was inconclusive. All things considered, Getting falsely accused of rape is already extremely slim. But that's only 2-8% of reported rapes. The National Sexual Violence Center estimates that about 75% of all rapes are never reported. So, Doing that math, We can deduce that. 5-2% of all rapes are falsely reported. 2% of all rapes. That number is lower than the false accusation rate for murder, But men aren't scared of being accused of murder. Why? Because they're not murderers. Women don't just decide to falsely accuse someone of rape, Just like regular people don't falsely accuse someone of murder. Accusing someone of rape has been known to ruin women's lives, Not the accused. If a man is scared of being accused of sexual assault or rape - it's probably because he's a sexual assailant or rapist. Just some thoughts. I'm looking forward to continuing this debate! :)