BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Happiness is a right.

So are you saying that murder, rape, and theft are undeniable rights as long as it is done in pursuit of one's happiness? If that is true, you would also be taking away the right to life and liberty of other people (ie. the people being murdered and raped). Would this mean that the act of taking away other people's rights can be an undeniable right? But that would mean that the right to life and liberty are actually deniable rights! Therefore, if the pursuit of happiness is an undeniable right, pro concedes that the right to life and liberty would not be undeniable rights. Pro is using a quote to support itself. What makes the founding fathers of America right? Also, notice that these are only the founding fathers of America, and thus shouldn't account for other countries.
rap battle

Yeah I called you a clown A lady like you should be wearing a gown You couldn't take it, you just broke down In this rap, I be taking you to town Tide goes in, tide goes out cant explain that, beyond any doubt Being with my girl is something your not knowledgeable about Yo your parents called, they want you to move out You're something that they could do without Your **** looks like a *******spotted sea trout If you come a million times there will still be a drought Yo You be a fice With you I wont be nice I'm gonna make you pay the price I'm gonna beat you with a baseball bat in a trice I'm gonna pull out my knife and be ******* precise Bitch, your about to get circumcised then, ima cut open your stomach and fill it with dry ice Use it like a ******* storage device
rap battle

mother f***er callin me a clown you sound like vanilla ice nice of you to try but you aint worth my time bitch you sound like a nursery rhym find me with your girl cuz in this world your last person she'd f**k had enough? didnt think so your girl blow hard #katrina and like fema it's gonna be awhile before i come run this s**t like ashton eatin cuz the s**t i'm speakin keep you hooked like jesus preachin keepin you in check hang you by your f***in neck #saddom hussain remain hangin from that tree and if you feel the need to try and breath the last thing you'll see is me load a round the last thing you'll hear is a gun sound i'm the rap regulater you just a small d**k masturbater
rap battle

You tell me to stand up I tell you to sit down Im not even sweating enough to fill a Dixie cup While you're about to drown Now son you be spittin out rhymes but you can't measure up Im a champ, You look like a fu***** clown Yo Your beat needs improving Son you should believe that your losing Your rap sounds like a bag of s***, while im grooving I can already see your tears oozing Yo You wanna give up before I burn you down I'll tell you now, I've been around I can see something in your pants, it looks like its brown You just got fu***** beat down Cause i rock a mic like a vandal You can't even hold a fu***** candle I am something that you just can't handle You probably wear socks with your sandals
rap battle

step up, but we aint dancin but you actin buyin my rhymes cuz my mind like Einstein or bin laden I'm cuasen terror thery'er callin for a war on me cuz on any of my beats you can hear the devil speak freak and geek #gambino more money then a casino not Robert but I make that denro no I can't stop like a cop chasin a white bronco now go you know your not on this level like Wisconson vs rebels
Homosexuality is Natural

Natural , it does not mean good. Something may be natural ,however negative I totally agree with this statement, but I have a couple of things to say on the matter at hand. Firstly, the debate is about whether homosexuality is natural, so this statement is irrelevant really to the format. Secondly, to reinforce what you said about societies morale's, I pulled this graph up to show you what society really thinks: You are only putting forward your subjective opinions on the matter, which, as I said, cannot be placed on objective social issues that will affect people's lives on a rather large scale (15% of the world are homosexual, or about 1050000000 people). Do you think whites (not all of course) thought that being black was a disease and was a negative thing in the apartheid? The answer is of course, yes. But today we realise that all races are equal. Society moves with the times, and to stay with some of the bigoted opinions you are stating would be catastrophic. More hilarious, we are voting law for those negative thing or thoughts. As far as I am concerned , our culture is in the decline. Again, subjective opinions on an objective threshold.
Homosexuality is Natural

Natural , it does not mean good. Something may be natural ,however negative. That why there is something called morale or munch more collective morale (society's morale). Talking about natural stuff, it is not more natural than a woman and a man being together for procreation. Yes , marriage is also about procreation (natural procreation), it is the beauty of love. The problem with our modern time, it is that we are trying to make negative thing into positive one. More hilarious, we are voting law for those negative thing or thoughts. As far as i am concerned , our culture is in the decline.
Homosexuality is Natural

The motion given was "Homosexuality is Natural", so I urge Con to stick to the main arguments and not be sidetracked by his own subjective opinions and "diseases". Homosexuality is natural by the definitions given. Homosexuality can be found in over 1500 different species of animals, ranging from the Dwarf Chimpanzee to the Lion. They practice homosexual relations to strengthen their bonds of loyalty, but can engage in the activities out of preference (especially with Geese and Duck). All of these things have been observed by Biologists, so it would be ignorant and arrogant to refute them as false information. I would just like to go over some of the things stated by Con in the first round: Now homosexuality is legal, tomorrow it will be with animals Having a loving relationship between two consenting adults is not the same as having a relationship between an animal and an adult. Religion should not be brought into social issues that could affect a large majority of people in their lives. The reason why homosexual marriage is now legal is for equality, as the Government realises that everyone, regardless of sex, should be given the same opportunities in their life. It is difficult for me to figure out how a homosexual couple can give birth Homosexual couples can procreate, just not with each other. Usually it is through a surrogate mother or IVF, but the child is always wanted when it is brought into the world. In a society where so many children are in the care system (about 67,000 in England alone), loving parents are so desperately needed. I sincerely suggest you go and have some sexual education if these things are difficult for you to understand, or, at the very least, pay attention in your biology lessons. http://www.bbc.co.uk... http://www.news-medical.net... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.theguardian.com...
"Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment."

On a personal note, I want the audience to realize that I am personally against the notion of giving animals equal rights as humans, but I am bored so here we go. " All right! "Since my opponent has instigated this debate, he still has the onus on him to put an argument. Until then, I will simply give on argument for a foundation for my position, and await his replies (we have 4 rounds, no worries). " Okay. "I argue that since animals are sentient, meaning they can feel pain or pleasure, they deserve to have the same rights as humans. I will expand on this argument later obviously. " Alright, now to combat that argument, I say that animals haven't been proven to be capable of rational thinking beyond their natural instincts, and are much less intelligent than humans, and don't even have any way of asking for equal rights. Now, I will first present an argument for. .. Eat: A religious view: If God didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat. An atheist view: People evolved from animals. Many animals eat meat by nature. Humans must have evolved to eat meat, because they have two canines (sharp teeth) which allow them to eat meat. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Thus, humans eat meat by nature, so humans should not be devoid of their right to eat meat. Wear: A religious view: In the Bible, God killed an animal to provide them with clothing to cover themselves, so God advocates using animal skins. An atheist view: Eating animals and not using their pelts for anything would be a waste. Experiment on: It's either we experiment on animals, or we experiment on humans. For a fact, we do both. Entertainment: We hire people to entertain us. Why not pay animals food to entertain us as well? Finally, if certain animals (cow, lab rat, etc. ) were not bred to be used for food or experiments, we would have no reason to breed them, and the species would go extinct. Thank you, and good luck with your argument.
"Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment."

On a personal note, I want the audience to realize that I am personally against the notion of giving animals equal rights as humans, but I am bored so here we go. Since my opponent has instigated this debate, he still has the onus on him to put an argument. Until then, I will simply give on argument for a foudnation for my position, and await his replies (we have 4 rounds, no worries). I argue that since animals are sentient, meaning they can feel pain or pleasure, they deserve to have the same rights as humans. I will expand on this argument later obviously. Until then, I give the floor for CON.
Video Games are an art form.

Ok, well seeing as tiscooler has forfeited this round, I guess the only thing I can do is wait for his counter argument in the next round. Also, if he is unavailable because of something like a family crisis, I don't want to take advantage of that. Also, I've already made my case and I have nothing to argue against. If anyone has added tiscooler as a friend or knows him personally, please contact him and see if he's still doing this debate. Thanks :)
Video Games are an art form.

Hello, this is Tiscooler, and as the con I will be arguing that video games are not art. I accept the rules for each round. I agree with your rules for the burden of proof, but I would like to also state that as the pro, the burden of proof rests mainly on you to prove video games are an art form. I would also like to provide a definitions pro did not clarify: "are"–verb present indicative plural and 2nd person singular of be. [1] "video game"-noun A type of game existing as and controlled by software, usually run by a video game console or a computer, and played on a video terminal or television screen. [2] I look forward to having a good debate! [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://en.wiktionary.org...
Video Games are an art form.

Ok, I think the title is pretty self-explanatory. First round is introductions and accepting the challenge, 2 and 3 are arguments and round 4 is closing case. Both sides have the burden of proof in this case. Art –noun 1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. http://dictionary.reference.com...
City life is better then the country

Living in the city is better than living in the country. City life offers a substantial increase amount of careers than country life does. Living a good life in the country would mean having the money to accommodate a nice house. The main option is a nice house because on rare occasions do you find apartments in the country. Yes, housing costs are lower than city costs but this is merely because the pay is also lower, unless you own a farm which is also a rare thing because owning a farm means having the money to support it. Another thing I'd like to point out is that transportation is much more expensive than in the city. You have to use a lot more gas to get to your job rather then in a city because jobs in the country are miles away. Some people agree that country life is a much more quiet environment and a much more independent living area but the only reason cities are much more populated is because they offer a wide range of accommodations for both the lower and upper class. Accommodations such as closer and different kinds of housing, stores, businesses, and schooling. Not to mention if there were ever to be a medical emergence it would take have the time for paramedics to reach you than it would in the country. This being said, living in the city is better and much more sufficient because it offers people a wider range of advantages.
City life is better then the country

I have to say who would live in the city. The city live has FAR more air pollution and noise. 341, 469 people went on the same stretch of road in a city in one day. How would u like to hear that going past your house every second. Personally I would be sick of it. I live in the country now and let me tell you I can do what ever I want peacefully with cars going past my house every few minutes. But the noise is also drained out by the native life which I know you don't get much in the city. So try and fight but you know that the country life is better then the city.
The Biblical Flood occurred

Greetings, everyone. I hope and pray that we will have a good debate. My job here is to prove that the Biblical flood occurred. Con's job is to prove that it did NOT occur at ALL. He is supposed to do this by successfully refuting the proofs that I offer for the flood. He cannot offer contentions of his own. Just refutations. Rules:1. No resolution-snipers. I don't want somebody to come here and resolution-snipe this debate by saying, "In order to prove that the Biblical flood occurred, you must first prove that the Biblical God exists beyond a doubt, because the flood couldn't have occurred if God doesn't exist." I don't want my opponent to find any other loopholes either. So, in this case, we will presuppose that the God of the Bible exists.2. To debate this resolution, you must get my permission personally. I have made this debate topic impossible to accept, and you will forfeit all seven points if you find a way to accept it. Are you interested? Let me know in the comments section.3. No trolling or profanity. 4. First round is for acceptance. All you're allowed to say is, "I accept." Nothing else.5. I will provide the proofs for the Biblical flood, so Con has to argue against every one of them. 6. You're not allowed to vote on this debate if your ELO is not 2500 or above.Definitions:1. Biblical - "Of, relating to, or contained in the Bible" (1). 2. Flood - " the covering of the earth with water that occurred during the time of Noah" in the Bible (2).3. Occur - " To take place; come about" (3).Have fun and God bless!Sources:1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...3. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
A majority of guys favorite color is blue

First off, you cannot even spell stats right. You also use no legitimate sources, and everything you say is all opinion. Whenever you define majority you leave out the second part of the definition. Let's look at a few definitions of the word. According to dictionary.com it means: 1. the greater part or number; the number larger than half the total (opposed to minority): A majority, then, consists of more than one-half of all the votes cast, while a plurality is merely the number of votes one candidate receives in excess of the votes for the candidate with the next largest number. So, it has to be the number larger than half the total. However with males blue is not above 50% it is at around 40%. So, as one can see majority does not just mean the greater part or number it has to be larger than half the total. This means that a majority of guys favorite color is not correct. Sources: http://www.dictionary.com...
A majority of guys favorite color is blue

First, let's begin by defining majority. Merriam-Webster defines it as a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total. So, majority would have to be over 50%. So, for a majority of guys favorite color to be blue it would have to be over 50%. Let's look at the stats. http://www.livescience.com...=*:1400 Here is a graph that shows that blue is not a majority of guys favorite color. Blue is at 42%. So, this would not be a majority of guys. Although this is the most favorite color with guys when you add up all the other responses of the other colors you get 58%. So, I would say that it is kind of mixed with males. Here is another survey of favorite color for males and females. List of USA Survey Results What is your favorite color? Blue: 44% Green: 12% Red: 11% Black: 4% Purple/Violet: 4% Brown: 3% Pink/rose: 3% Beige/Tan: 2% White: 2% Grey: 2% Yellow: 2% Mauve: 2% Fushia: 2% Maroon: 2% I think that you are confused by what majority means. Because blue is not over 50%. So, as you can see that stats show that a majority of guys favorite color is not blue. Although it is the most favorite color with males it is not a majority because it is not over 50%.
the geographical proximity as the main criteria for admission in high school

Imagine this for a moment. You are a hard working, dedicated guy (another word for a nerd) who is trying to get into law school. You try your best in everything you do, and you are certain you are going to get into that elite high school. BUT WAIT. They removed it; now you will have to go to the school closest to your home. Your parents are too poor to move houses simply for your schooling. It shouldn't be too bad, you think to yourself. First day of school. You walk into the classroom. A ball of paper flies straight into your face. Then another. And another. It's not because they're targeting you in particular either, those low lives are simply looking for something to pass their time, because they don't care about their schooling, their parents simply force them to go. So I ask you, Pro, is this really fair on the smart people who want to do well in school and get a good job? "
the geographical proximity as the main criteria for admission in high school

First, I would like to define what I will mean when using the term high-school:High-school: a school especially in the United States usually including grades 9–12. Source: . http://www.merriam-webster.com...For clarification purposes, it is my understanding that the main criteria for admission into high-school isn't geographical proximity but rather, the graduation of middle school, i. e. , The full completion of 8th grade. With that said, I believe my opponent (Con) is arguing against geographical proximity being the standard for determining which high-school a potential student must attend. I will wait for the 2nd round to begin presenting my argument in the hopes that my opponent will agree with my clarification and begin his round 2 with his initial argument.
Made-Up quotes

Here's how it will work: Well each make up our own quotes that sound like they are from a specific fictional character and cite them to that character. Conduct= Whose quotes sounded most like who they cited them with? More Convincing Arguments= whose quotes were better? Rules: 1. No more than three quotes per round. 2. No citing the same character twice in the same round 3. Cite at least two characters in reach round that you did not cite in the previous round | | Quotes: "An open heart is a happy heart." -Sonic the Hedgehog | | " *pops up out of nowhere and cuts off Sonic's legs* Problem, Sonic?" -Trollface | | "Ughhhh I can't keep up with Sonic! What if he runs into me and kills me!!!???" -Luigi
All nations should desrtoy all of their weapons of mass destruction

I wont hold forfeiting the last round against my opponent so long as he doesn't pull a no show all together. However I wont put as much time into this round as I had planed based off the forfeit and belief that this might be a no show. So any way here's my brief argument just so that I have one.While it is no question that Nuclear arms are probably the greatest destructive force mankind has ever made and while the terrible horrors they can create and unimaginable suffering they are not necessarily a completely bad thing nor do we need to destroy them all. First off such a feat would be impossible since the vast majority of nations throughout the world would never agree to this and we can see this in person since different groups have been trying to do this for years with no avail. Second because they do a lot of good despite the great harm the potentially can create. The fact is that over the past 70 years nuclear weapons have actually prevented several wars. An obvious example would be the Cold War between the United States and Soviet Russia. Both of these nations would have wanted nothing more then to launch full scale war against eachother and it very nearly happened on many occasions. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Cuba, Georgia, Iran, Pakistan and literally dozens more incidents which kept the US and USSR constantly a hairs length away from total war. Had war broke out then it would have delved basically the majority of the known world into chaos and war and the result probably would have surpassed that of the horrors of WW2. So what kept these to superpowers from starting WW3? Nuclear Deterrence. It was really quite simple. Because each nation knew that the other had an enormous arsenal of nuclear weapons nether side dared to make a move against eachother. Russia knew that if it were to openly attack the US then the US would instantly respond by launching its nuclear weapons. The US knew that if they openly attacked Russia then Russia would do the exact same thing. The result would have been the complete annihilation of both nations. It was because of this knowledge that the war never took place. Both sides took the most extreme precautions to ensure they would never give the other sides cause for engaging in nuclear war and was actually the basis of both nations strategy's in the global theater. This theory is known as Mutually Assured Destruction or (MAD). US vs USSR. South Korea vs North Korea. Pakistan vs India. Each of these are direct evidence of MAD and show how well it works. If not for nuclear deterrence each of these conflicts would most defiantly erupt into war. So in an odd and pretty much ironic way, nuclear weapons are the the greatest contributor and closest means of obtaining world peace. I cant remember who said it but there's a great quote for this. "Whoever shoots first, dies second."Well that's all I'm going to put into this round. Not as in depth as I wanted but hey its something to put on the board, short and sweet. I hope my opponent shows up for these next rounds. http://www.google.com... http://www.google.com...