BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap Battle: Theodore Roosevelt VS Benjamin Franklin

WHAT UP B*TCH?The name's Theodore RooseveltWhen it comes to slingin' rhymesBetter know I'm a black beltI care not for little p*ssies like Benjamin FranklinYou better hear me when I say this'll be a spankin I've been around the block and I'm about to rock andWhen all is said and done, you'll be sucking my c*ckI'm bulletproof b*tch! Come at me bro!I know you got infected from your nasty hoes!I speak softlyAnd I got a big stickAll you have to show is a tiny d*ck, b*tch. I made russia my b*tch! and Japan tooYou better get your retard @ss back to school!Class has starded, kidYou better sit downGet your little pencil out and take this downI'm a fan favorite! Great approval ratings.All you left behind was a book of sayings."Honesty is the best policy." if you're a b*tch!Get down on your knees and suck this d*ck!I'm a badass, check my mug on rushmoreI kill f*cking bears while you're f*cking a cheap whoreI've killed so many men, that I lost countAnd you know the square deal is what Im all about.Tell me where the war is you know I will roll outrough riders will knowWhat this man is talkin 'boutI don't take your sh*t, not even a bitHEAR MY THUNDEROUS VOICE FROM THE BULLY PULPIT!
good effects of outsourcing

Ok now that Ive cleaned my mind of the absurdity let me break it down and get to the points 1. "The first point you make is that the money will be reinvested into the companies." Some of the money may go back the the owner of the companies, the fact is the average person would not receive any of this money because their livelihood is stripped away by a foreign worker so they would have no source of income to speak of, so maybe the top 1 percent of Americans would receive a profit and put us into an even larger debt. 2. "Everything would be cheaper" Even if items would be cheaper the fact is less people would have money to spend, which that fact alone would raise the prices so companies could maintain a profit 3."Lets print more money to help us" Adding any amount of money will be inflationary the natural rate of inflation is 3% per year, printing an excess would only further hurt the dollar which already in the status quo is decreasing in value. Oh and as a side note with our jobs gone no one would even get a hold of the money Its a terrible idea to outsource vote for the reasons above
good effects of outsourcing

outsourcing. i used to be against it, but i want to argue some reasons for it that i have been thinking of. if companies can save money, even though we lose some wealth ot foreign nations, the money saved ultimately is reinvested. that leads to innovation. that means that more things are made, different things. if more things are made, that means the cost of everything else is less. true, we have less money, but, if the government prints some money, while inflationary, it's only mitigating the decrease in the price of goods by the increased product. (if not too much is printed)
animals are not as skillful or intelligent as humans.

Hi fellow voters and honorable debater, welcome to this debate! I am honored to have a debate with you.Here are the most basic rules of this debate:No foul language or hostile words.NO forfeiting is allowedFirst round: opening, definition and first point.(affirmative will rebuttal too)Second round: rebuttals and second point Third round: rebuttals, third point(if you have one) and summaryFirst, I would like to give a couple definitions to this motion:Intelligent:smart, knowing stuff.Skillful: Has skills in something, anything. But good in itAnimals:mammals, insects, birds, fish, reptile.Now, I will point out why I oppose this topic.First of all, animals have a point same as us. They have their own language. Can you understand why your dog is barking at you? Do you know what are the lions roaring about? No! We can't understand what animals are talking about, but some animals know what we are talking about. Say, a trained dog knows when to sit and when to follow. We just yell "sit!". Secondly, a few varies of animals have the intelligence of a kid. Dolphins have the intelligence of a 3-year old kid. Chimps even have intellect of a 7-year old kid! Well sorry I was talking about intellect and forgetting about skills. Animals have skills human doesn't know. Wolves have perfect teamwork, catching prey successfully without teamwork problems, but us, in a school team project, we'd fight more that doing stuff and ends up not quick enough to finish a project. spiders can get food themselves by making silk webs. Us? we buy silk clothing with money not for food but for something unnecessary.So dear voters, I urge you all to vote for the negative side.
COLLOIDAL SILVER IS THE BEST REMEDY FOR KILLING BUGS!

remedy (rěm'ĭ-dē) Pronunciation Key n. pl. remï¿½eï¿½dies Something, such as medicine or therapy, that relieves pain, cures disease, or corrects a disorder. Something that corrects an evil, fault, or error. Law A legal order of preventing or redressing a wrong or enforcing a right. The allowance by a mint for deviation from the standard weight or quality of coins. tr.v. remï¿½eï¿½died, remï¿½eï¿½dyï¿½ing, remï¿½eï¿½dies To relieve or cure (a disease or disorder). To remove, counteract, or rectify. See Synonyms at correct, cure. In today's round, the job of the negative side will be to disprove the notion that Colloidal silver is the best remedy for killing bugs. First, since my opponent did not provide a definition of remedy, it is unclear as to what his conditions are for what could possible serve as a superior remedy. Therefore, I will use a definition from "American Heritage Dictionary" to clarify. Remedy: 1) Something, such as medicine or therapy, that relieves pain, cures disease, or corrects a disorder. 2) Something that corrects an evil, fault, or error. 3) Law A : legal order of preventing or redressing a wrong or enforcing a right. 4) The allowance by a mint for deviation from the standard weight or quality of coins. tr.v. remï¿½eï¿½died, remï¿½eï¿½dyï¿½ing, remï¿½eï¿½dies 5) To relieve or cure (a disease or disorder). 6) To remove, counteract, or rectify. See Synonyms at correct, cure. At any rate, I believe that the 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 6th definitions are most relevant to this debate. With the above definition acknowledged, it is certainly not the best remedy that concerns killing an insect. Although one may suggest that a "dosage" would be fatal against an insect, there is the matter of how mobile an insect is as not all insects remain in one space while awaiting their inevitable deaths. Even the best bug killer liquids are pointless if an insect (such as a grasshopper or a wasp) has mobility to its advantage. I submit to my opponent that a shoe (although "icky") is more efficient in dealing with all manners of bugs both mobile and stationary. Now, do I believe that it is the most efficient remedy? Certainly not, but it's more useful in general. With that said, lets look at my opponent's case: My opponent states that Colloid Silver works incredibly, is the best, yada yada yada, but one thing you must note is that he never backs up his position; he never explains how it is superior to all other remedies; he commits the fallacy of begging the question in that his premise is basically his conclusion. My opponent suggest that the Government is lying to everyone for profits, yet presents no evidence to support this claim. My opponent then attempts to set a standard by stating that only people with a BS degree may respond, but he is incorrect as the terms of use clearly dictate that all members of this website may respond to arguments that are open to all members. To sum up my opponents case, it is basically a collaborated logical fallacy surrounded by all means ridiculousness.
COLLOIDAL SILVER IS THE BEST REMEDY FOR KILLING BUGS!

************* You are REQUIRED to have a MINIMUM of a BS degree to take up this debate I will NOT ARGUE with you kids or NON-EDUCATED fools on this subject It is TOO IMPORTANT The government is LYING TO YOU FOR PROFITS SILVER IS FREE SILVER WORKS INCREDIBLY once again YOU MUST HAVE A BS FROM AN REAL UNIVERSITY to debate me on this subject even with a BS , you still are probably NOT qualified , but given the TOTAL LACK OF ANY QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS HERE , I am LOWERING MY STANDARDS good luck , internet SOLARMAN
COLLOIDAL SILVER IS THE BEST REMEDY FOR KILLING BUGS!

In his final round, my opponent presented reasons as to why he requires individuals with a minimums of a BS degree to debate with him. All that is fine as there is nothing wrong with having opinions, but this doesn't address the actual topic at hand and is thus an example of red herring. Again, my opponent has dropped my previous contentions. Therefore, as I stated in the previous round, all of my contentions are extended. Finally, my opponent has even agreed that I should get the vote for this round. Reasons the Negative side wins today's round: 1) My opponent dropped all of my contentions 2) My opponent doesn't support his conclusions with premises. 3) It is my opponents fault for not having the opponent he wanted as he made this debate open to all members; he could have easily avoided having me as his opponent by sending an invitation to a member he wished to argue with. 4) My opponent agrees that I should get the vote. So there you have it, ladies and gentleman. For those reasons, you should vote for my case. Thanks and goodnight. :D
COLLOIDAL SILVER IS THE BEST REMEDY FOR KILLING BUGS!

This is for the purpose of the HEALTH of people reading this debate In trying to have this debate in the past, and in the comments from other debates, it is clear that the propaganda about (1) Argyria- a false condition that is NOT caused by CS and (2) false reports about Silver toxicity and other harmful effects and furthermore the proper science that HAS been done to prove the effectiveness of CS on pathgoens If you cant get into the specifics here, then it will just be based on your FEELINGS and a quick internet review of PROPAGANDA , which is of no use Thus ,my requirements for a minimum of a BS it is NOT an age thing- there is a 45 year old that also doesnt get science who has tried to argue this subject I appreciate your attempts nonetheless SOLARMAN
COLLOIDAL SILVER IS THE BEST REMEDY FOR KILLING BUGS!

In my opponent's 2nd round, he dropped my arguments, so I would like to extend all of them (assuming he doesn't intend to respond in the third) for this round. Concerning this round: My opponent states that I'm not qualified to debate this subject, but he presents no evidence to support this claim. Of course, even if I weren't, his response still doesn't excuse dropping my entire case. My opponent claims that he will await a qualified individual with a minimum level of understanding on this subject, thus, we have reason to assume that he is forfeiting his round with me. Basically, my opponent's argument (if it can be called such) is "I'm right, you're wrong, and you are not qualified to debate with me." Thus, I urge that you all vote on my case.
COLLOIDAL SILVER IS THE BEST REMEDY FOR KILLING BUGS!

you are not qualified to debate this subject I will await a qualified individual with a minimum level of understanding (1) Chemistry ie concentration, ions, colloids, compounds, molecules (2) Biochemistry - interactions of medicines and pathogens in the body (3) Pharmacology is dose, response pathogen types pathways etc Since you dont have the undestanding of these, all you will do is spout nonsense that is NOT supported by scientific facts This is akin to the Global Warming caused by CO2 nonsense have a nice day Solarman
There is nothing wrong with using low income and homeless people for drug testing.

When I said the words "using them" it was a generic term for referring to the parties collectively. Yet again I have never stated anything saying these people are/ will be forced to participate in these tests. Having the option to participate in drug testing is not encouragement of medical prostitution but leaving avenues open for any person to participate in should they want. You are correct that drugs are first tested on animals and after that they begin human trials. These trials are comprised of a variety of subjects these subjects are/ can be paid for this. The FDA in most cases does provide this consent for the test to take place. I did not say anything about changing this process. Merely what was wrong with using people (in this case low income and homeless) should they want to participate. In regards to socioeconomic backgrounds it can be an option for individuals to whom wish to utilize testing as a means of income. As income it can provide a means of financial backing that allows for the acquisition of housing, preventing homelessness etc. Your statements about curing homelessness are very interesting and perhaps something we can start another debate on if you would like. Also as for the movie, I have not seen it but I have read the summary. It would seem that you are using it to support a slippery slope form of argument? Like always I look forward to your response.
There is nothing wrong with using low income and homeless people for drug testing.

Thank you for your previous comment :) Earlier, you stated, " the history of the world is dark", so I ask you, why should we bring that darkness back? Earlier you stated, "what is wrong with using them", talking about them as if they were nothing more than lab rats. Instead of encouraging them to go and find proper jobs to support themselves and their families, you are offering them an avenue for fast money concerning the use and abuse of their bodies. Sound familiar? So lets just call this "encouragement for medical prostitution". What happens when these people of low economic status refuse to be experimented on? At that point will it be forced onto them? Or will the rich people apply? I think not because they are the ones conducting those experiments. Today, drugs are tested on lab animals such as rats to make sure its okay for human use. After the testing is complete, the people that need the drug must apply through a government approved consent form which at this point, the BENEFITS outweigh the COSTS. An important point to note is that those that apply, come from differnet socioeconomic backgrounds. If they test on the homeless or anyone right away without having done prior testing, things will work oppositely when the COSTS outweigh the BENEFITS which according to medical law, is unethical. Instead of specifically saying the homeless people should be tested on, why not include everyone else? If you think about it, that can be more beneficial and less discriminatory. But lets clear something up, what kind of testing are you talking about that requires homeless people to be tested on? Does this testing "cure" homelessness? No, because the only thing that cures homelessness is proper guidance and the positive attitude of inclusiveness. The only reason why we have homeless today is because governments take advantage of the homeless people's situation. If we cured homelessness, then charities, welfare systems, social services, shelters and most churches will become extinct. If all these homeless taken care of, then it woukd lessen the chance of others for positions in the workplace. Therefore homelessness is a business to begin with. Our world needs to learn that, in a nation, family or team, the failure of one is the failure of all, but the success of all is one step closer to perfection. I also noticed that you completely disregarded the movie "the Purge" that I used as a valid example where it's central theme is to have society (rich people) take advantage of the people in lower socioeconomic classes for their personal gains, gradually eliminating them. Please take some time to watch the movie and have a better understanding of what it means to target the homeless. Thanks :)
There is nothing wrong with using low income and homeless people for drug testing.

Persianimmortal, I appreciate your response. In regards to your response, the history of the world has been a dark and troubling one when it comes to drug testing/ eugenics preformed on people during the time of Nazi Germany. However I think it is important to note that these tests were supported by heads of state all over the world to include leaders from the Allied Powers. This support was not only verbal but also financial. It was not until Hitler started his blitzkrieg across Europe that this public opinion began to change and anti-German/ Hitler Propaganda began to flow. However when it comes to the testing of drugs on lower socioeconomic groups in no way did I say that they should be forced as the unfortunate people of Germany were to do. What I stated was that "What is wrong with using them?". In this I mean why should we prohibit them from having the opportunity in participating in this line of "work" should they choose? As I previously stated the administrators of these tests are providing an opportunity for these individuals. It is often a fact that these lower socioeconomic groups struggle to find work that gives them a suitable living wage in which they can seek to improve their situation by maintaining or obtaining permanent housing, better employment if they so choose, better medical/dental care, etc. These things are/can be very difficult to obtain from social welfare programs, yet easily obtained by ones self if given the appropriate monetary resources. What is more is that by not doing this we drastically limit ourselves in the field of medical advancements. With the demand for top rate medical care in societies today this testing will inevitably have to take place. This is not a form of degradation but more of a form of opportunity should people choose to use it. It is also important to note that lower socioeconomic status is not something that someone is always in for the duration of their lives. College students are typically a subgroup within this status and another subgroup can also include people that have been laid of due to economic down turn and/or out sourcing of ones job. Now concerning your respectful recommendation for a proper debate topic, to this I say thank you for your recommendation. However I would like to say that there is no such thing as a proper debate topic, it is merely an illusion. Any and all topics are acceptable debate topics, now with that being said there maybe topics in which societies/individuals have declared taboo. As for you statement " you"re human so wanna be tested on??", we have all been tested on. From the our earliest moments in life until we die we are medically tested on. When infants we are given immunization shots which if we have a negative reaction to the results are written down and submitted in a various forms to other doctors. When we are older anytime that we are sick with something as simple as the flu to something as complex as cancer or aids we are tested on in the from of treatments both proved and experimental. With all this being said I look forward to your next response.
There is nothing wrong with using low income and homeless people for drug testing.

Listen, I'm sure you're a swell Lad or Lady but will gladly defend the rights of my fellow earthlings by happily opening this debate with the following: "Are you out of your damn mind?" Allow me to justify my usage of that phrase. Throughout history, humans have been the subject of various horrors and drug testing was one of them. Prior to the birth of concrete laws, the instigators of such heinous crimes were imprisoned or executed before a firing squad. You want proof? Go read about a 6 year segment in human history where a group humans were labelled as "inferior" and subject to a variety of tests due to their affiliation with a certain belief system, Judaism. In modern times, such actions fall under the category of persecution and inhumane. For the Jews they were forced into that situation, their title as human was stripped from them and their dignity along with it. However for us, we live in a time of justice and law, where man's actions are judged before a court system who knows no tolerance for such "thin-ice" actions. To make it "okay" as you put it, to test on human subjects requires informed consent, where the individuals are notified why the test is being done, the risks and benefits, and the rights they have as research subjects. The individuals are then pre-tested for medical conditions and other things before the actual testing can begin. I see no problem with that, keeping the human social status as general. But what worries me, is that you want be able to separate the the rich from the poor, the fortunate from the unfortunate, and the needy from the greedy, and to test on the lesser of the 2. In fact what's worse than the situation of the Jews, is paying the individuals and making them confortable with the idea that their life is worth 4 digits on a piece of 180mm x 87mm paper, handled to them by a dude who couldn't even give a hoot for what happens to the individual. I respectfully recommend proper debate subjects than the degredation of a species that can progress and develop a better mentality than this. Cheers. (Note: watch the movie "The Purge" for more information.) You want to advance a large group of people by damaging a smaller group of disadvantaged people. If you're agreed with it, then be prepared to see medicines bottles with a symbol of a stickman saying it's human tested. This isn't humanity. You're sugarcoating the cruelty that will be inflicted on them with tangible things such as TV, housing and money. It's humiliation not human. You're agreeing to degrade someone lower than what society is already degraded them to.....you're human so wanna be tested on??
There is nothing wrong with using low income and homeless people for drug testing.

What is wrong with using lower income and homeless people for drug testing? In areas where this is predominately done, these two groups struggle to find any form of employment. In most inpatient trials participants are given places to stay, food, access to many basic commodities we take for granted TV, showers, etc. Participants can also receive up to $6,000 per study which if managed properly can help some leave homelessness and others prevent homelessness. These people also rather than simply using societal resources are now able to contribute to society by at least helping to contribute to faster medical developments something that all of society is more than happy to take full advantage of.
Bubblegum is cool

Bubblegum is really entertaining because the bangs from the bubbles scare people. I think bubblegum is good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good good
Bubblegum is cool

They are still valid arguments, if someone was shot with a gun we still say the gun is bad even though it is not its fault. The choking and digestive points are the complete fault of the gum and if you say it is the fault of the person for swallowing it then consider this, if a person lives next to a volcano and it erupt and kills them would you say it is their fault for living next to the volcano. Also you have not presented a single valid argument during this entire debate. YOU CAN NOT FLY USING GUM and in your own argument you say "Gum may be bad". check and, incidentally, mate.