BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap Battle with a twist

Walk into the arena and already felt the wave of fear Cuz NDECD1441 step up to the mat, i'm already shedding a tear His rhymes are to much for me to keep up NDECD is as strong as a bear, i'm weak as a papercup Easy to destroy, just like my rhymes I spit My rhymes are worthless, his rhymes have wit So I bow down to the rap god my highness My rhymes are bad, yours have finesse You take this challenge, cuz it was easy NDECD is pure, i'm sleazy Everything I stand for, my promoise's I break My selfishness, my greed is something I keep for my own sake So i'm ending this round here Cuz u run over my rhymes like it's a deer My rhymes are a tragedy, call it the new holocaust So i'm out I already lost
Rap Battle with a twist

Hey everybody. I am here to lose. Woops got so nervous I blew a fuse There is no way that I can win My rhymes are as trashy as a rubbish bin I did my best, couldn't do the rest You passed it while I failed the test I was armed with a sword. Wooden I meant You were armed with a gun and a bullet-proof vest. I cannot think of anymore rhymes Just like I did in those other times My talent, I cannot find You are worth a dollar, me a dime.
The Bible is the inerrant Word of God

I accept and look forward to this debate. I am ok with using the ESV primarily but reserve the right to use Hebrew and Greek original texts as well, and the NIV. I agree, as far as English translations, to only use ESV and NIV unless agreed upon to use another during debate by both parties in the comments section. I agree on the 66 book standard canon. I agree to the definition of inerrant as well. The burden of proof would have to be on both. 1. since I am arguing that there are no errors, it is upon my oppenent to point one out for discussion. Looking forward to this!
The Bible is the inerrant Word of God

At issue will be whether the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Five rounds. 1st round is acceptance, 2nd round is opening arguments (no rebuttal), third and fourth rounds will be rebuttals and cross-examination, fifth round is closing arguments. The Bible is defined as the 66 books that make up the standard current canon. We will use the English Standard Version, though I am open to an alternate version if preferred by my opponent. "inerrant" is defined by Merriam-Webster as "free from error." For our purposes, that means that there are no factual errors or irreconcilable conflicts within the Bible. For our purposes, you needn't prove affirmatively that God was the author. You need only make a compelling case that the Bible is without error or irreconcilable conflict. I thank my opponent in advance for taking this debate. I am hopeful that it will be an interesting and enjoyable experience for both of us, as well as the audience.
Christian Ethics according to Liberal "Christian" Sects are unchristian.*

Thank you, Excuse in my Last turn I was urr…busy…yeah. I see you have rejected the 7 Options and selected a single motion: Disagree =/= The Bible is against Homosexuality. + You broke a rule… I believe that error falls under Conduct… a Deviation from original rules set. Point to Pro. ________________________________ >>>>>Semitics/Definitions<<<<< ________________________________ Homosexuality: Sexual Acts and Sexual feelings to one's own gender. Bible: The Christian holy book. Christian: A person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity. Christianity: The Christian religion, founded on the life and teachings of Jesus. Primarily adopted from Judaism. Against: A hostile opposition or resistance. Disagreements due to Definitions Due to your Motion Selection theses definitions are Irrelevant: XX-Irrelevant-XX (but citable) ----- Sin - Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God. XX-Irrelevant-XX ----- God - The holy trinity, meaning God, Jesus, Holy Spirit. __________________________ Clarity -- Functionals -- Truths __________________________ < > This Debate is of and on the Belief the Homosexuality is against Note that this Debate is not on the belief that Homosexuality is right or wrong, as that it may be perseved in that way. < > Equation of Justification: God via Prophet -->*--> Bible -->**--> Christianity *Prophets write down the words and teachings of God in the Bible. **The Bible, the "good" news is the word of God. Christians are basically the adherents of the Bible. With this rule, the Functional rules of the Bible are what Christianity is against* Aas the semantics of the term apply. """"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. """" Leviticus 20:13 Please don't use semantics. Example: "mankind doesn't mean human. .. " Leviticus is the 3rd book of Moses, the book of the Law (Laws of Christianity). The Law of Moses, is the code of Christianity. If one is to break the Law, and the punishment is one to be murdered, is the assumption "if one wishes to kill another, one is against another" incorrect. Vi Virums (By/The Truths): -->Action of Homosexuality. ---- Stimulus -->Act of Killing after recognition of the homosexual action ---- "Against-A hostile opposition or resistance. " To kill, killing is hostile. ____________ Resolution affirmed as Undebatable… next. I suggest you select a second Motion. Thank you.
Christian Ethics according to Liberal "Christian" Sects are unchristian.*

As four rounds is too little time/space to give each motion the time it deserves, I will select the following motion: The Bible is against Homosexuality. But however for this debate I will modify it slightly to mean: I affirm Homosexuality is a sin in the Bible, as "against" is far to broad a term. Furthermore I will be taking the CON position on this debate. Meaning that my opponent must assert and clearly prove that the Bible claims that homosexuality is a sin. For clarity I will pose the following definitions: sin - Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God. God - The holy trinity, meaning God, Jesus, Holy Spirit. Homosexual: A person sexually attracted to persons of the same sex. Homosexuals include males (gays) and females (lesbians).
Christian Ethics according to Liberal "Christian" Sects are unchristian.*

_____________________________________________________________ >>Christian Ethics according to Liberal "Christian" Sects are unchristian. << _____________________________________________________________ If you believe 5 of the 7 statements below to be incorrect, please take this debate: Believe: >>Christianity does not 'hate' anything. >>Although there may be cases where God condemned people, that still does not represent what God or Christianity is about. Disagrees with: >>The Bible supports Death Penalty. >>The Bible supports inferiority of races. >>The Bible is against Homosexuality. >>The Bible is against Fortification outside marriage. >>The Bible is against certain women's rights.
Compared to most politicians, Obama is an okay president

Misty, I am sad that you were unable to provide a response or defense to my argument, but I will pursue to respond, in short (very), to your argument for the sake of validating my own position. In your argument, you brought three issues that you believe Obama has handled quite well, that removes him from the 'sucks' category: Civil rights, education, and environment. These issues are important, of course, and anyone willing to ignore or downplay these issues is not only deserving of a leadership position, but also damaging their own political success. But,, that is just the point. Anyone can (should) agree that all men are created equal, and thereby subject to the same birth rights as everyone else. Anyone can fight, or merely just appear to fight, for the advancement and improvement of our educational system. And anyone can agree that, aside from the debate of global warming, we as a people need to change the way we produce, consume, and live in order to manage resources and provide waste management. The difference is how a leader and/or his administration go about defining these issues and how best to address them, which is best contrasted in the difference between the political right and left. Ultimately, this is expected, and what one president/party achieve in their term, is easily reverted in the other. These issues will flip back and forth because of the majority's difference of opinion, and how their leaders defend their constituency. However, the issues that are hard, the ones that leaders don't wish to address publicly with the people are the tough decisions and issues I mentioned above. The advent of global militarization via drones, privacy rights of the individual counter to constitutional provisions, and a flip-flop foreign policy justification for either taking direct action or providing indirect consent for action. Obama has avoided confronting these issues publicly because he believes (I believe) that he is and has been in the wrong on these and other issues, and cannot address these issues, until information on how they are being handled behind the scenes is leaked out. Obama had a chance to make a change, and to undo so many things from the previous Bush administration that he publicly stated were wrong, but sadly, he has not only allowed them, he has advanced them. I'll give credit where credit is due, he has done, as you mentioned, many great things to better our nation and humanity, but in the end we have to remember that it is not the easy decisions that anyone can make, but how they react to the tough issues, pressures, and circumstances that make or break any leader. In this aspect, Obama has failed in my reasons provided, in addition to many others, both know now, and later to be declassified.
Compared to most politicians, Obama is an okay president

My stance: Obama doesn't deserve all the hate he gets. Policy-wise he's not been GREAT but has definitely done many great things. My opponent must argue that basically he sucks as a president. Rules of the debate:1. ) Policy-related material only (speeches etc. are also fair game)2. ) Polite conduct at all times3. ) Include at least one political cartoon or poster/slogan relating to your argument in each round (Cartoons are usually rude, so cartoons are excluded from polite conduct ratings)4. ) All sources are to be listed using the following system ( blah blah blah [1] blah blah blah [2] then, at the very end of the argument, put the sources [1] google. com [2] cnn. com)5. ) The format of the debate is as follows: 1st round- acceptance (NOTHING else)2nd round- 1st arguments (NO REBUTTALS yet)3rd round- Rebuttals (NO new arguments or points that are irrelevant to a rebuttal may be presented)Fourth round- Closing statements and final argumentsFifth round- Pure cartoons and posters (just for the fun of it) (NO words may be written by either debater in this round, there may only be pictures, cartoons, posters, slogans etc.6. ) Failure to follow any of the above rules should be penalized as a FF
One day, paid surrogacy will be mainstream

Thank you for your arguments and for defining the terms. A working woman will save money by having a surrogate bear her child. Not only will she not need time off work, but employers will have the security of knowing that women of child-bearing age won't be taking maternity leave. Once surrogacy becomes at all normal, there will be subtle pressure on women responsible positions to take that path. This will lead to women who want to bear their own children being labelled as "opting out" or being "stretch mark and granola" types. It will become a feminist issue. Why, in this day and age should a woman sacrifice herself in pregnancy? Taking time out from work for babies is irreparably damaging to many women's careers, letting men leap unfairly ahead. Paid surrogacy will be seen as a good way of leveling the playing field. Pregnant mothers need to rest. Would a busy executive be able to devote herself physically to the pregnancy? Wouldn't it be better to leave it to someone who can devote herself entire to rest and gentle exercise? Everyone knows that a difficult birth can be dangerous for a baby. Wouldn't it be better to leave to someone who has already had several successful drug-free natural births? These are the sorts of arguments that women will hear. If rich women start to pay surrogates to bear their children, then they will savagely defend the procedure. Articles will start to appear in magazines poking fun at the "martyrs" who bear their own children, despite evidence that the right surrogate is actually better for the baby's health. Does physically bearing the child have any affect on attachment? As far as I know, there is no evidence at all to suggest that it does. In fact, you could argue that a mother who has not gone through pregnancy and childbirth is more rested, healthier, and therefore more capable of responding to her child in a devoted and loving fashion. At the moment there is no guarantee that the surrogate will give up the child peacefully, it's true. All that's required, however, is a chance in legislation. Parents don't have any control over what happens to their children in childcare, but childcare is still mainstream. Surrogacy will be treated the same way. Parents will check the surrogates credentials. They will make sure she has born babies previously. They will check up on other satisfied customers. They will insist on a dietary log. They will be able to inspect her house. There might even be surrogacy agencies that do all the checking for them. In this way, anxiety will be alleviated.
One day, paid surrogacy will be mainstream

However, you did not define "mainstream" or "surrogacy", so I define them as follows: Mainstream: 1. the principal or dominant course, tendency, or trend . http://dictionary.reference.com... Surrogacy: To have an unaffiliated third party carry a child to term. It is up to you, Pro, to prove that surrogacy will become more popular than the status quo of child bearing. Reasons why it will not overtake conventional child bearing: 1. Lack of control. Not only is there no guarantee that the surrogate will give up the child peacefully, there is no real way to control dietary intake. Sure, you can have a contract that says the surrogate can"t smoke or drink, but that doesn"t mean she will honor it. 2. Emotional attachment. Not only is there the possibility of the surrogate"s emotional attachment causing problems down the road, there is no maternal response to the child from the "mother". 3. Cost and mistrust. Not many people can and will pay someone living/medical expenses for nine months in hopes they honor a contract. If all goes well, not many people can then also afford to pay the surrogate for their efforts. I don"t think most people would pay $20,000 in labor (pun intended) plus any expenses like living and medical (probably another $20,000 or more, depending on where they live, what they eat, and if insurance covers labor). . http://www.modernmom.com...
One day, paid surrogacy will be mainstream

Already, lots of celebrities are paying surrogates to bear their children. The main reasons are infertility and/or being in a male homosexual relationship. As it becomes more normal, however, women are going to choose this option to avoid difficult and finally uncomfortable pregnancies. In the olden days, babies were raised by wet-nurses. The technology for surrogates didn't exist in those days. People can buy organs illegally, but surrogacy is not as ugly because pregnancy is a natural process. In theory, a woman can be a surrogate without any negative consequences. This is NOT an argument about whether paid surrogacy is desirable or not, but rather its likelihood. I think it will be mainstream within a generation.
One day, paid surrogacy will be mainstream

Thank you for the debate, I enjoyed it. My opponent has dropped two key arguments: 1. Surrogacy has been around for over 20 years in America, and has shown no signs of booming to demonstrate that it will become too much more popular. 2. The attachment issue. He addresses the attachment of the child, but disregards any attachment issues on the mother's end. He does state that step-parents' relationships are problematic, but pins that on the child, not the step-parent, which is the point I brought up. Furthermore, my opponent has decided to change the definition of the word mainstream in the final round. He cites a "language barrier", so I will address both definitions. 1. Using my opponent's definition, in America and in other countries, he cites that surrogacy is normal, as it is legislated "chaotically", even where it is illegal it is allowed. This would mean that surrogacy is already "conventional", as I have stated, it has been around for decades in America, and for those who cannot have a child, I am certain it is recommended. It is legitimized where it is legal. Since it is conventional and normal already, it will not "will be mainstream" later, it may be more accepted, but it is mainstream now, so my opponent loses by failing to prove that surrogacy will, at a later date, BECOME mainstream, it already is, and may continue to be. 2. Using my definition, the fact that surrogacy laws are around, even if "chaotic", legitimizes the practice, yet there is no evidence of a growing trend, thus it is not, nor will it be, mainstream. My opponents has not offered evidence to show that surrogacy will become legal in countries where it is not, nor a trend in substantially more people using surrogacy. The fact that laws are inconsistent among states and countries is irrelevant, as many laws are (like marriage); however, the fact that there are laws has legitimized surrogacy, and I am sure people will continue to use this practice, but not in significant numbers to warrant a "predominant trend". You must vote Con, if for no other reason, Pro has failed to meet his BOP. Pro has mostly stated why surrogacy is good and will be used, but no compelling arguments were made to indicate a rise in use.
One day, paid surrogacy will be mainstream

Basically, I agree with your points as to why surrogacy would spread and raise in popularity. However, you need to demonstrate that it would be the new norm, not simply be accepted. Furthermore, if you do a Google search for surrogate agencies, the top three websites are companies that have been in business for at least 16 years. There is legislation and laws protecting those wronged by a surrogate. However, surrogacy is not a booming industry, even though its legitimacy has been proven. The reason, most pregnancies are unplanned. They are either "meh, a kid wouldn't be so bad, but I'm not working at it" or completely accidental and generally unwanted. For surrogacy to become mainstream, you need to show that 1)most pregnancies are planned, and 2) these planned pregnancies would more likely use surrogates than not. I still find it difficult to believe that a woman, whose natural biological response is to have a baby, would by and large choose to ignore this innate impulse. Quick Rebuttal to your points: You mention business-driven women. They are most likely to use a surrogate; however, they are also more likely to forgo having a family, too. Shallow women, perhaps rich housewives, would likely use a surrogate, though. Feminists may use surrogates to promote an equal playing field, but this also fundementally attacks a woman being a woman. Feminists seem to care more about women not being housewives, more than not getting pregnant; a strong woman is one who carries a child while working, gives birth, then hits the ground running. This would make them better than a man. Pregnant mothers need rest, but you assume that a surrogate doesn't also have another job. If women were traditionally housewives, then a pregnancy isn't as big an ordeal as being pregnent while working for someone else. Surrogates have been around for decades, are women poking fun of the martyrs yet? The child bearing vs. dis-attachment issue is difficult to show either way. However, as evidence, we can look to stepparents as being unattached to their stepchildren. Furthermore, we can use attachments to those with nannies. Stereotypically, these are not good environments (not bad, just not ideal). Pro has the BOP, and has not yet met it. There is no way that surrogates will be the predominant trend over unplanned pregnancies.
Technology hurts society more than it helps it.

I'm not sure where you get the notion that technology hurts society. While you may be able to point to isolated incidences of technology harming society, I can demonstrate numerous technological developments that have immeasurably helped society - far more than any other pieces may have hurt it. Let's first address your argument, which doesn't deal with society, but rather with business. You present several areas where you believe technology has hurt business: 1) Phone Menu Choices 2) Reduced Staffs 3) Incorrect Automated Responses 4) Meaningless E-mail 5) Cell phones These are all inventions with the POTENTIAL to harm society. But then again, most all inventions have that potential, so this is really nothing special at all. Let's examine the actual technology these utilize, not the abuse of it. 1) The telephone allows instantaneous communication over very long distances, allowing business transactions, personal communication, government business, etc... to take place. Hardly a detriment to society. 2) Reduced Staffs? Those aren't technology! Perhaps you could enlighten me as to who invented reduced staffs? 3) Automated Responses allow for tedious work to be handled by machine. It's not a flaw in the technology that produces incorrect responses - it's a flaw in the people that programmed it. And still, we have the further reduction of this technology to the telephone (see #1). This allows for employees to be much more efficient - instead of 50 phones and people, now there are 5 people monitoring automated systems. Hardly a detriment to society. 4) E-mail allows for (basically) free textual communication anywhere in the world. Abuse of technology (mass e-mails) is nothing new. If an e-mail is an automated response, it can also be automatically deleted. I utterly fail to see any harm to society in e-mail. 5) Cell phones are basically a step above the telephone - same benefit, no cord. How many people's lives do you suppose have been saved by cell phones? I see a significant IMPROVEMENT to society here. "Obviously, for all the above reasons and more, technology hurts society more than it helps it." I see five improvements to business practices above that come from technology - no harm done. Now let's look at some pieces of technology that have historically helped society... The Printing Press The Steam Engine The Light Bulb Indoor Plumbing The Microprocessor The Battery Penicillin The Internal Combustion Engine The Clock The Radio The Locomotive The Electric Generator The Electric Motor One can CLEARLY see that pieces of technology have been an IMMENSE benefit to society, not a hindrance. I see no possible way to claim that technology hurts society when there are so many benefits to be reaped by these inventions. I await your rebuttal - and please address society like your topic says, and not exclusively business.