BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: I am the better rapper

All I, all I wanted was a hundred million dollars and a bad chick Imagine did so much some nights it felt like that I had it Back on the mattress Starin' at the ceilin' tryna connect the dots But it's hard makin' those attachments I'm talkin' dreamin' so hard, some nights it felt like draft day, you know? My, my step brother used to flip them bags outside the crib like it was trash day, no Kim K, but he bagged ye ye But when you're getting fast money, slow down, don't crash With all the drive in the world, swear you still need gas Look, think about it, close your eyes, dream about it Tell your team about it, go make million dollar schemes about it Success is on the way, I feel it in the distance Used to look up at the stars and be like ain't too much that's different I be shinin', they be shinin', get your one shot don't you miss it What you know bout' wakin' up everyday like you on a mission?
Resolved: I am the better rapper

First off, fried your stuff in the class debate. Class of '17 we ride and came equipped. You claim to be a rapper but I extinguished your "fire". Godzilla killers for life. Go ask my last opponent how I'll leave ya, in pieces. Grab your rhymes when see Kayla, call ya mom when you see Kayla. Who challenged me but ya punks didn't finish now you're about to feel the wrath of a menace.
Resolved: I am the better rapper

Two- thousand dollar bag with no cash in your purse Now you sittin' court side, wifey on the otherside Gotta keep 'em separated i call that apartheid Then she said she impregnated, thats the night your heart died Then you gotta go and tell your girl and report that Main reason cause your pastor said you can't abort that Now your driver say that new Benz you cant afford that.
Resolved: I am the better rapper

They still out to get me they don't get it. I can not be gotten that's a given! They be like Kaylaaa why are all the floor mats in your Lex so clean ya. They always say im icy and I-C-Y. Just look at my wrist, cause my wrist game so stupid I get anomia in my wrist. Then I wake up in the morning get up and get my bands up
I will not contradict myself

1. A barber cuts only hair of all men who do not cut their own hair. Does the barber cut his own hair. No, he must be bald or the sign doesn't make sense. 2. Does the answer to this question allow for the possibility of the answer to this question being positive? No 3. Do you agree with all of your current positions on your "The BIG Issues"? Yes 4. Is it appropriate for the government to discriminate (make a distinction) based on who a person lives with, if anybody? I'm not sure if you mean discriminate as in hiring, but for statistical purposes, I will say yes. 5. Is it ever appropriate for any voluntary actions between two consenting parties to be regulated by a third party? Yes 6. Should all carbon emmisions be regulated by the government? No 7. Is Barack Obama usually Right? No 8. Is Rush Limbaugh always Right? Hell no 9. Is Rush Limbaugh usually Right? no 10. Do you agree with the ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence? No, not entirely. I don't have the whole thing memorized either, but basically no.
I will not contradict myself

1. A barber cuts only hair of all men who do not cut their own hair. Does the barber cut his own hair. 2. Does the answer to this question allow for the possibility of the answer to this question being positive? 3. Do you agree with all of your current positions on your "The BIG Issues"? 4. Is it appropriate for the government to discriminate (make a distinction) based on who a person lives with, if anybody? 5. Is it ever appropriate for any voluntary actions between two consenting parties to be regulated by a third party? 6. Should all carbon emmisions be regulated by the government? 7. Is Barack Obama usually Right? 8. Is Rush Limbaugh always Right? 9. Is Rush Limbaugh usually Right? 10. Do you agree with the ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence?
I will not contradict myself

Contradiction Set 1: The Barber Paradox Contradiction A: My opponent admits that he made an assumption, and explains why he made it. However, he does not defend the contradiciton. Just because the contradiction only came about because of false assumptions, doesn't mean it's not a contradiction. He admits again that the sign could not impact anything, despite the original reference to this sign. It is a contradiction. Contradiction B: "Barber" may imply a man, but by definition [1], there is a possibility that the barber is a child. The youngest barber in the world, for example, is a teenager, not a man [2]. My opponent should have said that the barber must be either bald or a child. Claiming that he was tricked by implications does not justify a contradiction. My opponent's ultimate defense is that I've equivocated "barber," but the agreed-upon dictionary [3] only has a single definition that does not distinguish between men and children, making equivocation impossible. Contradiction Set 2: Politics Contradition A: My opponent first claims that "Right" cannot be capitalized. This is false. The agreed-upon dictionary [3] allows the adjective "Right" to be capitalized only when referring to the political Right. My opponent also claims that I need a modifying phrase or word in order to distinguish that "Right" refers to politics, but does not properly source this. Capitalizing "Right" is enough to distinguish that it refers to politics. Contradiction Set 3: Innocence Contradiction A: I will drop this contradiction in favor of my other three contradictions, which I believe are much stronger in their negation of the resolution. In concusion, my opponent has contradicted himself on three accounts: * He claimed that a sign cannot impact anything (15), and yet stated that the sign impacted his answer (1). * He claimed that a barber must be bald (1), although he later stated that if the barber is a child, then he need not be bald (23). *He claimed that Rush Limbaugh is not usually Right (politically conservative [4]) (9), but usually politically conservative (13). The resolution is negated. Vote CON. GreatDebateMate, thanks for this debate, and good luck with your future debates. 1. "one whose business is cutting and dressing hair, shaving and trimming beards, and performing related services" - http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. http://query.nytimes.com... 3. "11. For any questions involved in a contradiction, PRO may define any words in the question or the answer using the online Merriam-Webster dictionary at his own discretion, unless the words were already defined by CON when the question was asked." http://www.debate.org... 4. "13 often capitalized : of, adhering to, or constituted by the Right especially in politics" - http://www.merriam-webster.com...
I will not contradict myself

Barber paradox: In question 1 I assumed the paradox referred to Bertrand Russell's argument, which refers to a sign outside the window. In Question 15 you say there is no sign, so by definition it couldn't impact anything. Using the term 'barber' by itself implies a man who cuts hair, thus an adult. When the caveat of child is added, it changes what set the barber belongs to. So the questions are equivocating between uses of the word barber, thus not contradicting myself. Rush Limbaugh: I saw this coming and you fell for my trap. First, you are wrong that capitalizing "right" would make it refer to a political philosophy and not just its normal definition. If you look up the word in the dictionary, right is never capitalized, even when referring to a political point of view. Second, it couldn't refer to any point of view without some modifying phrase or word in front of it (e.g. politically right, to the right of the political, etc.) Even in the Associated Press Style Book it says under political parties and philosophies: "LOWERCASE [my emphasis] the name of a philosophy in noun and adjective forms unless it is the derivative of a proper name: communism, communist; fascism, fascist. But: Marxism, Marxist; Nazism, Nazi." So, not only did I not contradict myself, but you committed a glaring grammatical error, thus those points should go to me. Innocence: Okay, let's put aside the question of if the statement is coherent or not (which it isn't). The issue is whether I contradicted myself, NOT if I was wrong about something. Even if I grant you that your question is right, it still doesn't mean I contradicted myself. Suppose you asked, "Is Madrid the capital of Italy?" and I said, "Yes." Then you ask, "Is the answer to that question factually correct?" and I say, "Yes." I may be contradicting the facts, but I'm not contradicting myself, which is the point of the debate. The important lesson here is that you can still be completely consistent in your answers and still be wrong about something.
I will not contradict myself

Now, I would like to point out the contradictions. Contradiction Set 1: The Barber Paradox "1. A barber cuts only hair of all men who do not cut their own hair. Does the barber cut his own hair? No, he must be bald or the sign doesn't make sense. " "15. In a question in which no sign is mentioned at all, and even if there were a sign, the sign could not have an impact on the answer to the question, is it possible that what is written on the unreferenced, unimportant sign will impact the answer to the question? No. You say there is no sign, so what is written on a non-existent sign can't impact anything. " "23. If a child (a male human, but not a man) barber cuts only the hair of all men hwo do not cut their own hair, must he be bald? No, he can cut hair since he would fall outside the set of men. " Contradiction A: My opponent claimed that if the sign doesn't make sense, then the barber does not cut his own hair (1). However, he later claimed that what is written on the sign cannot impact anything, which includes his answer (15). My opponent allowed the sign to impact his answer, despite the fact that he claimed that it cannot impact his answer. Contradiction. Contradiction B: My opponent claimed that the sign cannot affect whether or not the barber cuts his own hair (15), which means that in order for the barber not to cut his own hair, he must be bald (1). However, he later admits that if the barber is a child, then the barber does not have to be bald (23). The barber must be bald, and yet he does not have to be bald. Contradiction. Contradiction Set 2: Politics "9. Is Rush Limbaugh usually Right? no" "13. Is Rush Limbaugh usually politically conservative? Yes" Contradition A: My opponent claims that Rush Limbaugh is not usually Right. However, when capitalized, "Right" means "politically conservative. " My opponent claims that Rush Limbaugh is not usually politically conservative (9), and yet he is usually politically conservative (13). Contradiction. Contradiction Set 3: Innocence "24. Are fetuses innocent? Incoherent questions, since the property of 'innocent' can not be applied to the subject of the question. Can a fetus be guilty of anything? A more striking example of this fallacy would be, 'What color is saturday? ' Now if you think fetuses are people that would be another debate. .. " "28. Is the answer to Question 24 factually correct? Yes" Contradiction A: My opponent claims that, in his answer to Question 24, the question of whether or not fetuses are innocent is "incoherent. " However, it cannot be incoherent; the basic laws of logic state that any statement like Question 24 is either A or not A. A fetus is either innocent or not innocent. In this case, given my opponent's questioning of what a fetus can possibly be guilty of, it can be assumed that the proper answer would be "yes. " However, he then claims that it is factually correct that Question 24 is incoherent (28), despite the fact that I have shown otherwise. Contradiction. Good luck.
I will not contradict myself

**"The answer to Question 12, "It did when Bertrand Russell invented the paradox," is not Yes, No, or any explanation as to why Yes or No would be insufficient. This violates Rule 2 [1]. I will give my opponent another chance to answer the question appropriately."** The yes was implied, so I'll answer again: Yes, the paradox includes a sign. 21. If one scenario is written in one way, does that mean that a rewriting of the scenario should be assumed to match the previous scenario in all ways unless proven otherwise? Depends. Allusion is used as a short hand to convey an idea. You can accuse me of reading to much into the question, but the point of the debate is for me to avoid contradiction, not presumption. 22. Do things that do not exist have physical properties? Depends on how "have" is being used. If "have in actuality" is the case, then no, they do not. If "have in imagination" is the case, then yes, they do--A unicorn doesn't exist, but we may speak of it as "having" smooth skin, a hard horn, etc. 23. If a child (a male human, but not a man) barber cuts only the hair of all men hwo do not cut their own hair, must he be bald? No, he can cut hair since he would fall outside the set of men. 24. Are fetuses innocent? Incoherent questions, since the property of "innocent" can not be applied to the subject of the question. Can a fetus be guilty of anything? A more striking example of this fallacy would be, "What color is saturday?" Now if you think fetuses are people that would be another debate... 25. Are blastocysts innocent? Same answer as above. 26. Is pure democracy (rule directly by the people, with no power above the will of the majority) justified? No 27. Have I ever said that, in any scenario that I have written, there is no sign? "In a question in which no sign is mentioned at all," That's what I interpreted that to mean. 28. Is the answer to Question 24 factually correct? Yes 29. Is the answer to Question 25 factually correct? Yes 30. Is the answer to Question 27 factually correct? I don't know.
I will not contradict myself

The answer to Question 12, "It did when Bertrand Russell invented the paradox," is not Yes, No, or any explanation as to why Yes or No would be insufficient. This violates Rule 2 [1]. I will give my opponent another chance to answer the question appropriately. 21. If one scenario is written in one way, does that mean that a rewriting of the scenario should be assumed to match the previous scenario in all ways unless proven otherwise? 22. Do things that do not exist have physical properties? 23. If a child (a male human, but not a man) barber cuts only the hair of all men hwo do not cut their own hair, must he be bald? 24. Are fetuses innocent? 25. Are blastocysts innocent? 26. Is pure democracy (rule directly by the people, with no power above the will of the majority) justified? 27. Have I ever said that, in any scenario that I have written, there is no sign? 28. Is the answer to Question 24 factually correct? 29. Is the answer to Question 25 factually correct? 30. Is the answer to Question 27 factually correct? 1. http://www.debate.org...
I will not contradict myself

11. Are all male humans men? No 12. "A barber cuts only hair of all men who do not cut their own hair. Does the barber cut his own hair?" Does such a scenario involve a sign in any way? It did when Bertrand Russell invented the paradox. 13. Is Rush Limbaugh usually politically conservative? Yes 14. Is Barack Obama usually politically conservative? No 15. In a question in which no sign is mentioned at all, and even if there were a sign, the sign could not have an impact on the answer to the question, is it possible that what is written on the unreferenced, unimportant sign will impact the answer to the question? No. You say there is no sign, so what is written on a non-existent sign can't impact anything. 16. If a barber cuts only the hair of all men who do not cut their own hair, must he be bald? Yes 17. Is is possible for a child to cut the hair of all men who do not cut their own hair? Depends on how "men" is being used. 18. Is the killing of innocent life wrong without consent from that life wrong? Yes 19. Do you support burning flags? Yes 20. Is it justified for the political rights of a man to be determined by the opinions of the majority of all adults within an arbitrarily drawn boundary? No
I will not contradict myself

11. Are all male humans men? 12. "A barber cuts only hair of all men who do not cut their own hair. Does the barber cut his own hair?" Does such a scenario involve a sign in any way? 13. Is Rush Limbaugh usually politically conservative? 14. Is Barack Obama usually politically conservative? 15. In a question in which no sign is mentioned at all, and even if there were a sign, the sign could not have an impact on the answer to the question, is it possible that what is written on the unreferenced, unimportant sign will impact the answer to the question? 16. If a barber cuts only the hair of all men who do not cut their own hair, must he be bald? 17. Is is possible for a child to cut the hair of all men who do not cut their own hair? 18. Is the killing of innocent life wrong without consent from that life wrong? 19. Do you support burning flags? 20. Is it justified for the political rights of a man to be determined by the opinions of the majority of all adults within an arbitrarily drawn boundary?
There is no mechanism that permits free will to exist.

We feel as though we make choices. I'm of the opinion that this is an illusion. Pro will argue that there isn't a mechanism that can give us free will. Con will argue that there is a mechanism that grants us free will. Rules, the key to the debate is the mechanism and what we see in the world. Is there a mechanism, that when we compare human behavior with the mechanism, that makes sense and grants us free will? Pro will argue that no such mechanism exists. Con will argue that there is such a mechanism. I'm willing to let Con use any mechanism he wishes, including magic, if necessary. However, Con must offer some type of mechanism in order to win the debate and show how it would give us free will. Con doesn't have to prove the mechanism exist (soul as an example) he only has to show it can give us free will while matching to reality. Free will should be understood as a person that has freedom to make any choice they wish. Free from biological, cultural or other influences. Free=untethered. Will=desire to do something.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument(Part 2)

All right. First off, good luck to you! And, here we go: Counterpoint to both contentions: I would first like to summarize what my opponent just said: That the universe and time could not begin to exist because there was a time when neither existed. What I assume he meant by that is: Since 'the past' is, in essence, a measurement of time, that time would have had to exist in order to measure the period in which time did not exist. However, it is a very easy argument to refute, because the concept of time did not exist until human beings created it. Therefore, the creation of the concept of time would begin the existence of actual time. From that point forward, time was given a quantitative representation and was thus expressed as a measurement. But a measurement of what? Time is directly influenced by and based upon the revolution of our universe. "For example, 'one hour' means what? It means 1/24th of 'a day', or 1/24th of the earth's revolution from this position of the earth in relation to the sun as compared to a previous or subsequent revolution." [1] So, what would happen if the Earth ceased to turn? What would happen if the Earth ceased to orbit around the sun? What would happen to time? Because the very basis of time would cease to exist, and we wouldn't be able to effectively measure time anymore, then I suppose you could say that time would cease to exist. To continue, we are completely able to measure elements of time as the past by definition. However, that is not to say that the concept of time had a past, or that the non-existence of time is a quantifiable increment of time - falling under the term 'past' - as we only have the ability to declare things as the past because time was brought into existence. What I'm trying to say is that there was not a period when time's non-existence was a measurable increment of time, because the concept of time did not exist. We can only say that there was a period when time didn't exist because time now exists and is measured with terms such as 'the past' and 'a period'. So, we can effectively look back and say that there was a period of time where time didn't exist....because of the fact that time now exists. On the same note, time could not have existed before the creation of the universe - given the Kalam Cosmological Argument, you could say that the universe was the cause of time's existence - because without the universe there would be no measure for a basis of time. Therefore, there can be no reference to a 'period before the universe existed' because time did not exist. Sure, we can label it as such now that time exists and is measurable, but that does not indicate that there was a time period in which time did not exist. The same can be said of the universe. I hope that makes sense, because it was much more difficult to put into words than it was to see it in my head. Sources: [1] http://www.blurtit.com...
Gay marriage should be illegal

True. Government can't stop people from making personal choices. But look at what the bible says, "18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (Leviticus 18:22 KJV)" and, "20:13 "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 KJV). In addition, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is said to be about homosexuality. After all, Sodom is another word for sodomy, meaning homosexuality. Here's the verse, "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to you this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may KNOW them". (Genesis 19"5). Notice the phrase, "we may know them." That word is used in the story of Adam and Eve to refer to love. Specifically sexual love. the verse is Genesis 4:1: And Adam KNEW his wife. The reason homosexuality is a sin in the Bible is because the idea of a man and a woman coming together to produce children is human nature. Most people would agree it is natural to for a man and a woman to come together and have children. Look at all the animals. They do the same thing: Sexual Reproduction not Asexual Reproduction. Would the creator of the world want his creation to be forcibly changed against his will? Let human nature go about it's own ways but if a person wants to violate it themselves, it's their choice. I can't stop people from making bad choices. As for gay marriage being legalized, I can't agree with it. Although I have a lot of libertarian leaning beliefs, the gay marriage is more about violating states rights than it is about protecting personal liberties. Although many libertarians support gay marriage, what most of them don't realize is that state laws on marriage is all about giving out a license for the purpose of taxes, property, and living laws. States do not regulate what people do in their own personal lives. It just determines tax laws and determines how it's given out. No one has a civil right to a state license, just to make a personal choice in their personal lives. If a state wants to determine how it gives out it's state license, then let it. State license may make it legal, but spiritual love is beyond that. Thank you and I yield to my opponent .
The Sale of Cigarettes and Tobacco Products Should be Banned- Speed debate

It's not just the smokers affected, 53,800 people die every year from secondhand smoke, that is more than people die from guns a year. 11,385 people died on average annually in firearm incidents in the US between 2001 and 2011. These are murders. - Secondhand Smoke - no-smoke.org - Council on Foreign Affairs The way to stop this is to target the dealers, not the smokers themselves that need help.