BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap Music Is Appropriate for Children and Teens

Since you forfeited the last round, there is nothing for me to rebut. I will restate some previous arguments and introduce a few new ones. These are my arguments: 1. The rap genre contains extensive profanity and is not suitable for children and teens. 2a. Rap music may encourage kids to do drugs and other things that can be detrimental to their health. 2b. Other than health problems, kids may also get in trouble with the authorities, and this can ruin their chances of getting into a good college. 3. Many rappers are a bad influence on young children. 3b. Since teens have recently switched from concrete to abstract thinking, they are now making decisions for themselves, thus, rappers also badly influence the decisions they make. 4. (This ties in with ARGUMENT 2B) Rap music encourages children and teens to commit acts of violence (possibly felonies). Please see the following link: http://www.webmd.com...[1] Adding on to ARGUMENT 4, girls who watch and listen to rap (videos) are three times more likely to assault a teacher/instructor and are more likely to get arrested than other girls[2]. Back to you Pro. BIBLIOGRAPHY [1] http://www.webmd.com... [2] http://www.ehow.com...
Rap Music Is Appropriate for Children and Teens

A1: Rap music is offensive as much of the content (lyrics) contains inappropriate language. Children should not be exposed to rap music, as they will pick up these offensive words and start using them on a regular basis, thinking that's it's alright. A2: Rap music has sexist, abusive, and aggressive attitudes. Teens listen to these songs and suddenly over 750,000 teens get pregnant in one year, forcing most of them to drop out of school, and costing the United States approximately $7 billion dollars a year. A3: Teens and children alike look up to these rappers, and see at least of them doing illegal drugs. This sets a bad example, and ends with them doing drugs also, as they think that it's good because their favorite rapper does it. A4: These rap songs may tell the story of a rapper's life and how they went from the pits to fame and wealth, but this has kids thinking that if they drop out of school and live in dark alleyways, they too, will become famous and wealthy.
Biological Evolution is a scientific theory

Scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. I have a theory that it will rain tomorrow? Now, can I say that is a scientific theory because I know from the past it rained a lot on September 19 in Nebraska? It has repeatedly occurred in the past 3 years--lets assume-- and I carefully observed the cloud, the wind, the hot and cold air, and the forth, and I then reasonably predict it rains at this time of the year. This is a personal hypothesis or guess about what is about to happen in which I really cannot obtain all the information about what causes the rain, and therefore it is not a scientific theory. Similarly, Biological evolution is a widely accept hypothesis, and just because it is widely accepted does not mean it is correct or it is a scientific theory. Let's just say it is a theory but not scientific. First, biological evolution under the theory occurs very slowly and it is impossible to obtain exact variables and a comparing group through 2 centuries because we cannot live that long. Second, a scientific theory can be confirmed and is applicable to subsequences. Here no one can say we are the result of biological evolution. Because we cannot explain why there are so many flaws and elements does not fit in survival the fittest still exist. For instance, why males have nipples? why we have cancers why we have wisdom teeth? In conclusion, the theory of Biological Evolution is a guess in a layman's term. Simply dressing up its name does not make it a scientific theory. It is a theory, but not scientific.
National Missile Defense.

Your arguments about the moselm/muslim mind ring as particularly agregious and overtly racist. Therefore, it is the one I will spend the most time rebutting. Firstly, I would like to point out that there is certanily no concurrence on the use of nuclear power even among Islamic radicals in the world. The ayatollahs of Iran including supreme leader Kumenieh have declared the use of nuclear power as a violation of basic islamic doctrine and sinful. I'd like to point out that the same arguments were used about "godless communists" throughout the mid 20th cenutry to emphasize that they did not care if the world was destroyed and would like nothing more than nuclear winter. These arguments of course proved false as the soviety union just as any other nation in the world attempted to expand its own power and propogate its own authority. I am not of course saying that radical Islam is not a real threat or that it is not possible for a splinter cell to acquire a weapon. What I am saying is that in the current geo-political reality it is increasingly unlikely that a missle launch will come from a state actor. We find states such as North Korea struggling for nuclear weapons mostly as a deterrance against attacks rather than with any offensve design in mind. Because states are building weapons as detterance it means that if we put up a shield they will have to look for new technology to improve their detterance capability and we will once again be swept up in a global arms race against nation states that really offer no legitimate threat. Instead, a far more realistic fear comes at the hands of individual actors or small groups with the desire to blow up a bomb inside of America. Most importantly, just as a missle defense shield would not have stopped 9-11, such a shield will not stop this attack. All of the money we waste in building such a shield is money we do not have to stop a nuclear attack on our own soil. Indeed, all of the money other nations spend on improving their nuclear technology because of our new detterance makes it MORE likely that old and low tech bombs will somehow find their way into the hands of terrorists. It is also worth emphasizing that by building a defense shield rather than focusing on stopping nuclear proliferation we give other nations an excuse to not properly dispose of warheads once again increasing the chance they will end up in a rogue actors hands. The push for a missle defense shield is purely rooted in fear mongering of the worst sort. Moreover, our experiences with such projects as Star Wars should make it clear that such an investment is usually a costly waste. When dealing with a limited amount of funding, our nation has an obligation to invest it in smart ways that will actually enhance our security rather than help propogate the old nuclear arms race which will not keep us safe from the real threat that faces us, and actually make it more likely that a weapon will get into the hands of a group who truly desires to murder millions.
National Missile Defense.

1: The 911 attacks caused millions of dollars worth of property damage, and the repercussions for the national economy can be measured in the trillions of dollars. This includes insurance and security costs not to mention lost business confidence. A single nuclear attack could easily eclipse 911 in financial cost. So while you might not consider a missile defense to be a worthwhile defense, I think as a preventative measure it pays for itself. 2: When it comes to nuclear defense, a missile shield is not whole package. Yes, dirty bombs and smuggled warheads are another very real threat, and appropriate measures should be implemented to deal with such threats. However without a missile shield Americans can never truly be safe from nuclear assault, as the defenses against ground based bomb is of course useless to stop missiles. 3: Few safeguards are 100% effective, but if a missile shield stopped even one ICBM it would be worth it. And I think the millions of people it saved in the process would agree me. 4: You argue that because a shield would be expensive and bypassed by newer weaponry we should scrap it altogether. Should we stop buying security software because someday it will be outdated? For every new weapon developed, new counter technologies will be invented. Arms race? Maybe, but if that is the cost to protect America then so be it. We survived the cold war, and even if an advanced and determined foe sought to find to circumvent our defenses, we could keep pace with them as we did with the soviets. If that were the case we would have no choice anyway, we cannot stand idly by if such an enemy plots our destruction. As the most technologically innovative nation in the world, we can keep up with the latest threats. Better a never-ending race then a nuclear wasteland. 5: You say no nation would risk open nuclear war with us, perhaps that is true (as we all hope it is) there is no guarantee. As more and more Islamic countries (and possibly terror groups) get their hands on nuclear weaponry, we have to consider the Moslem mind. Communists were afraid to die, that is why MAD worked. It may safeguard us from Chinese and North Korean nukes, but there are Moslems would like nothing better then to die in global battle against the US. 6:Let me say once again that yes, dirty bombs are a very real threat yes we should secure our harbors and ports. But this is an apples and oranges argument, we must guard against all lethal threats, land, sea and sky. This is simply a fact of life in the modern world. America must rise to the challenge or be destroyed. In closing, the missile shield is not a pipe dream but the best hope of stopping an airborne nuclear attack. Presently if a foreign nation launches an ICBM at us what do? Hope they miss? Duck?
National Missile Defense.

First of all, it is important to emphasize that in theory if a nation had unlimited funding, a national missle defense shield might be something worth investing in and testing. However, in the current status quo with our vast deficit it us not worthwhile wasting our time with technology that probably will not work and will not actually defend us from a much more real threat of dirty bombs. I rest this argument on two main pillars. Firstly, it is unlikely that a truly working missle defense shield will ever be completed. Any shield will always be able to be bipassed by better and more technologically advanced missles propelling a never ending arms race. The idea of a missle defense shield while very lovely is a phantom dream in which we will sink billions of wasted funds. The Star Wars program that was Ronald Regan's pet project is a great example of how easy it is to persue a falty dream. Secondly, and most importantly, missle defense is near useless in the current geo-political reality. Does any one really fear that any nuclear nation today will launch a missle directly at the United States. While this was a legitimate ( if overstated) fear during the cold war era of mutual avowed self destruction, today it is not feasible. Most nuclear nations including Russia are today at least marginally allies, and most budding nuclear powers such as pakistan or potentially Iran even have a tiny missle stockpile in comparison to ours. No nation would risk open nuclear war because they can not compete with us. A far more realistic fear is that a rogue cell or terrorist group will smuggle the parts of a dirty nuclear bomb into the country and detonate it here. The important thing is that missle defense does absolutely nothing here to prevent the massive loss of life and damage. Instead of sinking funds into a defense shield, we should channel that money into increased homeland security including better systems and equipment to secure our harbors and ports. These are real and simple measures that are unfortunately underfunded and truly deserve attention. A pipe dream of a shield that will not even truly prevent our biggest nuclear threat does not.
School

First I'd like to address what some things you said; as I was reading your "arguments" you only brought up things such as "What ifs" and you told people about the scale that things are graded on, not "School is no longer about learning but about getting good grades." Yes school is about grades but its also about learning. About 68% of students avidly attend school; in which about 56% go because they are looking to learn the other 12% are there because something of a parent wants them to (or another reason). The 32% are people who just pain don't come or have/are going to be drop outs. This is about a 44-56, with over half attending to learn. (http://www.statistics.com...) Next I'd like to address your 12 point system, I am not sure where you are but where I am at it works as the fallowing: We have 6 classes 3 of which are year round (Math, Science, English -some times history) The rest are things such as electives or other (Math/Science classes) that you may or may-not wont. Next our GPA is based of a 4 point system: A= 4.0 B=3.0 C=2.0 D=1.0 F=0 S=0 U=?: At the end of each semester we calculate our GPA which is add the 6 classes grades up than divide by the number of classes for Ex: 4+3+2+4+4+4=21 (4A's 1B 1C) 21/6= 3.5 so He/She'd have a 3.5 GPA.
School

Fine sir. Well our school system is completely messed up. A student can take 4 or 5 classes, in which the extra elective is the 5th. If the student gets 100 percent for every class for 4 classes, then the GPA, out of a 12 point scale, could be a (12.5). That is if two of the 4 classes are AP or Honors classes. For the 5 classes, two of them AP or honors, the points in the classes would be 13, 13, 12, 12, 12, which is a GPA of (12.4). The 4 classes would be give you 13, 13, 12, 12. WHICH in turn, the 4 classes would give you a .1 higher GPA. What I'm trying say here is that some students would do anything to have the higher GPA. To receive that higher GPA they would have to take the 4 classes instead. If they took the 4 class they would be learning less. Just because they want a better grade instead of learning. GRADES ARE MORE IMPORTANT, apparently.
The spelling bee should be removed.

I agree with the points you have brought up, but that does not mean that we should completely do away with the spelling bee program, it should simply be amended to allow contestants to listen to the judges before they begin and allow them to state if the judge is able to be heard clearly. I don't have much an arguement here and I apologize in that reguard, but it is the final round and I would like to say thank you for being my first opponent here at Debate.org, you proposed a good argument and I found that you were a tough instigator.
The spelling bee should be removed.

I forgot to mention that I won a school spelling bee (a different one) and went to the regional bee (lost 2nd round). The pronouncer (possibly a Canadian) used unfamiliar pronunciations of certain words, like "gondola" and "bratwurst". Since regional and even family pronunciations differ, it's impossible to conduct a fair non-local spelling bee without having multiple speakers or multiple readings of the word. A New Yorker's "artistic" is a Californian "Autistic"; A New Yorker's "Autistic" is a Californian's "Or-Tistic". When watching the national bee, there were many French and German words that weren't even in any of the Study guides, much worse than "h'ors d'oeuvres". Even words from more bizzare languages, like Russian, were present. Many spelling bee contestants prepare by studying a bit of Latin and Greek, but it may be hard to extend the range to Russian. Of course, it should be challenging, but there is such a thing as too much.
The spelling bee should be removed.

Thank you for taking time to present a well organized reply to my previous affirmation in round one.First off I'd like to point out that your losing in the spelling bee was due to a simple mistake. Asking for the definition of 'humerus' could've made all the difference. In this case, it was an accident that got you out. Although I do understand that it seems pointless to test you on two words that are the same phonetically, it is needed to assure that the contestant knows the word and can recognize it as a homophone. That's two birds with one stone.Second, I'd like to also inform you that spelling bees held at national/state/regional etc. levels are all optional and do not require any forced participation. If this really is your arguement then this could be compared to saying you don't like potatos because they taste bad to you, and yet that's just your opinion. The spelling bee is not something you have to participate in. If you do not agree with it, you shouldn't interact with the program all together.Finally, I do agree that some words are completely outragous and I completely agree that some words in the English language are NOT words that should be in a spelling bee. I got out on the word 'hors d'oeuvre'. It's French, and yet it's pronounced 'ôr dûrv'. I can understand the point your making, and I think an amendment should be made in this aspect.
The spelling bee should be removed.

I am not talking about small spelling bees within school; I am particularly referring to the National bee and all bees leading up to it. This bee is hosted in DC, supported by the government, and is even broadcast on ESPN. - The spelling bee promotes the complexities of the English language. Ever wondered why there are so many illiterate people out there? It's because the English language has the hardest spelling system of any language (not counting languages with picture symbols, like Chinese). Reforms have been done for the Spanish, Italian, German, and even French languages, and we are in desperate need for a spelling reform in English. Spelling bees are typically given only in English and French, as other languages are simply too predictable. The spelling bee pays kids for continuing to support a broken spelling system. Some say it is the main reason why we haven't reformed our language (look up "Enuf is enuf, enough is too much"). - What makes a word hard? "Hard" is an arbitrary term. A spelling bee champ can win the school-level by spelling "virtue", while other contestants had to spell "visualize" and "photosynthesis" along the way. I know this from watching an actual spelling bee when I was in elementary. - What is an English word? Many of the terms given in the Spelling bee (especially in the Nationals) are long, technical words that Shakespeare would have used, or non-assimilated foreign words, some of which have umlauts and """ marks. - More importantly, what is a word? The longest word in the spelling guide was "antidisestablismentarianism", which was an old political party in England, but now is only used when talking about the word itself. It's basically a word for the purpose of having a word. - Some uncommon words are homophones with more common words. When I did the spelling bee, I lost on "humerus". I originally thought they said "humorous", as in funny, but after getting out, I was told they were talking about the bone, "humerus". - Spelling bee contestants peak soon since the requirements shut out all high-school students and even those in middle school who take high-school-level (i.e. GATE) classes. Sports players, musicians, and scientists get to perform all throughout their lifespan. - Also, people enjoy watching sports and listening to music, and most of us like scientific achievements, like medicine, airplanes, and iPads. Although it's great to spell well, people shouldn't really be bragging about spelling the way they do. It makes you sound like a pretentious know-it-all who uses big words just to sound smarter.
The spelling bee should be removed.

I believe that you should've proven your point and backed it up with your beliefs in why you think that spelling bees should no longer be allowed. None the less, I will present my argument in an arbitrary fashion on account of me not knowing why you do not favor spelling bees. Spelling bees are not graded, they're simply tests of your ability to spell complex (apparent to your grade level) words. These 'bees' are done to see where students are in their ability to interpret and spell words. Not just their ability to phonetically pronounce and henceforth spell the word, but to apply this knowledge in a fluent fashion to a paper, project, etc. I do agree, in some aspects, that a spelling bee should be an optional program hosted by a school for a school for students to see their own position when it comes to their ability to spell, but I do not think that spelling bees should be outlawed all together.
Rap Battle Rematch: Lannan13 vs. Truth_seeker

(I appologize as it appears my spacing doesn't seem to be working. It's suppose to be 4 line AABB lines) From Montezuma to the Barbary Sand, I've killed foes whether by rifle, knife, or by bare hand. You'll meet the same cruel fate at the end of my sword, If more of your jihadists pop up I'll kill some more, I'm a marksmen with my shot, shot. You walk into my sights and my gun goes pop, pop. Like Lee Harvery Oswalt I'm making your head splatter, This is another case of mind over matter. Carying the US Old Glory in my Chariot, There's a reason I'm the Real American Patriot, Put you in a chamber and gas your'd Entire family you communist bastard. What are you doing trying to match a mind like Lannan, I'll bannish you like Konami banned Sangan. [1] Raining down onyou with the power of a thousand suns, I'm going to end your world, try to face my big Guns. My raps have more power than a Hydrogen Bomb, Be hypnotyzed by my Sieren death song, Call me Katrina, cuz I'm wipping out my compitition like a typhoon, Making you drown in my lyrical tital wave, like I'm Neptune. Truth's raps are just so subtle, My oppent winning Rap Battles are rarer than a Rare Earth Metal. Governing you like my name is John Locke [2] After this I'll be sizin' up your outline of chalk . You can't touch me, I've got the Mark of Cain. [3]. Bring you back to Egypt and put you in iron collar and Chain. Blowin' your mind like Timmothy McVeigh, Unleshing upon you the 7 plagues. Die or you better praise Allah, Or Imma gas you like Bashar al-Assad, I hope your in the mood for 72 virgins, No one can piece you back together, not even surgeons. Sacrafice the first of your flock with a meat Cleaver, When I'm done you will be a believer, You're an Infidel that hasn't been to the Mecca. You're just trying to cover up your microscopic pecka. 1. (http://www.gamefaqs.com...) 2. (http://www.sparknotes.com...) 3. (http://ezinearticles.com...)