BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I beez in the trap- many meanings

As i said "be random, but keep it logical and creative" please note that this is my disclaimer, what i say isn't exactly indicative of the truth, it is possibilities, regardless of how unlikely they are. "I beez in the trap" As the great Shakespeare once wrote "To be or not to be". When we delve into the meaning of what this intelligent and well thought out line "i beez in the trap means" we discover that one of its meaning has to do with Shakespeare's sexuality. There are rumors, well not really rumors since the guy has been dead for ages (with all due respect), there are claims that Shakespeare was a homosexual. Ofcourse we can never prove whether or not he was indeed gay but according to Sir Ian McKellen he was either homosexual or bisexual http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Going on the assumption that Shakespeare was a homosexual (hereto referred to as gay), the line to be or not to be, could be seen as Shakespeare asking himself whether it was okay for him to exhibit his gay tendencies. The phrase beez in the trap is a poke at Shakespeare's sexuality, the beez, represent the to be or not to be quote, the trap symbolizes the trap, or rather strange predicament he found himself in. He saw it as a curse, which is easy to understand because at that point in time, not much was known, or rather understood about one's sexuality. This idea is reiterated when the singer, or originator of the quote "i beez in the trap" Nicki Minaj, performs a song as Roman, an angry gay male. This is the singer's perception of Shakespeare, an angry gay male fighting his demons, through art, in the form of literature. The second very deep meaning associated with this quote can be found in the careful analysis of each word. "beez" also means a bee in its general sense. Bees are associated with hard work, working in order to produce honey, they work collectively for the queen. The hive is where they reside, they build their bee hives, which could be seen as the trap, they are trapped by the hives they have built, the same way the singer feels trapped by the career she has chosen, she feels as though she is overwhelmed by the limelight surrounding her, she feels trapped in the hive she has built for herself,at the same time, acknowledges that much like a bee she worked hard to build her career and she will not easily let it go. If you try and poke your finger in a bee hive, all the bees will sting you even though them stinging you would kill them. She feels the same way. She is willing to do anything to protect her career
Bicyclists should not be allowed on roads

"Bicycles don't have motors. So, riding a bicycle on a sidewalk is nothing like riding a motorcycle on a sidewalk."how are they nothing alike? one thing going 15 mph is similar to another thing going 15 mph."It is much more dangerous for bicyclists to be on a road with cars than it is for pedestrians to be on a sidewalk with bicyclists."no way. have you tried going 15 mph on a bike on the sidewalk, in a residential area? there are a lot of low trees, and children running from out of no where, and cars backing out who have as little visibility as you do because of all the bushes and everything. as both a car driver, and a bike rider, i much prefer that bicyclists obey the law by staying off the sidewalk. it is way less hazardous to share the road in a residential area (when there is no bike path). when you ride a bike on the sidewalk, your safety, and the safety of others, is up to chance, and many accidents cannot be avoided even if everyone is being as safe as possible, because there is very limited visibility and many obstacles. however, when you share the road, the only reason you would get into an accident is if the car driver or bicyclist was very careless and not keeping their eyes on the road. another reason i feel mush safer riding my bike off the sidewalk is because i know cars can see me, so they wont run into me when they turn right at an intersection or something. more visibility means more safety."Just because you don't see it happening, doesn't mean it isn't happening."it means it's rare, at best. why would a bicyclist ride on the road when there is a bike path? that wouldnt even be in the bikers interest, so they dont do it. besides, i am a pizza delivery driver. i've driven around town 6 days a week, for the last 3 years and i have never seen bikers leave an available bike lane, unless they need to make a left turn."They don't all ride on the very right edge of the shoulder."sometimes the lane is not big enough to share, so the biker needs to "take the lane", as they are supposed to, so that car drivers dont try to dangerously sneak past the bikes at an unsafe time. if there is room enough to share, then they should be on the right side, but if there isnt enough room, they have to occasionally "take the lane" by riding towards the left side for a short time. this is the safe thing to do, believe it or not. this is what they are instructed to do by police, and the law."We wait until no cars are coming the other way, so we can safely pass the inconsiderate and selfish bicyclist who thinks he is driving a car."it is tricky to ride a bike around town. bicyclists get enough people angry at them, so most of them try their best to be courteous. if a biker isnt being courteous, then yes, i have a problem with that. but if a biker is being courteous, they should be able to share the road when they need to."they should be required to get a license and pay monthly insurance, because they do cause accidents."i wouldnt go that far. that is like forcing pedestrians to get pedestrian insurance.
Bicyclists should not be allowed on roads

A motorcycle isn't a bicycle. Bicycles don't have motors. So, riding a bicycle on a sidewalk is nothing like riding a motorcycle on a sidewalk. People need to learn to deal with bicycles being on sidewalks. It is much more dangerous for bicyclists to be on a road with cars than it is for pedestrians to be on a sidewalk with bicyclists. You said you don't know where I'm getting this from because you never see bicyclists ride on the street when there is a bike path. I'll repeat what I typed in my opening statement : "Daily, I see people on mountain bikes slowly cruising along the road when there is an empty bike path just 10 feet to their right." Just because you don't see it happening, doesn't mean it isn't happening. Cars get held up all the time by bicyclists on the road. Not all bicyclists have common sense. They don't all ride on the very right edge of the shoulder. Most of them ride in the actual lane that cars are in... close to the shoulder, but not in it. This is highly unacceptable, especially because the bicyclist is going no more than 15 miles an hour. When they are in the driving lane, cars cannot go around them because we will be involved in a head on collision with oncoming traffic. So what do we do? We wait until no cars are coming the other way, so we can safely pass the inconsiderate and selfish bicyclist who thinks he is driving a car. Whether or not a bicycle is riding on a road or on a sidewalk, it will be just as friendly to the environment and just as healthy. So I'm not sure why that was used as a point in favoring bikes on the road as opposed to a sidewalk. Look at it this way. This is all about whether or not bicyclists should be on roads or on sidewalks/bike paths. If we have bicyclists on the roads only, they can't be on sidewalks/bike paths, what are the dangers? If we have bicyclists on sidewalks/bike paths only, no roads, what are the dangers? When a person riding a bike is on a sidewalk/bike path, he can run into pedestrians on foot. What will happen? The pedestrian will get knocked to the ground, they'll get bruised, they'll get cuts and scrapes, they will bleed, hey, they may even get a fracture or break. That's no good right? When a person is riding a bicycle on the road, he can get hit by a huge metallic machine traveling 50 miles an hour. What will happen? Oh nothing, just death. If the bicyclist is lucky, he gets to spend a month in the hospital in a full body cast and maybe he'll just have permanent brain damage or if he's lucky, both. I agree when you say bikes go through red lights. This is one of numerous problems with bicyclists on the road. They think because they are on a bike and not in a car, they don't have to follow any of the rules that car drivers do. They think they can go around cars or in between them, go straight through stop signs and straight through lights. I see this happen a lot, as you do. Yes, at the very least, if it is absolutely necessary for a bicyclist to be on a road, they should be required to get a license and pay monthly insurance, because they do cause accidents.
Bicyclists should not be allowed on roads

first of all, bicyclists should not ride on the sidewalk, unless it has a path specifically designated for bikes (never in a residential area). that would be like driving a motorcycle 15-20mph down a pedestrian sidewalk; you could hit a pedestrian, or a child running off their front lawn, or a car that is backing out of a driveway.anyway, i really don't know where you are getting this because i never see bicyclists ride on the street when there is a bike path, unless they need to make a left turn or something, which is perfectly understandable and legal because it is unsafe to make a left from the right lane, and cars shouldnt go too fast around turns anyway so they arent being held up by any more than a couple seconds. i think you might be mistaking the bike lane for the door zone that is next to the bike lane. the door zone is off limits to cars AND bikes because people parked on the curb often tend to quickly open their door without checking behind them, which would cause an accident if you were driving in the door zone. plus, there is often a lot of dangerous debris on the side of the road.also, using a bicycle is much more friendly to the environment, and healthy, so they deserve their right to share the road.there are much more common problems that i see like bikes on the wrong side of the road, bikes on the sidewalk, and bikes going through red lights. sometimes i even see people doing all three of those things at the same time! i think anyone who rides a bike on the road should be required to get a bike riding license, so they know the rules of the road.
Bicyclists should not be allowed on roads

Bicyclists should not ride on the road, unless there isn't a bike path or sidewalk available. I live north of Houston in a town with an incredible amount of nice bike paths. Daily, I see people on mountain bikes slowly cruising along the road when there is an empty bike path just 10 feet to their right. Somebody please convince me why this is acceptable and "preferred" now a days, since so many people are telling me bicyclists shouldn't be on sidewalks/bike paths.
The Earth is not millions or billions of years old.

I looked and the website seems to only allow a round format. Email would work fine, afterwords you or I can copy and paste it in the online format for scoring. Are you okay with this format: I will be the affirmative for the claim Earth is billions of years old. I carry burden of proof. I will list my claims generally and you can identify which ones you disagree with (it may be the case you won't disagree with every claim I make and I do not want to bother providing evidence for claims that you do not find relevant). After you identify my claims that need evidence we can look at each claim individually and go back and forth until you or I are satisfied that we made all the points that we could regarding the claim and move on. I understand there is a bit of overlap in expectations from DDO and this format but there are little differences that help I think. Is this agreeable/understandable? If you would friend me or message me I can send you my email.
Jacob Zuma is president of South Africa

I must prove that Jacob Zuma is the president of South Africa. According to the The Presidency Republic of South Africa, Jacob Zuma is the president of South Africa. My opponent must prove that he isn't, but all he/she has said was that Jacob Zuma shouldn't be the president of South Africa. Therefore, all my opponent's arguments aren't relataed to the resolution of this debate.Having proved that Jacob Zuma is the president of South Africa, I win this debate.Vote Pro.[1] http://www.thepresidency.gov.za...
Abortion

"So what your saying is I can walk down the street and kill someone saying "o it's only a fetus and get away with it." No, because a person is a fetus. The difference and differenciation has already been settled in my argument that you completely ignored and dropped. "Non moving fetuses will become humans making it murder."Eggs are not alive and the same principle can be applied to them. Animals come out of eggs, yet we are happy with eating unfertilized eggs and generally refer to them as non-living [1]. "Most abortions damage the uterine and cervix." False. Abortions CAN damage the uterine and cervix but this is not all of the time and is not even most of the time [2]. Pregnancy can cause death and is more likely to cause death than an abortion. Under my opponent's logic does that not make pregnancy more immoral than abortion [3]? "Not only is abortion murder, it is self harm." Nope. Abortions are generally and in most cases, harmless to both the fetus (which cannot feel pain) and mother [2]."Many woman face depression thinking about the past." How do you quantify many? If it is a majority, then I'm afraid that you're wrong. The APA found that past studies claiming abortion causes depression and other mental health problems consistently failed to account for other risk factors, particularly a woman's medical history [4].Sources [1]http://www.ign.com...;[2]http://www.healthcaremagic.com...;[3]http://www.who.int...;[4]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Driving age should be raised to 21

The driving age should not be raised to 21. I can give one resounding reason why that would not work, most people of that age need a car for their daily lives, be it driving to work, needing a licence to drive a work vehicle, grocery shopping and many other daily actions where a use of a licence is needed. Also your reason peer pressure won't change when the person hits 21 it will just give them even more reason to celebrate and the friends who can't drive yet will still peer pressure them. Also if one of your views is safety then I can argue that right now, how is making making people wait longer to get their licence going to make roads safer when by that age as I pointed out they will need their licences more and will be more at risk because they would not have had the years of practice they would have before having gotten their licence at a younger age.
eggs are both fruit and vegatal

Henlo stinkies it is I the world leader in egg research. I have a masters degree in eggnog. I believe eggs are both fruit and vegatal becuaes when you plant a live chicken it grows into a vine which grows multiple large eggs which grow into chickens but when you plant a egg the yolk acts as a seed and grows a tree. this tree produces many eggs . harveyjason is my dad and i will avenge him. http://www.debate.org...
eggs are both fruit and vegatal

First of all, could you state a peer reviewed study that indicates you alleged facts are true? Or, if it is more convenient, could you at least give me a picture of an egg vine or egg tree? According to Google, a fruit is defined as, "The sweet and fleshy product of a tree or other plant that contains seed and can be eaten as food." An egg violates this definition on several counts. First, an egg comes from a chicken, and not a plant of any kind. Secondly, An egg contains no seed. No part in the egg could fit this description. The yolk? No, it is a lump of nutrients used to support the embryo. The allantois? No, it is a sac of blood vessels that allows for respiration and excretion. I"m sorry my friend, the egg is neither fruit nor vegetable. Vote Con!!! [1] Information on the egg based on: Exploring Creation with Biology, p. 497, Wile and Durnell, 2nd Edition, " 2005 Apologia Educational Ministries
Religion does more harm than good in this world.

I accept the weakness in my argument in the previous round, it is because of the way I presented it. I would like to make up for it now. Most religions has the history of not less than 2000 years like Christianity,Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Jainism etc.. According to CIA's World Factbook 2012 estimate there are only 9.66% non-religious and 2.01% atheists in total population of the world. Proportionately we can assume same percentage of religious population for the past( with slight changes). " Most religious practices intentionally force individuals to live morally acceptable lifestyles ...." " Religions are welfare organizations to the poor and are more efficient in their fight for poverty ...." " Religion upholds morally acceptable behavior in individuals especially in ...." With the grand history each religion has; with the majority of population being religious, there is slaughtering of man by man( most significant number which cannot be treated as shortcomings ) in the name of war and significant number of people are living in absolute poverty. so your argument religion upholds morality and fight poverty is invalid. If 2000 years is not sufficient for a religion to uphold morality, to fight poverty, then it can never do it. As far as my relation of terrorists and women rights to religion is.... If a person with the lust for power, misuse religion then that person should be blamed. But if millions of people agree with him and they are ready to die and kill others with morally taking support from scripture, then religion should be blamed. In some nations, the administration and judiciary is completely based on the scripture of their religion. In one such nation women is restricted in every thing to such extent that they cannot be considered as a witness to the rape committed on them, they need witnesses from males; they cannot marry of their wish. So, don't I have the right to blame religion as human being with some humanity still left after witnessing these incidents. The human nature has divided human beings into two-- man and woman. But religion has divided human beings into Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jains, Buddhists and many many other. But it didn't stop there, Christians are divided into Catholics and protestants; Hindus into shaivists and vaisnavites and many other; Muslims into shias and sunnis; Buddhism into four ; and so on. There is constant conflict between different sects of a religion often killing each other. Instead of bringing unity among people, divisions are created. This does more harm than good to humanity. There is every need in the present hour to develop ethics and morality separated from religion which can induce unity rather than divisions. There is significant contributions going on in this field from the philosophers across the world. Hope they succeed and these divisions created by religion fall apart before the strength of humanity.
Religion does more harm than good in this world.

Pro, do you suggest that religion has the answers to solve world hunger issues? I don't think so. Do you criticize religion for the occurance and negative impact of the two world wars? I believe that are arguments which are placed out of context (in terms of this debate) because they do not support your argument that religions do more harm than good in this world, instead they only point out the shortcomings of religions trying to help the hungry and also create peace in this world. All organisations with such goals, however, will have such shortcomings. I therefore disagree with your stance that religion is the main organisation to be blamed. On what authority do you relate a few terrorists' behaviour to any religion? With specific reference to the 9/11 attacks ofcourse. Take note that, while all the countries you mentioned above seem to be experiencing civil wars because of religion as the main issue, there is a much bigger issue at hand which is being ignored in this civil wars : the fight for political power! Certain people want their respective countries to be ran by members of their own religion, an ambitious call which is not supported by any religious scripts. When does people falsely use religion as a factor to gain support and control the MISLED, then any negativity which arises afterwards can be blamed on that person, not the religion. America is diverse, religion wise, but you see no such extreme behaviour, probably because the citizens are more informed that those in counntries where most of the people cannot even read their bibles. Pro, under what authority do you base your view that religious women have no rights? Lastly, wouldn't we both agree that an ocean is made up of many drops? the mere fact that there are life changing religious activities, all over the world, is (and I know I'm repeating this point) in an aggregate perspective,very positive.
Religion does more harm than good in this world.

Religion is intended to bring peace, morality ,unity and whatsoever required for mutual existence of one and all. But the history and the present happenings suggest a contradicting picture. Is there is no religion when there are more than 100 million casualties in the two world wars? Is there is no religion when 1.29 billion ( world bank report 2008 ) people of the world living in absolute poverty? Of course there are many religions and few has a history of more than 4000 years, witnessing the bloodshed and cries of hunger. The most saddest part of the religion is the solace a present day terrorist, responsible for 9/11, Mumbai attacks, violence in Kenya, Somalia, Afghanistan, middle east etc, find in its scripture. Con, your instances about the goodness of a religion in Canada and Middle East offer a drop in the ocean. A 11 year old girl Malala was attacked for supporting education to girls in a country called Pakistan which owns a religion as a state religion. The present picture of that country where there are no rights to women depicts a perfect example for saying religion does more harm than good.