BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap battle (clean)

(This was just for fun and I wanted to see if people would rap on here) My opponent's rhymes were whack. His skills did lack. I hope he checks his opening formatting before he comes back. He will now learn his lesson after I left him to dry on a rack. Another victory that was easier than a smack. My pet rock has more skills than this tack. It lives in a shack yet it rhymes more than this piece of flak. (Don't need a lot of rhymes just enough)
Rap battle (clean)

I shut my eyes, feel the howl of wind In cold hatred, I feel my fiery soul pinned: Jlara tells me, lose I must; But who is he to decide what is just? Pro has one debate up their sleeve Jlara’s loss will force him, a sigh, to heave, In sheer pain at my rhythmic raps So swift it’s like I’m on annihilation laps. Then he accuses me of being a gazelle But he’s the one who lacks in ferocity and zeal, Crippled and humbled, he begs for his next meal; And my fiery might, he shall feel. Behold me striking with my axe So fast he’s dead before he gets the fax! As he begs, death’ll be his tax; ‘til, to close his account, he’ll plead to airmax! Pro has made some twisted rules, That apply only to him and other fools. When he bows, I’ll make him work like other slave-mules, Then he’ll ask for death at my hand’s torture-tools. You think you’re a lion, but you’re an insult to the beast: The hyenas and I of you shall have a feast, ‘Cause you begin foolish, depressing memes And then you shall fall, you and your dumb team. You’re tiny and scared, with only 2 rounds out of fear The moment you hear my raps your eyes will tear For in the eyes of mine you are a mere Young and fearful lion cub who’s scared of their peer. But I’ll not insult you, ‘cause I’m gracious; Waving my head in pity at a cub so precocious, ‘Cause you’ve met me, the great lion, so ferocious – I thank you for boosting my Elo, which is precious. In conclusion I shall say, That I am greater in night and day Pro must fall at my feet and pray Or my anger will turn his face pale and gray.
Rap battle (clean)

Rules- Keep it clean Dis me however you feel Have fun with it When you see my poetry, When you feel it jump out from this page, When you feel the 'you' in 'me', When you empathize with my rage, Only then will you begin, To come close to the level of this beast, You're a gazelle, I'm a lion, I spit at you like it's a feast. you stand no chance, but you can try, You're like a cancer patient, Bound to die, Are there tears forming at your eye? Poor little baby, please don't cry. I rule the roost, All chicks are mine, You're bound to lose, Just wasting time, Until my life story, Has another victory, And you're just another reason, Why I worry, For the human race's IQ, There's tons of fools, just like you, Think they're clever, Think they know, Tons of thing, But it's just for show.
Affirmative Action

Affirmative action at one point did promote equality by fighting discrimination but at this age and time it promotes discrimination. Some folks are underprivileged but defining the status of being underprivileged by race and sex (which affirmative action does) is not the way to approach it. Discrimination is existent but it is not as prevalent as it has been in history, we continue to fight against discrimination day by day but Affirmative Action promotes discrimination by factoring using race and gender as a factor in employment and jobs. Credentials are looked at but race and gender should not be a factor in college admission and employment at all. Some sources are Supreme Court Cases: "In 1997, the Texas legislature enacted a law requiring the University of Texas to admit all high school seniors who ranked in the top ten percent of their high school classes. After finding differences between the racial and ethnic makeup of the university's undergraduate population and the state's population, the University of Texas decided to modify its race-neutral admissions policy. The new policy continued to admit all in-state students who graduated in the top ten percent of their high school classes. For the remainder of the in-state freshman class the university would consider race as a factor in admission. Abigail N. Fisher, a Caucasian female, applied for undergraduate admission to the University of Texas in 2008. Fisher was not in the top ten percent of her class, so she competed for admission with other non-top ten percent in-state applicants. The University of Texas denied Fisher's application." https://www.oyez.org... Another case: "In November 2006 election, a majority of Michigan voters supported a proposition to amend the state constitution to prohibit "all sex-and race-based preferences in public education, public employment, and public contracting." The day after the proposition passed, a collection of interest groups and individuals formed the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigration Rights and Fight for Equality by Any Means Necessary (Coalition). The Coalition sued the governor and the regents and boards of trustees of three state universities in district court by arguing that the proposition as it related to public education violated the Equal Protection Clause. " https://www.oyez.org... Both cases shows Affirmative Action does discriminate.
Affirmative Action

Affirmative action in no way discriminates against whites. Colleges and jobs have always used race as a factor. Affirmative action is defined as a way to get rid of past discrimination, in no way does its definition mention discrimination. Even though you may think some of those people are unqualified, some of them may just be under privileged, or not giving many opportunities. In the past and still today, discrimination against minorities is still a major thing happening in the world. Also, credentials are still looked at. Could you try providing some sources on how affirmative action discriminates against the majority ?
Affirmative Action

While I believe Affirmative Action was at one point a necessity to prevent discrimination in the past, it has expanded to the point where it discriminates the Caucasians (the majority) simply based on their ethnicity. Affirmative Action in colleges uses race as a factor in college admissions. To keep things simple there is only one slot left and there are 2 applicants with similar credentials. Both applicants come from low income families, one is black while another is white. The college as a result of "diversity aka Affirmative Action" has more of an incentive to accept the black student over the white one simply because of their race. Affirmative Action in colleges also discriminate against the minority. If a college lacks enough Blacks,Asians etc at their college "failing" to promote "diversity" when in the college admission processes they have incentives to choose applicants based on race instead of actual credentials. This can lead to having unqualified students being accepted at a college which will result in a higher rate of them not graduating at their college as they are more likely to be unable to handle the work load at that college. Affirmative Action has gotten too powerful to the point where it discriminates people based on race instead of protecting them. In a perfect world race should not be a factor in employment or college admissions in general, instead their credentials should be looked at. But the world is not perfect and discrimination does exist. However, Affirmative Action at this point does not fight against discrimination and instead promotes it. Note I'm speaking against Affirmative Action as an "Asian American." I believe in treating everyone as equals regardless of race.
are the current changes in the political scene at Delhi indicative of better future for India

Well, this is disappointing. After instigating the debate, my opponent failed to show up for any of the subsequent rounds. In fact, his only activity has been a single sentence. I would request voters to take this in consideration. Closing arguments:Ever since the INC(in the UPA) returned to power in 2004, India's politics have not improved very much. On the contrary, some of the largest corruption scams the country has ever seen were exposed in this period. Current prime minister, former finance minister, and legendary economist Dr. Manmohan Singh has failed to tackle corruption in his cabinet, and hasn't done anything of note to improve the GDP growth rate or to curb inflation and growing food prices. Some people even go as far to say that he's a mere puppet in the hands of Sonia Gandhi(chairperson of the UPA). The latest from the Gandhi bloodline, Rahul Gandhi, has failed miserably to connect with the voters at large. This, in addition to multiple corruption scams and allegations of black money laundering, has only contributed to the anti-Congress wave. The INC's rivals, especially the BJP, have capitalized well on this. Narendra Modi's popularity grows with each passing day, and it seems that it's only a matter of time before he becomes prime minister. How this affects India's future:The INC's ouster won't provide a fresh start to Indian politics, but like I mentioned earlier, it wouldn't hurt to test a new government, which has shown great promise. The BJP had performed fairly well for nearly 3 terms before UPA returned to power under former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Narendra Modi shows even more promise than Vajpayee. Those who live in India need no introduction to how he's transformed the state of Gujarat into one of the best states in India. If anything, the current BJP seems to be better than the pre-2004 BJP. Many questions are being raised about the citizenship, educational background, political credentials and patriotic convictions of Sonia Gandhi(who is Italian by blood) and her children. Allowing UPA to remain in power for another term is only going to make things worse. So, in my opinion, the current severe losses suffered by the INC in Delhi and other states bode well for India's immediate future. I hope that BJP comes to power in 2014, and Narendra Modi makes the whole of India as well-developed as Gujarat. I thank Con for instigating this debate; however, I would've really appreciated it if he actually made some arguments. The rest is up to the voters.
are the current changes in the political scene at Delhi indicative of better future for India

Regrettably, my opponent has forfeited this round as well. I shall continue with my presentation.In the previous round, I stated some of the reasons for the popular "anti-Congress wave" surging across India. The INC has repeatedly produced dismal examples of political failures.This, together with the rampant, increasing corruption, does not bode well for the Congress, who have hardly done anything to even slow the rise in corruption cases, both high-profile and low-profile.http://www.dnaindia.com...The Nehru-Gandhi label has lost its lustre in India. Rahul Gandhi, the vice president(and possible prime ministerial candidate) of the INC, and the Gandhi dynasty's scion, has failed to connect to his electorate. His campaign last year in Uttar Pradesh, his own homeland, was a shocking failure.http://www.dailymail.co.uk...The INC's humiliating losses in two major state governments of Delhi and Rajasthan are a clear indication as to why the nation would do better without it, post the 2014 general elections.Add to this the enigmatic presence of Narendra Modi in BJP, and the stellar performance of the AAP, and it is not at all difficult to see why this change in the political scene is good for India's future.On the big stage, Rahul Gandhi is nowhere near Modi, who shows no sign of slowing down. The AAP also promises to be a party-pooper in some more constituencies. Chances of the INC-led United Party Alliance(UPA), at the 2014 general elections, look bleak.As far as Delhi is concerned, the crushing defeat of Sheila Dikshit at the hands of Arvind Kejriwal(AAP), followed by her resignation after a record three terms in office, should speak for itself.I see no reason why this change is bad for India's political future.I hope my opponent returns to post his next set of arguments in round 4.
are the current changes in the political scene at Delhi indicative of better future for India

Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited round #1. As such, I am now forced to present my own arguments.Overview:Recently, the Indian National Congress(INC) suffered a crushing defeat in the recently contested assembly elections at Delhi.Of the total 70 legislative seats, INC secured only 8 seats, bringing an end to a record 15 years(3 terms) of dominant rule.The Bharatiya Janta Party(BJP), which is the arch-rival of the INC, won 32 seats, the debutante Aam Aadmi Party(AAP) won 28 seats, and other parties got 2 seats.http://zeenews.india.com...The loss suffered by the INC resulted in the resignation of three-time chief minister, Sheila Dikshit.Debate:My opponent says that the recent changes in the political scene i.e. the loss of INC, is NOT good for India's future. I, however, deny this. In recent times, the INC has been anything but promising. Reasons: Commonwealth Games scam(2010) 2G scam Rising inflation Bad spokesmanshipThese and may other reasons have resulted in a popular anti-congress wave throughout India. Under such circumstances, I feel it is only good that a new government is formed. It's better to risk a new formation to anticipate for change, rather than stick with the old one, which is constantly under criticism.I await my opponent's arguments/rebuttal(s) in the next round.
are the current changes in the political scene at Delhi indicative of better future for India

Challenge accepted.I shall be the Pro in this debate i.e. I shall be arguing that the current changes in the political scene at Delhi ARE indicative of a better future for India.Due to him being the instigator, the burden of proof is upon my opponent. I eagerly await his arguments in the next round, failing which I shall present my own.I look forward to an exciting and fairly-contested debate.
God is not moral and the Problem of Evil logically says he does not exist.

I’ll go ahead and establish my positions; Position 1: God is good. Position 2: The Abrahamic God does coexist in a universe that has evil. Position 3: Position 2 is not logically impossible, but possible. Position 4: Morality is not simple, and sometimes certain moral “rules” as the pro calls do not apply in all frames of reference. (this position may be irrelevant depending on how he argues. ) Position 5: Gods morality is objective, and not subjective. Position 6: God does exist. I’ll ground out my position in the next round when I construct my arguments, but for now this is acceptance.
God is not moral and the Problem of Evil logically says he does not exist.

I Challenge Con to the debate because I saw in a debate between him and another atheist about the morality of God and Satan and I feel that she did not make her points well based on an ignorance of the bible and what it says. I am here to redeem the argument. I will be arguing that God is A) Not moral, but evil in both his actions and inaction. B) And because God cannot coexist with evil due to his Benevolence, and because evil exists, that the Abrahamic God cannot exist. For this debate, I will use the definition of evil: e"vil [ee-vuhl] Show IPA adjective 1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life. . http://dictionary.reference.com... The analogy used throughout the debate will be a woman who is raped and murdered along with her child. Also, we will look at various situations in the bible that would be considered morally wrong to human standards and I expect the Con to attempt to justify those actions. mo"ral"i"ty [muh-ral-i-tee, maw-] Show IPA noun, plural mo"ral"i"ties for 4"6. 1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. mo"ral"i"ty [muh-ral-i-tee, maw-] Show IPA noun, plural mo"ral"i"ties for 4"6. 1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. . http://dictionary.reference.com... This will be the definition of morality used throughout the debate. For identification of the rules in this context, we will follow the basics of A) Thalt shalt not kill B) Be honest C) And finally do not covet, or be jealous. D) Do not be quick to anger E) Do not be selfish, but be Selfless That will be the basics of morality in this debate.
"Separation of Church and State" is always the best form of government

Firstly, thank you for responding to my debate. However, I specifically mentioned that the first round would be for opening statements and not core arguments, but whatever. To clarify, I am not of the position that the separation of church and state should end; I am simply arguing that it is not ALWAYS the best form of government, as is written in the topic description. My main reason for this is that the concept pertains very much to a western ideology of governance. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean that the concept is not as applicable to other nations, particularly Asian countries. Theocracy has been around since the earliest periods of human history. The pharaohs of Egypt were believed to be incarnations of gods, the Byzantine empire was headed by Christianity, and the rule of religious scripture goes back to the infancy of Islam. My point is that theocratic rule as a concept is very intrinsic to human society. The idea of secularism is still relatively recent (first recorded usage was in 1648), and as such it is very difficult, if not impossible to replace the long-standing traditions that have been practiced by governments for thousands of years. You mentioned several Middle Eastern countries and how they represented theocratic governments. Imagine how alien the concept of a separated government and church must be to many of their inhabitants. In the end, it is all about context; what works in one country with a completely different history, economy etc. does not necessarily work in others. Like I proposed earlier, it is an example of an idea that sounds great in theory, but is difficult to implement universally. These are just my preliminary points, respond at your earliest convenience! 1. http://www.encyclopedia.com... 2. http://science.jrank.org...
"Separation of Church and State" is always the best form of government

I accept!So, you say that there should be an end to the separation to church and state. Firstly, the flaw in your argument is evident when you claim that Secularists view the separation of Church and State as a "be-all-end-all" solution. It's meant to correct a major flaw in governments that was seen up until 1789: the presence of dogma. If you wish to see historical examples of where there was no separation of Church and State, look to the barbarism of the Middle Ages, where Knights would often rape and murder peasantry[1]. In his book, The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith traces the geneology of the guild to the Medieval Burghers, who were commoners put in charge of cities to defend it against their own Knights who would raid the cities whenever their coffers needed replenishing. The knights operated without fear of retribution because the Church was on their side. On must recall that the Church, any Church, is an institution run by men and thus very capable of becoming corrupt. A religious institution quickly becomes corrupt, especially if it is larger, because those who are in charge are held accountable to no one except for their own sense of morality. If you want to see a modern example where Secularism is not in existence, look to the Middle East, the Islamic State, and Saudi Arabia. There religion is the law of the land. ISIS is currently on a genocidal rampage in the name of religion[2]. Sauid Arabia limits the rights of people based upon the religious laws of Islam. In fact, they tend to try to force their religion into other parts of the world, from neighboring Iraq to Europe [3].In the end, to abolish Secularism is to abolish Liberty, regardless of what deity replaces reason.[1] http://www.cracked.com...[2] https://www.rt.com...[3] http://www.salon.com...
"Separation of Church and State" is always the best form of government

Coined by American founding father Thomas Jefferson, the idea of "separation of church and state" has long been a defining factor of modern western democracy. In theory, it sounds like an infallible principle; but like with many such philosophies, there is a fine difference between theory and practice. I am going to argue that this model of government (where the legislature and religious institution have no influence on each other) is not the be-all-end-all solution that it is praised to be. As such topics tend to be controversial, and can cause individuals to become emotional and/or attached, I request that my opponent be civil in his/her arguments. This is not necessarily an expression of our viewpoints, but rather a forum for an intelligent debate. Evidently, I am using the first round for my opening statement, and I expect that my opponent do the same. Thank you, and I look forward to a proper, stimulating discussion!
Abortion should be illegal

Greetings. Looking forward to the debate. I will start off my opening argument below as follows:1. ) Should Abortion Be Illegal? A. Yes depending on the circumstances. 2. ) From what point in the pregnancy should abortion be illegal? A. Very early on while it is only a fetus. I believe a woman can abort if they were raped, Because it was forced and it wasn't consensual. [This goes back to depending on the circumstances]B. If a woman willingly has sexual intercourse then she should not abort because that is her responsibility. For every action there's a reaction. A baby inside a womb is still a human life and it would be wrong to do that. Would you mind providing your definition of pro-life? I researched it and there are some definitions that are different within each other. For confirmation you are saying abortion shouldn't be illegal? (Con) and I am saying it should be illegal? (Pro)If I misunderstood, Then I apologize in advance. Round 1 response submitted. Thank you.
Is using social media for marketing an invasion of privacy

As marketers looks for new ways to obtain information to gain potential and new customer, a question arise and it is being debated heavily. I don't believe that using social media for marketing is an invasion of privacy. Giving up privacy When you sign on with a social media, you are ask to agree a term and use statement. When you agree to it, you give up your privacy for anything you put or said on that website. For an example, Facebook's privacy policy stated, "We use the information we receive about you in connection with the services and features we provide to you and other users like your friends, the advertisers that purchase ads on the site, and the developers that build the games, applications, and websites you use." Also, the policy gives examples of what your information might be use for. By agreeing to those, you give up your right to Facebook in term of privacy. It also stated that your information is public as long as you keep it public. So if you don't want anyone to see what you are saying, doing or whatever the case might be, change your privacy setting. Publishing yourself The internet is a public library we, as society as a whole, created to ease our life. Whenever something is being added to the internet, it is public to the entire world. This ties back to my first point of giving up privacy. Once we create a account in any social media, we become a virtual book with our names as title. The virtual book contains everything that we have done and post on the internet. The internet also has our concises when we post anything on the internet so it is not an invasion of privacy. Conclusion Social media and internet is a public place where everyone is allow to view other people's interest and ideas. Using it is not an invasion of privacy, and if anyone is fear of losing privacy over something, then change the privacy setting on social media or not even putting it on the web in the first place.