BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Lunatic asylums should be forced to create multiple income streams

This is an extract from a BBC article on the Bedlam lunatic asylum in London: "People used to visit Bedlam to see the lunatics - there were 96,000 visits in 1814. Entry was free on the first Tuesday of the month. Visitors were permitted to bring sticks to poke and enrage inmates." [1] What great fun that must have been! Imagine what a lovely time the kiddies would have tormenting the loonies with sticks. And their parents would have a great laugh as well. However, the management of Bedlam missed the opportunity to charge visitors. Surely families would happily pay enterprising lunatic asylums good money for such a novel amusement? Furthermore, lunatic asylums could supplement their income from the entrance fees by selling snacks and drinks to the visitors and they could also flog them branded merchandise such as: * T-shirts with "I've pestered the psychiatric patients at St. Anne's Mental Health Unit" written on them. * Coffee mugs with "I've hassled the head-cases at Riverview Lodge Secure Hospital" written on them. * Baseball caps with "I've menaced the mentalists at Sunshine Care Home" written on them. Lunatic asylums could make even more money by renting inmates out to party organisers - having a few nut-jobs mingling among the crowds at corporate hospitality events, wedding receptions, birthday parties and bar mitzvahs would be hugely entertaining for the guests. The revenue from these enterprises might not be quite enough to make the lunatic asylums completely self-financing but the extra income would certainly reduce the existing burden on the taxpayer, and the Department of Health should ensure that loony bins diversify into commercial activities in order to create multiple income streams. Thank you [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk...
Rap Battle

I see that the whole prostitute argument was dropped.... You sting like a bee? Then lemme squash you like a bug Don't get mad at me, not my fault your dad never gave you a hug You don't get bitches all you do is give yourself a tug You hurl all these insults but all I have to do is shrug Sense your round one sucked I'll give you a pass I really am sick of your sass Your an idiot so stop acting like a boss You can consider this a hard fought loss.
Rap Battle

Do you know how to rhyme? How to keep time? Tell me your good but your lying, All you really do is whine, Sighing cause you are terrible, I'll try-and tell you a parable, But to understand your not able, Cause you're mentally disabled. End it all right here? It's already done, Have no fcking fear, because I am number one, You got honourable mention, For last place, People want to let you in, But you take up to much space, Fat joke, I know, quite the low blow, But bro to win this, you gotta have some fcking flow, So you think that I'm faking, I'm not as cool as I say, Well I am the rap king, and your the fool who will pay, Again you got no beat, No one's getting to their feet, So sit yo a$s down in yo seat, And listen to this treat, My friend here is stupid, got no brains in his head, But somehow he thinks he's cupid, he's insane the btches said, I'm top of the line sht, you can't get one hit, I'm with the Ritz getting lit, while you sucking your mom's tit, When I drop the hammer down, gonna pound you to the ground, Wish there was another round, but your crying about now, Oh say can you see? You got nothing on me, I sting like a bee, you- just have butterfly pee, Like Ali, I'm the best, this is not grade B Can't you see that the rest don't hold a candle to me? I like Johnny Cash, I like the Oak Ridge Boys, But I also like to rap, and make a lot of fcking noise, So this is last round just in case you can't see, I'm interested what you will put in the following round three.
Rap Battle

I literally laughed at your first line alone, that was honestly kind of pathetic. You say I messed up in a round, but at least I haven't screwed up my life That's more than you can say, you'll never even have a wife Not even a hooker'd do that no matter how much you pay, can't make up for their strife Do yourself a favor and end it all now, here, I'll give you a knife On second thought just use the one you cut yourself with Stop pretending you're cool in your lines it's a well known myth I wouldn't be the first to beat you, I'd at least be the fifth Irl you're just a lonely wannabe that talks with a lithp And yes, you did say you need riches for your b!tches That only lasts so long until her shifts over and she ditches Your rhymes are adorable but you're getting too big for your britches By the end of this ima have you in stitches You say I'm gay then ask me to kiss your @ss? If you don't understand how that *doesn't* work just go back to class You use raid to drive away chicks? Ha, not how that works dumbass Your ego's huge but it can be shattered like glass.
Rap Battle

That was only the intro btch, and I dress that way cause I'm rich, like Abercrombie and Fitch, while your clothes make people itch. Hey at least they invite me, your not on the list, But hey don't wor-ry, you can hang out with your sis, I'm not here to judge, don't take me the wrong way, You like eating others fudge, bud that's OK A little gay but hey, we're on the same team, I fck all the ladies, you stay with drag queens. Obscene, I guess, your too young for this sht, But I've seen the mess on magazines your ma lit, So you've seen from a distance what goes on underground I sense some resistance so bud your going down, Never did I say, I paid to get laid, hel I need to use Raid, to get the hoes away, You think you know how chicks feel? You haven't touched one that's real! You have no appeal, but I'm making them squeal. Yes no one's beat me punk, don't think you'll be the first, Your rap just stunk, your probably just cursed, or worse you need a nurse cause you suck at free verse and when I'm through you'll need a fcking hearse. Kiss my asss you mofo fool You fcked up the last but let's hear your round two.
Rap Battle

That's cute. Thanks for the debate and good luck, you'll need it. You try to be tough but just look like a tool Based off of your profile pic you also dress like a fool No one's buying it so stop trying to act cool You're the guy people only invite so they can push you into the pool You claim to sleep with chicks, but your mom doesn't count Plus basically everyone has, even she doesn't know the amount One things for certain, that number's hard to surmount Remind me to thank her for all the payments she's made to my account You give bitches riches? So you pay to get laid? They said they all hate it so at least they're getting paid You think that they love you but that's just you getting played Their biggest regret is that they actually stayed You say that no one's beat you yet, but don't you remember your dad? Maybe that's why you want to punch me, wow that's actually pretty sad Just sit down and shut up, even you know your rhymes are bad You got what you asked for scrub, hope you're glad.
Rap Battle

Just look at me bitch, this aint no fuckin glitch, today I'm not a nice guy, want to punch you with my fist, Used to cost a late night fee but fuc it this one's free, I just want you to see you got nothing on me. I fck bitches, give them riches, make em feel like their in love, Bet you wishes, for one missus, but at night you have to rub. Feel free to try and beat me, not one has yet, Why? you will see, and then never forget.
Welfare

My opponent is without a doubt an excellent debater, one much greater than I. My previous argument was a pathetic one at best, with false assumptions, biased ideas, etc. I must concede so as to not further embarrass myself, I hope one day I am capable of debating on pros level. While he did not change my viewpoint on the matter, he did teach me something I didn't know, which is really the main reason I debate, to learn.
Welfare

Welfare is detrimental to the United States. I noticed you voted for me, but only because my opponent presented no argument. I would like a real debate on the subject matter. Welfare: Financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government. Detrimental: Causing detriment; damaging; harmful. Rules: 1) No profanity 2) An argument without sources is instant disqualification 3) Round One is acceptance only 4) Forfeiture at any time is instant disqualification 5) no trolling I must ask that voters be objective, and not to vote bomb. Please vote for the better argument.
ban islam

Islam is a religion focused on achieving heaven, just like any other religion. The problem is not in the religion, but in people perverting the doctrine of Islam to their own views. In fact, they are not the first to do so. The first people to do so were actually early Christians during the Crusades. While going to war with Muslims they exterminated Jewish settlements along the way. When the Black Plague started to ravage Europe the Christians killed the Jews because they believed the Jews were cursing them since less Jews were getting infected. However, this was only due to the Law of Moses dictating a lot of hygienic and clean doctrines, while the Christians believed the Law of Moses was fulfilled by Christ's sacrifice. Should we therefore ban Christianity, since it may have paved the way for radical Jihadists? The truth is you can't, since ideals do not have any solid substance and as long as a person can believe it, they will. Also it is against the Bill of Rights to deport anyone according to their religious beliefs, so that's also a cannot.
What food is better? Pizza or Tacos

tacos can be personalized just as much as pizza can. tacos unlike pizza are in smaller portions and so it allows a person to eat at least two which allows them to pair each taco in a way that may contrast or cooperate with each other which is the epitome of culinary ability. pizza on the other hand traditionally only allows for one specific configuration and is extremely heavy relying highly on the flavor of the sauce and topping to satisfy the eater, i doubt anyone would be satisfied eating only the dough which makes up over 80% of the meal, whereas tacos are light depending on the stuffing, their main ingredient is the filling its self and the shell only making up to 2 -5 percent of the meal.
The strings section of the orchestra is the core of the orchestra.

You point out that strings are the keeping the orchestra together, that already is false as its the main job of the percussion. You also point out that 'Strings can be extremely sad sounding and can sway the music with beauty, and can also become very excited and quick, both of these harder to pull off with the brass section.' This is indeed false as you can easily control the brass section to do this as well. Take for example the Gustav Holst's piece 'Jupiter'. The brass section plays right through the whole piece and listening to it, you can hear how quickly the brass section changed from a majestic tone to a lighter more jolly tone. Playing the brass instruments softly produces a mellow sound and a mute over the bell gives the composer the ability to convey mystery or menace. If that does not prove the wide range of emotions that can be produced by the Brass section, I do not know what does. You clearly destroy your own point about versatility stating that taking sound effects as an example you claim that strings sound effects are 'not as significant as the brass.' I point out yet again that in a time of new music and new uses for orchestras, innovation must be included. I disagree strongly on the point that the trombone does not have as many options as the strings. Take a mute, creates a shallow or mellow effect. Something that cannot be done on the stringed instruments. The trombone along with string instruments can glissando and can stand toe to toe in both volume and overall quality. If there was a piece that required an instrument to cut through the orchestra, the trumpet is a perfect instrument. Want a fanfare? Welcome to the brass section. If you go to any major concert or even an event, you would almost always find a brass section only there. Just listen to the earlier piece of music I suggested, 'Jupiter,' it speaks for itself on the power of the brass section. To conclude, I have clearly shown that by far is the Brass section. Innovative, majestic and full of beauty. So lets not go for a set of instruments that have been going out of fashion. In fact the ABRSM has shown that the violin is no longer the most popular instrument for children in the UK. Therefore let me remind you again, Brass instruments are the best.
The strings section of the orchestra is the core of the orchestra.

You are in every way correct in that the brass section is a spectacular section. Looking at Dvorak's piece, though, you have only strengthened my argument that strings are always the core and backing instruments up. On the piece, you can year the quick bows jumping across the strings enhancing the brass section. I also beg to differ that brass section instruments are always in tune. Every instrument in the orchestra needs tuning, from the timpani to the bassoon. The strings section has the violin that can play very high and the cello and basses that can play a deep rolling sound. Stringed instruments also can create sound effects. Possibly not as significant as the brass, but nevertheless, they can slide their fingers up the fingerboard causing an eerie haunt sound, and other small things of that sort. The stings can sway, or the strings can be sharp with a spicy aftertaste. (Other stings echoing) . Brass instruments are more confined to certain sounds. Save the trombone, which still does not have as many options as the strings. So as a conclusion to my rebuttal, I once again state that the strings are more important than the brass because of beauty, strength, most played in an orchestra, and the fact that they always are backing up an instrument.
The strings section of the orchestra is the core of the orchestra.

The Brass section is used to play the most memorable parts of the music. Take Dvorak's New World Symphony, clearly a masterpiece considering the ending where the Brass section concludes the piece. Not only that, the string section takes far more effort to tune and to keep in tune. With the brass, you can confirm what you are going to get by pressing the valve or moving the slide. In terms of volume, the brass section can clearly outdo in loudness and also compete in playing very quietly. It has a huge range that rivals the string. The Brass section has the piccolo trumpet and plays very high while the tuba can play very low. Take movie music, all the epic moments are played by the brass section with strings behind along with percussion. Marches are often played by brass sections and can also use techniques that no string instrument could. Brass instruments are clearly more versatile as they can be used in many ways, not just in music. In fact, many sound effects can be created by the brass section. Take for example a door hissing open in a sci-fi film, by turning the mouth piece upside down and blowing through the instrument can create that effect. To summon up, the brass section clearly outdoes the string section in both innovation, improvisation and ability. Clearly is shown that the brass section is by far, the most important section of the orchestra.
The strings section of the orchestra is the core of the orchestra.

The main point, divided into smaller points, that I will be making, is that the strings section of the orchestra is most powerful, and keeps the orchestra together.1. The strings are used most often in an orchestra, either to back up leading instruments, to lead the orchestra on, or both. Strings can be used in many different ways, as the playful 'children' or the 'mother' in the background keeping everything in line. 2. Almost no orchestral songs don't have strings. From classical pieces to movie scores. The brass section, however, is not as needed and usually when used, are used for a short time as a leading section WITH strings backing it up. 3. Strings are more moving and exciting. Strings can be extremely sad sounding and can sway the music with beauty,and can also become very excited and quick, both of these harder to pull off with the brass section.
Resolved: The US should end Plan Colombia

I dont believe in your evidence at all. Therefore none of it is true. here is my reasons. Since the Pro will be advocating a total ban of Plan Colombia, they will need to justify their position which will in most cases, point to a collection of failures and tragic outcomes arising from the policy. But the Con side, needs to advocate we should NOT ban Plan Colombia. The most obvious justification for the position, in light of Pro claims of failure, is we should not ban it because we still have work to do. While this may seem trite, the evidence shows that despite the much publicized failures, Plan Colombia has had some remarkable successes and we will argue it has turned an important corner on the road to stability, peace and economic viability. We need to understand, the objectives of Plan Colombia have been a bit of a moving target, at least for the purposes of political expediency. However, there are several key and strategically important objectives that have been present from the beginning, and these are being met. Moreover, though I may not do so in this analysis, Con can legitimately argue, that many of the criticisms levied by Pro are not failures of the plan itself, but rather failures of the Colombian government to conduct its operations in such a way as to minimize collateral harms. For example, its fairly easy to claim from the comfort and quiet of a U.S. classroom, the so-called "scorched earth" tactics of the Colombian security forces was excessive and result in numerous human rights violations. It is much more difficult to assess whether those tactics were in keeping with present capabilities and if the heavy-handed tactics ended up helping more than hurting. After all, internal conflict had been going on for a half-century and there was no end in sight. In fact, there was a reasonable expectation that the Communist FARC may succeed in toppling the government. The Pastrana administration came along at a critical juncture, when the people were already crying out for an end to FARC.
I am 17 and I am independent so I can do everything for myself

Actually the most common age of majority historically speaking is twelve. In Japan you might be a warlord at twelve, a Greek soldier, a native American hunter, or married to an English lord. Our idea that a person magically transforms into an adult at the age of eighteen is both modern and arbitrary. As evidence of the capriciousness of this attitude modern science has concluded the human brain is still growing and developing well into a person's late twenties. We may therefore conclude that both the ages eighteen and twenty one are artificial standards and has nothing to do with protecting a growing person. As another piece of evidence the adult industry makes some 760 million to 1 billion dollars annually largely through the exploitation of women many of whom begin in "barely legal" features implying that they are still young and impressionable, so it's not to protect young women from sexual predation. I am afraid we must conclude that the artificial standard of eighteen is based solely on our modern biases. Thank you
The Cosmological Argment is Sound

Ave.I am challenging Magic, an atheist, to a debate about the soundness of the cosmological argument. Soundness means that the premises of the argument are true, and that the conclusion follows logically from the premises. God is defined as the timeless (therefore beginningless), immaterial, spaceless, omnipotent, and personal cause of the universe existing.The cosmological argument for this debate will be the one that William Lane Craig Uses. Everything that begins exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore the universe had a cause.The first round is for acceptance. In round two, I will present my argument and allow Con to give a rebuttal. After that, I will respond to Con's rebuttal in round three. In round three, Con will reinforce his rebuttal while asking me a few questions as part of a Q&A. In round four, I will answer his questions and give my own. The final round will be Con answering the questions I asked of him.My burden of proof in this debate is to show that the cosmological argument is more plausible than the negation by inference to the best conclusion. Con's obligation is to negate my argument. General rules of conduct should be followed. Using pictures and images as quotes/references/arguments is acceptable.Vale.
The Cosmological Argment is Sound

Thanks Pro Different interpretations are somewhat irrelevant when you consider what I arguing. These deterministic interpretations have flaws, which was pointed out. Premise 1 was unsupported. I believe I've shown, if the first 3 premises of the CA are valid, the conclusion that a being caused the universe doesn't follow. One can make the conclusion that a non sentient Chroma outside of laws was the cause. Nothing Pro argued for would rule such a thing out. Even the personality objection only says physical laws couldn't be the cause. Occam"s razor would in fact favor a Chroma. The models proposed by science show that it's possible the universe can be caused perfectly without such a being. I addressed all objections ruling out the possibility. I've also seen no good reason why ex nihilo nihil fit is true. His objections were conflating not possessing something with actually possessing something. This debate has allowed me to gather up my objections and put them in one place. Great debate, I hope people enjoy reading it, as I did participating in it. Thanks again!
The Cosmological Argment is Sound

Ave.[We agreed to leave this round as a conclusion round.]First and foremost, I'd like to thank Con for this debate. I found his objections to be very interesting and challenging to my position. Suffice to say, I spent a lot of time researching the various interpretations of quantum mechanics in order to respond to his arguments. These are the most original arguments against the CA that I've encountered in my experience, so credit to Con.I don't think that the Copenhagen interpretation was sufficiently supported during this debate. I brought up the issue of Bell's inequalities to show that the Copenhagen interpretation had issues. Now, Con can show that there aren't too many people who reject the Copenhagen interpretation. That still doesn't answer the original argument from Bell's inequalities, however.Con also suggested that the laws of physics might exist before the universe. On second thought, I think that it's possible for these laws to exist in a very abstract way. I just think it's unclear as to how they would have any casual effects on anything real.Con also points out that my Wikipedia source mentions particles that pop in and out. I think this is supposed to prove that I inadvertently disproved ex nihilo nihil fit. I've already said in other debates that I don't doubt the existence of virtual particles or the physics behind it. I just disagree with the conclusions that people such as Krauss try to make from it.Ultimately, there are things I would have said differenly in this debate if I had a second chance. I think I rushed some of my arguments. I'd be interested in debating Con again at a later point, no matter what the result of this debate is.Thank you to Con for his participation, and thank you to all the voters for reading.Vale.