BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rudy is better than whoever you support

For the purposes of my sanity, can whoever accepts this please NOT pick Ron Paul. I respect your opinion and realize he is a candidate that isn't Rudy, but I have had the Ron Paul vs. Rudy debate half a dozen times. I would REALLY appreciate it. Anyway, I think Rudy Giuliani is the best candidate for president. I am beginning to think I am the only one on this site who does, but I am sticking to my guns and willing to defend my position. I have made the debate four rounds, so please tell me your candidate of choice and why you are supporting them over Rudy. I will attempt to prove that Rudy is a better candidate. Thanks.
Harvey Beaks should be back on Nickelodeon

I will not write a lot because I am on my phone. Sorry if I make lots of errors, that is my bad.FrameworkBoP is in Pro. Thanks.1. Don't you think that Harvey Beaks was banned for a reason? I think at know that there was a specific reason of Harvey Beaks getting banned. Why would a normal show be banned? Therefore, Harvey Beaks had a reason to get banned, and it id sufficient.
Best Burger at McDonalds

First of, I would like to point out some alternate definitions of the word burger.the Cambridge dictionary defines burger as meat and other foods pressed into a round flat shape and fried. http://dictionary.cambridge.org...; also, acording to wiktionary, a similar sandwitch to a handburger can still be called a burger http://dictionary.cambridge.org...;As such I am still in this argument with my chocken 'n' cheese burger.Now nutrition wise the calorie content of a chicken 'n' cheese burger (391 as found on https://mcdonalds.com.au...;) is lower than that of a big mac (493 https://mcdonalds.com.au...). also as the big mac is twice the cost of the chicken 'n' cheese burger, for the same amount of money the chicken and cheese burger provides more sustanence.
Best Burger at McDonalds

I accept and will be arguing that the Big Mac is in fact the best burger at McDonald's.Before we begin I would like to clarify some terms.Burger (short for Hamburger): a flat, usually round cake of finely chopped beef that is cooked and served usually in a roll or bun. http://www.merriam-webster.com... So by arguing for the "chicken 'n' cheese" sandwich is the best burger my opponent will not be following the topic of the debate hereby forfeiting all rounds to me. Or if my opponent changes their original plan they will be trying to change their original arguments also forfeiting all rounds to me.
Best Burger at McDonalds

RebuttalsThere are many issues wrong with Pro's statements. To begin with a "handburger" is actually a resturant as seen here. http://www.thehandburger.com...;Secondly my oppponent has changed their arguments twice in their round. They had originally stated that they would be arguing for the "chicken 'n' cheese" sandwich. In their arguments they then state, "As such I am still in this argument with my chocken 'n' cheese burger." There they say the are arguing for a, "chocken 'n' cheese burger." changing their arguments (also known as semantics). They then change their arguments back to the, "chicken 'n' cheese burger" also semantics.Finally the links are broken for the defintions and for the Chicken 'N' Cheese sandwich calorie count making them null and void.Arguments I would first like to point out that something being the best is "subjective" and not "objective". So it is impossible to argue which burger is the best.Sales: McDonald's estimates 550 million Big Macs are sold each year in the U.S. alone. (Aug 24, 2007) http://www.cbsnews.com... As far as the Chicken 'N' Cheese sales go, try as I might I could not find any statisticsCalories:First off let me define what a calorie is. Calorie: the energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water through 1 °C, equal to one thousand small calories and often used to measure the energy value of foods. http://en.wikipedia.org...;Energy: the strength and vitality required for sustained physical or mental activity. So the more calories the better right. http://en.wikipedia.org...;Big Mac calorie count 530 vs Chicken 'N' Cheese's meager 391.http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com... 2https://mcdonalds.com.au...;So the Big Mac beats C 'N' C on that.Fat:Again let me define fat for the readers.Fat: a natural oily or greasy substance occurring in animal bodies, especially when deposited as a layer under the skin or around certain organs.http://en.wikipedia.org...;Fat is a natural substance that is needed for survival so again the more fat the better. Fat is used to protect organs and retain heat as well.The Big Mac has 27 g of fat while the C 'N' C has 19.3 g.http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com... 2https://mcdonalds.com.au...;The Big Mac wins in this category as well.Protein:Protein is any of a class of nitrogenous organic compounds that consist of large molecules composed of one or more long chains of amino acids and are an essential part of all living organisms, especially as structural components of body tissues such as muscle, hair, collagen, etc., and as enzymes and antibodies.http://en.wikipedia.org...;Wow what a mouthful to say and read. Basically what it is saying is proteins help build up muscle, hairs, collagen, and much more. So again the more the better.Big Macs have 24 g while C 'N' C only has 19.5 g making the Big Mag the "Best Burger" at McDonaldshttp://nutrition.mcdonalds.com... 2https://mcdonalds.com.au...;Back to you Pro.
Technological advancements have increased distances between loved ones.

Thank you Con, for your arguments. "Now, with e-mails and texts, people can send messages, photos, videos and much more from one corner of the world to another. They can talk over phones even when they're not at home, and even when they're not in the same country. They can Skype each other; this virtual face-to-face reality was hard to imagine even 60 years ago. "Now, with e-mails and texts, people can send messages,photos,videos and much more from one corner of the world to another. "Another" here may mean anyone. My point is, This means have increases the probability of loved ones cheating each other. "they can talk over phones and even send photos" This has made cheating loved ones a very common factor. According to surveys, 67 % females in the United states cheat their husbands. .. (a)Morality has decreased by a considerable rate. Earlier, Women were very decent and the low means of communication meant that almost no scope for cheating was possible. Skype has made it more horrible. Webcam sex and Online flirt is such a common factor nowadays! ! The consequences to this are dire! ! Divorce rates have increased and marriage rates decreased. (b) (a). http://www.huffingtonpost.com... (b). http://en.wikipedia.org... " Advances in transport have made the world more interconnected. With improving air, road and water transport, people are migrating to different countries and meeting new people, as well as old friends" Of course the the airways have improved but how many people who do not live with their loved ones have access to these facilities? These facilities require money and do the rich people require to go and work in remote places? >> NO. The ones in the army. The ones who are too busy fighting in the battleground neither have the time or the resources to use such facilities. .. So, we can say that these facilities have not (maybe not now) been of much use to decrease the distances between loved ones. Instead, Such facilities are leading to more cheating. Men taking business trips end up having HIV AIDS while the husband is away, Women cheat the men. The consequences are dire. ,," On a larger scale, advances in medical technology have given friends and family a longer, more healthy life -- even they are affected by various illnesses and conditions. "And such technological advancements have given the loved ones the freedom to hide cheating and gain confidence to carry it on. Also, Technological advancements have made this world a busy place and the men are needing to work harder and consume more time. .. decreasing the distance between the loved ones. I know the rebuttal is short. .but hey!
Technological advancements have increased distances between loved ones.

I disagree that technological advancements have increased distances between loved ones. On the contrary, advances in technology have brought together friends and family whom we may never have spoken to again. 1. Advances in communications are now quicker, cheaper and more efficient. For a long time, people in different parts of the world wrote letters to each other. These letters would take 15-30 days to reach their destination. Now, with e-mails and texts, people can send messages, photos, videos and much more from one corner of the world to another. They can talk over phones even when they're not at home, and even when they're not in the same country. They can Skype each other; this virtual face-to-face reality was hard to imagine even 60 years ago. With technological improvements from cell phones to satellites to the internet, even family and friends who are far apart have come closer. 2. Advances in transport have made the world more interconnected. With improving air, road and water transport, people are migrating to different countries and meeting new people, as well as old friends. Multi-racial schools, colleges and offices, as well as inter-racial dating and marriages are now a reality. Hence, people are not only coming closer to their family and friends, but are meeting new ones as well. 3. On a larger scale, advances in medical technology have given friends and family a longer, more healthy life -- even they are affected by various illnesses and conditions. Genetic engineering and other advances in the field of genetics gave diagnosis, treatment and prevention to those with hereditary physical and mental disorders, helping families cope with their loved ones better. Science and technology came together to give us the pacemaker, organ transplants, and so on. Thus, people can be with their loved ones for longer. These are my arguments. The opponent may counter these arguments and may also present some of their own.
Rap should have style over substance

There is no solid correlation between an artist's album sales and his skills as a rapper. For example, Kanye West is one of the best selling artists with over 21 million albums and 66 million digital downloads. His lyrical writing style is certainly not as complex as Eminem's, nevertheless he's very successful. I'll give an example: Big Sean - Marvin and Chardonnay "Hold up hold up hold up hold up Talk to the talk to the talk to the hand b**** you talk-in' to a grown a** man.." And I love how you look when ya blaz-in' And I swear you turn at least half asi-an And we 'bout to have a lia-son She's so cool, give head with her-shades-on You should just go and throw a-cape-on And it's just so a-maz-ing" Just because a rapper has substance over style does not make him/her a true artist. Tu pac is considered to be the most influential artist in rap, but even he had no substance and is widely overrated. I'll quote this from a news article: " A lot of his music was great at garnering an emotion, but his flow is very juvenile compared to some of the greats. Tu pac"s greatest lyrical song is often noted as "Hail Mary" , I can name plenty of emcees who have out done that song, more than a few times. (Jay-Z, NaSs, Biggie, Jadakiss, Wayne, & Big Pun). The truth of the matter is that Pac was very much so a mediocre lyricist. His flow never changed, and he was very repetitive with his rhymes." While yes in some instances, Eminem does have substance over style, you named one song where he picks style over substance. Rap God is the finest example: (Chorus) "I'm beginning to feel like a Rap God, Rap God All my people from the front to the back nod, back nod Now who thinks their arms are long enough to slap box, slap box? They said I rap like a robot, so call me rap-bot" These rhymes are repetitive and mediocre. He then raps at what he calls "supersonic speed." Rapping fast does not equate to rapping with lyrical clarity, it distracts you from fully comprehending the artist's message. Listeners cannot comprehend about 90% of it. That's not substance, that's style. Conclusion: I mean no disrespect to Eminem or Tu Pac, it's evident that being a "real" artist does not automatically mean that your lyrically talented which seems to be your argument. I know several people who use 50% less words than Eminem and could poetically demolish him. I don't deny that he's a lyrical genius, but it's mostly with rhymes, not with the power of his words. Rap is spoken poetry and as an art form, the quality of your words should outweigh the quantity. We as a species are becoming more technologically advanced and because of that, so should music and that leans towards style. Looking back on Eminem's songs, the beats and flow were good in his time, but it's old school. http://www.nappyafro.com...
Rap should have style over substance

In regards to the pro"s argument. Your stats may be correct about those two singles but I like to look at the broader image to get a decent idea. Eminem has 8 albums which he"s sold 50 million copies of in the US, where Lil Wayne has 10 albums and he"s only sold 9 million (1). So, obviously success doesn"t lie in the repetitive lyrics and catchy beats. Also, on this very site the debate "Eminem is a better rapper than Lil Wayne" took place, the pro won 37 points to 14. May I also mention that half of my opposition"s argument consisted of a quote, and that the adjudicators/voters should keep that in mind. I"m glad truth_seeker brought up Eminem, as he is a classic example of a rapper who expresses "substance over style", though in style he sure isn"t lacking. Known as the "Rap God", Eminem is a rapper who paints pictures with words. His songs, lyrical genius. He entrances us with music and lyrics that we can relate to, like hard times and trauma. This is why Eminem is so renowned, we listen to him because we can relate to him, not because his tunes sound cool. And it isn"t just Eminem, rap was intended as a way to relieve stress and clean out closets. Rappers whose lyrics we can relate to are the true artists. 1)http://www.xxlmag.com...
Rap should have style over substance

1st, i would like to point that the only times you should be lyrical or focused more on your words is when your free-styling or rap battling. When it comes to making a song, focusing on flow and using less words but with powerful quality is better. I'll give an example of a news article comparing lil wayne to Eminem. It says this: "The career-defining single for each of emcee is Eminem's "Lose Yourself," an ode to the struggle of becoming a rapper, and Lil Wayne's "Lollipop," a song about sex. Both songs are approximately five minutes long, and Em fits about 50 percent more words in his song. Weezy's lyrics are much more repetitive, so Shady is essentially working twice as hard to produce the same effect. This certainly proves Marshall is talented and hard-working. It proves he can spit complicated rhyme patterns. But is that what makes a great song? By accomplishing the same thing (a number 1 single) with half the words, Tunechi proves he has a better grasp of lyricism than the Rap God. While word count seems like a wacky way to compare two lyricists, if we're calling someone the greatest rapper alive, it's an important consideration. Lyrics are words, and, as Twitter has proven time and time again, the less words you use to express a thought, the more appealing it is. Being able to express a concise thought on a subject is the mark of a genius, and doing it melodically is a sign of a musical prodigy -- both of which describe Lil Wayne." (1) I'll also illustrate with 50 Cent's average lyrics of "In da club" "You can find me in the club, bot-tle full of bub (12 syllables) Look ma-mi i got the x if you in-to tak-in drugs (14 syllables) I'm in-to hav-in sex i ain't in-to mak-in love (13 syllables) So come give me a hug if you in-to gett-in rubbed (13 syllables) Notice how the lyrics are simply, but the rhythm and flow in the chorus is what made the song memorable. It was according to Wikipedia (2) recognized for it's "blaring horns, funky organs, guitar riffs and sparse hand claps." It was "a spectacular party anthem" and showed "50 Cent's ability to twist his words effortlessly" and notably "sparse orchestral samples and snaking chorus." Now just because some rap talks about things you dislike does not mean that it's meaningless. Rap is about spoken poetry, but it's also music and because it's music, style should not be neglected. Tu pac was widely recognized for his influence more than his beats and Eminem for his lyricism. Now if there is a rapper who blends in style with substance and is original, creative, with many more qualities, most people will probably appreciate his/her music qualities. Sources: 1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Rap should have style over substance

Rap is poetry. But not only is it poetry, but meaningful poetry. You can say any kind of nonsense and put it to a beat, sure. But that's bad rap, it has no substance or meaning behind it. The pro is trying to argue that rap should be more about catchy beats, they're clearly missing the point of rap. Rap is about telling a story, a story about inner conflicts and hard times, not blasting sounds. And that's all some people see it as, but it's so much more than that. It's the expressed feelings of these rappers who put their words to paper in a truly beautiful way. Rap gets a bad wrap.
Rap should have style over substance

If you define success that way good, but that's not the topic of discussion. "You seem to define rap substance as lyric complexity, as said in your first paragraph. This is certainly not the case as you said yourself, rebutting yourself, saying "the quality of your words should outweigh the quantity" You misread what i said. I said that in some cases, substance is allowed, but not for everything. When creating a song, nothing is preventing you from mixing style with substance, however style should be focused on more because shorter quotes with meaning are the most memorable. "Why is that when I clearly said "this is why Eminem is so renowned, we listen to him because we can relate to him"? Never did I say we relate to him because he talks too much!" If he's famous because we can relate to him then you have just proven my point that substance does not matter. That being said, Tu Pac and Eminem do not need to be lyrically advanced which means that they can focus on creating style while being genuine in their message and still get the same results. "How does technology advancing have anything to do with style in rap, or even rap at all? Are you saying that because we have modern technology we should listen to modern techno, and devoid ourselves from lyrics?" You can have lyrics, but also have style in your music.
Rap should have style over substance

Rebuttals: Firstly, I"d like to address the elephant in the room. "Rapping fast does not equate to rapping with lyrical clarity". This is a (excuse the pun) "Ludacris" statement, and doesn"t make sense in the slightest. I"m confused as to what you"re trying to prove by saying that Eminem is substance over style and then saying his style is old school, and as your conclusion too. Also, you stated that "there is no solid correlation between an artist"s sales and his skills as a rapper". This is ridiculous. I define success in the music industry as; sending your message and selling albums. Eminem has accomplished this to a world changing extent. You seem to define rap substance as lyric complexity, as said in your first paragraph. This is certainly not the case as you said yourself, rebutting yourself, saying "the quality of your words should outweigh the quantity" and saving me the bother. Which leads me to my next point which I title simply; the quality of your words should outweigh the quantity. You wrongly accuse me of disagreeing with this statement and somehow think that I chose Eminem as my example because he uses a lot of words rather than meaningful words. Why is that when I clearly said "this is why Eminem is so renowned, we listen to him because we can relate to him"? Never did I say we relate to him because he talks too much! Now, I really don"t want to tackle your attempt at trying to back up your argument with made-up scientific evidence. But I feel I have to do it justice and bring it to the attention of the voters. When you said, "We as a species are becoming more technologically advanced and because of that, so should music and that leans towards style" I was very confused. How does technology advancing have anything to do with style in rap, or even rap at all? Are you saying that because we have modern technology we should listen to modern techno, and devoid ourselves from lyrics? Then it isn"t exactly, "spoken poetry" then is it? P.S. Just out of interest could you name the "several people you know who use 50% less words than Eminem and could poetically demolish him"?
should those both involved in a inappropriate relationship face equal consequences

Most, if not all, of your points can easily be written off if teens were to be punished as much as adults. ". .. she did through her self at him but he was 35 years old he could have took responsibility and reported her but no he took this as an opportunity to get layed and guess who got punished him not her . [sic]"Are you trying to imply that the student didn't know of the consequences? I'd wager my last dime that she knew perfectly well the consequences of having such questionable sex. The only reason she didn't fear any punishment is because she knew she wouldn't get in trouble for it. This speaks volumes about such teenagers. .. any who have the ability to manipulate people, weigh their options, and not fear repercussions due to their age is old enough to be and should be held accountable despite their age. ". .. there always going to look at the sick person who advantage of the poor child. "Unless both were held equally accountable, in which case it'd be evident that this "poor child" is simply a manipulative, conniving, and mature adult despite their age. ". .. when I see this on the news everyday its always the same thing the adult should have took control and said no and that's just that. "It's strange that all of your examples involve the teenager pressuring the adult. As I said before, this makes it evident that teenagers who can make such informed decisions and choose to get away with their acts just because the other person's older shows how mature their minds are, and thus should be held equally accountable. "Adults should be punished. .. cause in the end the one who will suffer the most is them. "Unless both are punished equally. As you can see, my opponent simply reiterated the same points and showed nothing to refute the ones pointed out in the previous round. In conclusion, a teenager who is mature enough to exploit flaws in the legal system is mature enough to be punished as much as an adult.