BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
RAP BATTLE [Debate]

http://www.youtube.com...The video is a little choppy because it's a direct-to-youtube video. I'll probably go through movie maker or something first next round so it doesn't look like my camera needs eye-drops every 2 seconds XDLyrics:O haii'm that guybuilt so fly in a silk bow tiedon't know why i'm built so flybut i am, no lieoh myrolled by on a low ride Huffysitting on the pegs, shelltoes puffy cuff rolled up to my calfclass out the a$$bad with the swag like buffyGotta be the one to bite the bullet i'm sinner but i bet I coulda been a better manI wanna be zen. but I be sipping on some medicine instead of meditating but I get when i canI don't wanna wind up in the gutter with a bottle of malt-liquor, bitter cause i never got a calltelling methat it's allfigured outi'm sick of doubtbut i'm looking at the wallpart of me was hoping to be caught up in the moment and to be open to the good and the God in mebut i got a labotomy and i get that I oughtta become a bit of an oddity when somebody gets offended by the thought of mewho's he? you gotta be kidding medo me like Gabourey Sidibeif you see me with a chickadeeno diggity it'll be giggity giggity giggitygonna send it like a letter from abovewith a woman that I lovecause I get it like i livebut if my baby's gay I'll say you go gay baby, work that crib!work that bibburp that kidscrew po-liceflip that cari don't want a Jesus piecebut i want a Reece's Piece and a Kit Kat BarI want everybody focusing on getting me to Letterman to kick it for the betterment of innocent Americans who never want to settle for their popOr not--my bedroom rocksand the beat still knockswhen I sort my socksi'm five foot eleven of sex from the tip of my head to my gorgeous knees
RAP BATTLE [Debate]

I was inspired by this debate between cheesy and tulle [1] and so I want to have a rap battle. These are the rules:1. Must be a video of yourself rapping (audio only won't cut it, sorry)2. It can be original work or a cover, it doesn't really matter3. Video must be over 1 minute, but try to keep it less than 3 4. 1 video per round (so each of us will post 2 videos total) 5. It can be a whole song or just a verse, so long as it's within the time contraints 6. BOP will be shared lol7. Must be rap8. Minimal swearing pl0x (nobody wants to get ban-hammered here)This debate will be a test of your rapping skill, so voters take note of things like script reading (bad) and smooth flow (good).This debate is impossible to accept right now because I don't want a nyub taking it and screwing it all up. If you want to take this debate, or you have any questions about the rules, or if you are unsure if a peice you want to do is applicable for this debate, messege me in the comments section.“Love yourself and your expression, you can't go wrong.” ― KRS-One 1. http://debate.org...;
Based on ethics, Meat should be off the menu

premise that to inflict unnecessary harm and suffering upon a conscious, Sentient creature is wrong. - What if a family lives of meat? Even in the West many people still eat meat. If lets say meat was removed what would they eat instead? The source below states that in 2013 8. 6 billion chickens were processed. What would fill that gap? Sentient creature is wrong. - What if it in the end of its life cycle? It is not an absolute wrong if the creature is already dying or will not be capable of sustaining itself for the duration of its life. There's no justification for the standard of torture endured by animals in the meat industry- Many Americans rely on meat. What would be more ethically sound? For 100 humans to survive or 100 chickens to survive. That might not be real world example but I highly doubt obese people who have an addiction to meat would not be able to drop meat straight away. Basically human life is valued more then animal life. Whether or not it is right is debatable. These are my opening arguments. Next round I would like you to explain why animal life should be valued on the same level as a human life. You did say sentient and conscious but I want to elaborate more or give me other ways they should be valued the same way. Source: https://www. Nbcnews. Com/business/economy/look-u-s-meat-industry-numbers-n451571
Based on ethics, Meat should be off the menu

A nervous system is required to experience physical pain. The fact that plants emit gas when harm is imminent in no way proves that plants feel pain- I can't prove plants feel pain so I will go for another argument. Vegan diet is good but it has problems. One problem is an essential vitamin B-12. It is a nutrient that keeps blood cells and nerves in the body. It also help to create DNA in cells. Evidence have not shown to give this essential in a vegan diet. Yes you can use supplements but they do not work all the time and it will take time adjusting. Supplements do not have research stating that they do work. It has been tested but the results were not used to broad picture because of the different supplements you can get. Scientists cannot advice patients on the supplement they have when it might different from the store bought one. Even though many can state a vegan diet is healthier it still has not been proven in a controlled area. Another argument why we should not abandon meat even as a gradual change is the condition some people might in. The vegan diet can be excessive to the body even with a gradual change if you have pre existing conditions. 2 examples of these would be diabetes and osteoporosis. There"s no nutrients found in meat that can"t be found in thousands of other foods. - Vitamin B-12 if I have not made it clear above and supplements are not always the best. it"s moral- I assumed wrong. Where in my original sentence would "unnecessary" be added? - In most cases the interest of a human should be valued above the interest of an animal. One case for the favour of animal interests is unnecessary harm done to said animal. They are the same IN THAT THEY HAVE THE CAPACITY TO SUFFER- I think the suffer aspect can be negated. Mine way of not making the animal suffer is tranquilising said animal and then snap its neck if it has one. The neck snap should be an instantaneous death. Why is it not morally wrong to be cruel to a pig for our own gain? - It is morally wrong if you put someone on the spot about it. Why else are animals being unnecessarily harmed if not for industry? - Profit, Taste and filling a gap in the market. Not a moral argument because the market is not meant to be moral. Just there to allow people to make money. Source:https://www. Aarp. Org/food/diet-nutrition/info-02-2011/9-pros-and-cons-to-going-vegan. Htmlhttp://www. Diabetesforecast. Org/2012/feb/the-pros-and-cons-of-dietary-supplements. Html
Based on ethics, Meat should be off the menu

I have tried to upload this four times sorry for the inconvenienceMy argument addresses specifically the/ unnecessary/ infliction of harm and therefore such cases are barred. - I’ll keep that in mind. Imply visit your nearest grocery store and peruse the aisles; you’ll find pastas, Beans, Vegetables, Fruits, All types of plant-based protein and millions of other food items that aren’t meat- From the source below it states plants emit noises via gas when it is in distresses signals that plants feels as pain. You might say plant cannot register pain without a brain but plants partake in intelligence behaviour that is not committed using a brain so it isn’t a stretch to say this is also possible. We can simply opt for non-meat foods that are fortified with the same nurtients with which meant products are fortified- Artificial meat right? This is very expensive with the current technology and for it to be cheap it would require a lot of capital to be placed into Research and Development. Second source below. If veganism was globalized- Don’t think this is possible without radical change. One example is the Middle East. It is dominated by Islam. They have rituals that require meat to be used in the process. To me the only way this changes is with a revolution or most likely outside intervention. That is why for the foreseeable future global veganism I think wishful thinking. The interest of a human should be valued above the interest of an animal- Can you clarify? Does this go in line with unnecessary harm? I think this would be misleading without adding unnecessary into it. That animals are the same as human; its points was that they have the same capacity to suffer. –Not all animals are aware of said suffering which does not mean they have the same capacity to suffer. Third source and go to the Animal which it lists Apes, Monkey and Dolphins having the same level of awareness. To help you see this issue from my perspective, I want to ask if you believe that skinning your pet dog for your own benefit (for example, Maybe taking a video of it would get a lot of views online and earn you ad revenue. ) should be allowed, Or at the very least if you believe it's a person's moral right to do so. - Society should first accept it is as immoral before it should be punishable by law. By giving the government the power to do this why wouldn't they ban other things using the authoritarianism that they have gained through banning this? Animal cruelly is covered by law. I think that is what you speaking about. The person is morally wrong. Can we switch the debate away from the meat industry? I cannot defend it. I concede that point. If you still want to talk about don't expect sufficient responses because I cannot defend it given by how you phrased this debate. No offence but you did put me in a corner either I lie and this debate is not about truth or hopefully you drop it. Must be having a problem with the sources so I just write the title of themSource: Plants feel pain (howstuffworks)Vitro meat pro and cons (Petridishtoplate)Self-awareness (Wikipedia)
Rap (Con) v Your Music Preference (Pro)

Here are my categories: 1. background music (beats, electric guitars), 2. rhyming/flow, 3. lyrical content, 4. which is more popular. Feel free to add categories. I'm kinda rushing this Round 2, but I'll be more thorough later. 1.I think background would go to heavy metal as far as instrumentals and different instruments. It's more musical in style, rap is just repetitive beats, mostly through synthesizers. 2.Rhyming and flow goes to rap almost indisputably. Look at the actual acronym: Rhythm And Poetry. Without these, it would not be R.A.P. Rap flourishes with rhymes way more than heavy metal, and the repetitive beats make it real catchy and flowing. 3.Lyrical content... a highly debatable subject, I'm going to call it a draw. There's just no real way to say which has better message and appeal other than opinion statements. 4.This pie graph [1] shows that overall, rap sells 22% of music. Rock sells 30%. keep in mind though that metal is a subcategory of rock. Huge amounts of rock are not heavy metal. So, adding up the wins and losses of these four categories, rap wins 2 to 1 (3rd round was a draw). Again, this is highly opinionated, so feel free to attack my argument as ruthlessly as you want. Sources: 1. http://www.digitalmusicnews.com...
Rap (Con) v Your Music Preference (Pro)

Like I said, lyrical content is really hard to judge. I'm making an assumption that you don't listen to rap near as much as I do. Just the same, I do not listen to metal in the same amount as you. So, that's why I called it a draw, as I do not know heavy metal that well (in terms of lyrical content). However, now that you've stated it's way more metaphoric and deeper then rap... well, let me just say that rap can be highly encrypted, too. You say that most raps you have heard are about bragging about skill. You are correct, but you have to understand that there is far more to rap than that. That is called battle/underground rap. There's also gangster rap, hardcore rap, west/east coast rap, and many more [1]. (My favorite is battle rap.) Each of these has a distinctive flair. You are correct when you state that most of the time, they reveal the meaning through the words. My comeback is: so what? Does a song have to be encrypted to be great and lyrically genius? Many non-rap listeners believe rap to be completely about violence, money, drugs, and cussing. While these are prominent traits of rap (Real Muthaphukkin G's, Schemin' Up, Next Episode, As the World Turns), but you have to take into account the rap songs that are more than that... Eminem's "When I'm Gone" and "Till I Collapse", talking about his daughter and endurance (respectively), Jay Z with "Forever Young", and many more. Rap is not completely vulgar through and through. As far as encrypted, take a look at "Stan" by Eminem. [2] Try and guess what it is about. Yes rap may not be as secretive in lyrical content, but is that what makes lyrics great? It can make them interesting, but to say that it is the key to awesome lyrics is not correct. I'd also like to state that, without amazing lyrical content, rap would be boring as hell, with just a beat and lame words. Metal doesn't necessarily need good lyrical content, because the instrumentals can fill it in (it does help though). Like I said, I don't know much about metal lyrics, but I do know rap, and I know it is lyrically fantastic. I still consider this category a draw. Sources: 1.http://www.musicgenreslist.com... 2.
Rap (Con) v Your Music Preference (Pro)

I can agree with most of this, but I have to disagree with lyrical content. Most metal is either about slaughtering someone, breaking up with someone, ruining a life, or confronting a problem. some of metals messages is so hidden and takes so much looking into the lyrics to find out what they mean. An example is ' Make them suffer - Widower ' / http://www.azlyrics.com... . Taking a first look at this you may think "the hell is this about... a forest???!!" no, but you see looking into it will reveal its about confronting a cheater. " weaving webs among the woods " proves that point mainly. All metal is extremely encrypted and metaphorical, unless its something like http://www.plyrics.com... . Then its pretty blatant, but most metal has a very very encrypted meaning. Rap however, does not have a encrypted meaning. Most raps Ive heard are just about someone telling you they are better than anyone else, and the raps that do have legitimate meanings are not encrypted at all. They are just revealing the meaning through words. No metaphors whatsoever.
The chicken came before the egg.

It is my most dear conviction that the egg entered the state of "being" preceding the introduction of the chicken. It is clear to see that I shall do nothing less than show the manner in which the sophist's theories, the three thrice caving in from the weight of the tower of fallacy which constitutes their bodies, lead to nothing but contradiction. The First Illustrious Proposition) This theory is not optically focused - its lens is too broad. You have failed in your quest to explain the reasons and metaphysical mechanisms behind the propogation of the chicken ex nihilo. Neither the most awesome kings of reptiles, Mankind, nor titanic insects have hailed from no land. They gradually evolved as a result of beneficial transformations of the genome that gave them the power to shift their abilities and continue on the game of life with more ease. The logical message is that the ex nihilo existence of chickens is contrary to reason. The Second Grand Proposition) Not everyone holds faith in the Supreme Being, and because of the fact that you have not given any justification for His presence within the realm of reality (not that such justification exists at all, of course!), we must take the position that He is not and that he is naught. If we hold that He partakes in being, the result is that one can claim that any potential has actualized. You could destroy the foundation for belief in any proposition and claim that He willed it. The Third Noble Proposition) This philosophical dogma is one which lends greater support for the position that I am an advocate of. If the most wonderful egg evolved from its lowly state, transforming itself through an unbroken chain of states of flux, into poultry, that logically leads one to the conclusion that the egg was the preceding factor. It is this collection of ideas that I would have utilized to set forth my case. My espoused explanation is, in quite common terms, that a synonymous avian specimen to a chicken birthed a life-producing egg, and, as a direct result of a morphing of the avian's genome or fatal flaw, the egg causally led to the mutation of the bird and transformed it into the form of a chicken. In the now-occupied span of land in which the avian kin were residing these birds were unable to brave the trials and tribulations of life over a long timespan. However, the poultry kind succeeded in their quest for survival as a result of the innate distinctions they possessed - these were in-line with the requirements of life in the region. After some time, their originators, the noble avians, were wiped off of Gaea and the chickens were free to live qua chicken in their newly claimed kingdom.(survival of the well-endowed - Darwinian theory). I await the supreme pleasure which will result from the future sparring the Proponent shall deliver.
The chicken came before the egg.

I yearn to transmit three speculations retained within my psyche to the multitude of folk. Consequently, I shall confirm that the chicken arrived in advance of the egg employing these proposals. 1)The chicken temporally preceded the egg on the grounds that a missing chicken would precipitate an absence of egg. The chicken, in some fashion or another, arose in conjunction with the inaugural humans, dinosaurs and mammoth insects. (Big Bang Theory, Theory of How the First Living Things Appeared) 2)The chicken entered the scene sooner than the egg as a result of our deity's preference as to qualified chicken conduct: chicken are expected to generate eggs. Indubitably said deity forwent establishing a chicken via the frequent ritual of egg hatching. 3)The chicken is to such a jumbo extent unruffled and deathly quite that it is, without dubiousness, a wooden chicken, caused by the fact that an auxiliary feathered creature (not chicken) deposited an egg onto the earth below and the egg evolved and mutated into a chicken. (Evolutionary Theory)
Christianity, including all of its denominations, is a cult

Definiton of cult: http://dictionary.reference.com...Definition of Christianity: http://dictionary.reference.com...Defition of denomination: Google "definition of denominations"There is no official method of recognition of the denomination, so any religion that fits the definitions of Christianity and denomination will be considered recognized. Mormons will not (although I don't think you could make the case that they are not a cult) because they are henotheists, not monotheists.I believe the definition of cult as posted above explains Chrisitianity and its denomations excellently. A number of Biblical passages reference worship of God:2 Kings 17:38-39 Do not forget the covenant I have made with you, and do not worship other gods. Rather, worship the LORD your God; it is he who will deliver you from the hand of all your enemies."Psalm 86:9-10 All the nations you have made will come and worship before you, O Lord; they will bring glory to your name. For you are great and do marvelous deeds; you alone are God.Revelation 14:7 He said in a loud voice, "Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water." The verses above were taken from (http://www.biblestudytools.com...)Furthermore, the worship of God references ceremonies established in the Bible:1 Chronicles 16:23-25 Sing to the LORD, all the earth; proclaim his salvation day after day. Declare his glory among the nations, his marvelous deeds among all peoples. For great is the LORD and most worthy of praise (http://www.biblestudytools.com...) As anyone who has been to church will know, singing songs of praise is a very common occurrence.1 Corinthians 11:26 ESV For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. (http://www.openbible.info...)Taking communion is a ceremony of the Catholic Church and is fulfilled despite its cannibalistic symbolism. -----From these examples, we can clearly see that Christianity and its denominations act in ways that earn them the descriptor of "cult."
Christianity, including all of its denominations, is a cult

-------I will be taking the position that Christianity, including all its denominations, are cults. Con will take the position of saying that at least one denomination of Christianity, or Christianity as a whole, is not a cult. Definitions:Cult: a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies; an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially asmanifested by a body of admirers. Christianity: the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices. Denomination: a recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church. For clarification, Mormonism is not a denomination. -------If anything about the debate is unclear, or could use rewording, leave a comment and I will make suggested changes. That what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
god is an invisible ufo

Rebuttals: "i am pro, i am for the proposition. . you are against it. " Yeah, I know. My arguments are against the proposition. "god is unidentified". In our definition we identified God as the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. We identified him. He is identified. He cannot be unidentified. He cannot be a UFO. He is not a flying UFO. I have a few questions about the proposition. You have not fulfilled your BOP. Can you prove God is a flying being? Can you prove God is invisible? Can you prove God is an object? He is not an object, since objects are material. God is spiritual. So he is not an object. And therefore not a UFO. Thanks Pro, Max Lamperouge
god is an invisible ufo

I must post some definitions. God: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. - Google Invisible: unable to be seen; not visible to the eye. -Google UFO: Unidentified Flying Object -Google In this debate, Pro must prove two things. (1) That God exists (2) That he happens to be an invisible UFO To keep this debate from becoming a "does God exist debate", I will give Pro the benefit and allow it to be assumed in this debate that he exists. I'll keep it brief. Argument 1: Logic. God cannot be a flying UFO. In order to be a UFO, you bust be unidentified (unidentified flying object). However, we have identified him as God. Since he is identified, he cannot be a UFO. That's all for now. Ill post more arguments in the next round.
Antarctica should be colonized before Mars

It is much cheaper to colonize Antarctica than Mars. Not to mention, colonizing Mars is many generations away from being possible. Colonizing Antarctica is very possible right now. They could use wind turbines for electricity for heat and lights and they'd be able to receive help if needed easily from other people. Also, there is little fresh water at the polar ice caps at both ends of Mars but there is an abundance of fresh water on Antarctica. Infact, Antarctica has about 70% of the fresh water on Earth. Not to mention there is some coal and other mineable resources found in the Transantarctic Mountains that split Antarctica into two unequal pieces. http://en.wikipedia.org...