BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap battle : Truth_seeker vs. ESocialBookworm

In response to my disses, i'm going to state facts Don't reply back if you don't have lyrically solid raps I have no idea why you named yourself ESocialBookworm When worms don't think, they squirm and they never learn You lack the confidence to raise a child, let alone be a mother So you never show your face, Muslim women are undercover In real life, your an insecure female in the need of a psychiatrist Cuz no one is afraid of a kid who barks, but practices non violence If I gave you a knife, you would not stab me Before me, you would cry a river, no - a sea That being said, I'm very disrespectful and relentless Stomping on a worm that's so weak, soft, and defenseless
Why the guy who said "you ain't no muslim bruv is a lying coward.

Thank you, donkal.Counter-ArgumentsBare AssertionThe opponent's entire argument is unreferenced, hence it has not been demonstrated that this incident occurred. Therefore, to affirm the resolution without necessary proof, is a bare assertion, of which is a logical fallacy. The opponent cannot affirm the resolution without demonstrating this event occurred [1].Assumed biological sexThe opponent assumes, perhaps with a cursory glance, that the person in question is a "guy".According to Dictionary.com, "guy" means: a man or boy [4]. Therefore, there is a masculine connotation with the word "guy". As shown in the documentary Brainwash, there are some people with genital ambiguity. According to the work of Trond Diseth of Oslo University, Trond is able to determine the biological sex of the person (baby, in his research) by seeing which toy the person gravitates to. If biological sex were able to be determined *always* without doubt, then such a test would not be necessary [2]. Hence, it is possible that the opponent talks of cannot be determined male or female with mere sight, and therefore the opponent must prove that the person is a "guy".False dichotomy: Brave-cowardThe opponent uses the logic that because the person was not brave, he therefore must be a coward. This is a false dichotomy, in that it is possible the person is not brave *and* not a coward. Hence, the opponent has created an argument which is underpinned with a logical fallacy [3].Induction: Labelling peopleIt is possible that the person him/herself is not a coward, and was only caught in a moment of cowardice. Moreover, what should be the standard be for the labelling of "coward?" The opponent suggests one act (if the opponent can prove it to be cowardice) is sufficient. If we take the opponent's standard, then people would, in all things, merely have to commit an act once in order to be considered consistent with it. For example, someone who loses his/her temper once should be considered angry thereafter. Another example: someone who aces a test is perfect. I think that, via Reductio ad Absurdum, the opponent"s standard of proof is shown to be far too lenient [5]. Due to these reasons, the opponent has not affirmed the resolution.References[1] http://dictionary.sensagent.com... [2] [3] http://www.philosophy-index.com... [4] http://dictionary.reference.com...[5] http://www.iep.utm.edu...
Why the guy who said "you ain't no muslim bruv is a lying coward.

Firstly, i want to point out that the man who said these words was a coward and was not brave, contrary to what a lot of people seem to think. He stood and filmed the attack while others stopped him and many others getting stabbed. Afterwards he shouted the line "you ain't no Muslim bruv" at the attacker who had just been tazered twice on the floor and was being held down by 2 police officers. Is this brave? NO. Of course no credit was given to the men who stopped the attacker but David Cameron thought it was an awesome thing to do to shout that at a man and not help.
That Islam is perfect...

As stated, I accept that islam is the perfect religion. And as quoted, I 've stated what I mean by that perfection. Yet my opponent claims that islam is imperfect. Thus it is the duty of my opponent to show that following the laws of islam does not lead to the best form of peace. Again, we are relating to islam, which derives from the qur'an and sunnah. Thus any law in which my opponent claims leads to imperfection when establishing peace must come from the qur'an or sunnah. I await his response.
That Islam is perfect...

Hello debaters. After a heated exchange with my opponent I've decided to put it to you, the people on who has the stronger argument. I purpose that Islam is NOT PERFECT. I purpose that Islam is IMPERFECT. I am using definitions (http://dictionary.reference.com...): 2) ...excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement. 3) ....exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain purpose 4) ...entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings 8) ...unqualified; absolute If my opponent does not agree to these definitions, we can discuss them in the comment section until we come to an agreement. Based on my opponents comment in the "Propaganda: Why attach it to Islam" forum: "Coming to islam, by perfection, I am saying that islam is the most perfect way of life in establishing peace when it's laws are followed. This is the perfection being claimed. Hope that this is much more clearer...", I don't think he should have any problems with the definitions I have given. We will start our debate in round 2. I look forward to ending this debate. Thank you.
That Islam is perfect...

Now, lets get into my final round rebuttals and conclusion. ". .. You see, it is the responsibility of my opponent to show a law from the qur'an which does not lead to peace and why. .. " ". .. at no time does he explain or give any sound logic as to how the verses do not establish peace. .. " ". .. The fact that he couldn't expound on the verses in which he quoted is evidence from his own words themself that there is no law in islam which does not establish peace. .. " ". .. every verse in which my opponent quoted are punishments for wrong doing. .. " And it goes on and on. .. ". .. I wonder what my opponent would consider be done to a person who rapes or steals or murders. Do you suggest we prescrible for them milk and cookies for their actions? .. ." and on. .. ". .. In short, my opponent failed to produce any law from the qur'an which is not perfect in establishing peace. .. " I strongly beg to differ. First of all, the quotes which I used in round two all directly point NOT at "wrong-doers", but at disbelievers. Herein lies the problems with this entire debate. My opponent is a Muslim. He will not go to an eternal pit of fire when he dies. However, according to the Qu'ran I will because I do not believe that Allah exists. Which is why I have continually stressed the definition of the word "PERFECT". If your laws do not improve the lives (and afterlives) of non-Muslims(ie. wrong-doers), that is a flaw. The second point I'd like to stress concerns my opponents repeated use of the word "establish". Does he know what this word means? Let me refresh his memory. .. Establish: "to found, institute, build, or bring into being on a firm or stable basis" Let us forget the word "Perfect" for a minute. .. Just ask yourself: What is a better way to bring about peace, violence or non-violence? CLEARLY, it is non-violence. So if there is a better way of bringing about peace than violence(ie. fighting) how can it be the 'perfect way of establishing peace'. .. The same could also clearly said for maintaining peace. Violence is not the perfect way, I don't care how many times my opponent says it and I'm sure any reasonable person will agree with me. Misinterpret: "to interpret, explain, or understand incorrectly. " If something is subject to such gross misinterpretation as the Qu'ran, it is not perfect. I've stressed this point enough. My opponents second last paragraph in round three is again about fighting and peace. I have already addressed this. I'll reiterate in my conclusion. FINAL CONCLUSIONS: -The Qu'ran is subject to gross misinterpretation, thus it is not perfect. -The Qu'ran and the acts of the prophet Mohammad are full of violence and killing. Violence and killing are not peaceful. -Violence is not the PERFECT way of establishing OR maintaining peace. -The Qu'ran does not look kindly on non-Muslims, which I see as a flaw. If it has a flaw then it is not perfect. -Buddhism is much more peaceful than Islam. I feel over the course of this debate I have shown these five points to be very much true. I look forward to seeing my opponents final round arguments.
We should give money to Africa

Obviously we both recognize that Africa is in need of help, but to argue that we should worry about our own problems first is selfish of a nation like the US. You and many other politicians seem to think that if we help Africa our country will spend too much money and crash into a recession. Hello? The debt right now is 9.1 trillion dollars, if you think that say 500 million dollars to Africa is going to start a recession and take away from our own health care think again. Look at how much the government waste by pork barrel spending: 1. $13,500,000 for the International Fund for Ireland , which helped finance the World Toilet Summit 2.$100,000,000 added by the House for the Even Start program 3. $1,000,000 million for a controversial new city swimming pool in Banning, California 4. $1,500,000 University of Mississippi in Oxford, MS for the construction of the William Faulkner Museum 5. $50 million for an indoor rain forest in Iowa 6.$1 million to aid in the search for extraterrestrial aliens Wow, who would want to help Africa when we can find out more about aliens and build rainforest's? Anyone! Before congress ever decided to cut off our aid to Africa they would cut down on pork barrel spending. Now on to the topic of my opponent trying to disprove that private organizations can't help. 1. The Bill and Melinda gates foundation works with PEPFAR and USAIDS to reach the people in Africa. 2. Baby Friendly hospitals~ The Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative ( BFHI ), launched in 1991, is an effort by UNICEF and the World Health Organization to ensure that all maternities,whether free standing or in a hospital, become centers of breastfeeding support. 3. bednets/ malaria treatment~ Malaria begins with a mosquito bite at night while children and families sleep. For over one million children a year it ends with death. But it doesn't have to be that way. A simple long lasting insecticide treated bed net can protect a child or several children from malaria for up to five years! finally, it is the US responsibility. All of the programs that I listed our US based and funded. No other initiative has trumped what the US is doing in Africa.
We should give money to Africa

I apologize that my initial argument was weak and non specific. In answer to the poverty argument. Yes, there are poor and needy people in the United States, but the difference between the poor in the US and the poor in Africa, is that in the US we have no reason not to get up and find ourselves a job. The official poverty rate in the US in 2006 was 12.3 percent, down from 12.6 percent in 2005. Meaning that slowly the US is already getting back on track. But in Sub-Saharan Africa the number of people in extreme poverty rose to almost 320 million, and they now make up over a quarter of the global total. Wow, say the US needed 10 years to get it's economy back to a surplus, or even a somewhat decent state of spending. But in 7 years or 2015,90 percent of those still in extreme poverty would be in the sub-Saharan Africa. Since we're now mostly debating poverty, poverty is one of the number one killers in third world countries. Poverty leads to starvation and malnutrition, which is silently killing the children of Africa. Malnutrition in children often begins at birth, when poorly nourished mothers give birth to underweight babies. Malnourished children develop more slowly, enter school later, and perform less well. Programs to encourage breastfeeding and to improve the diets of pregnant and lactating mothers help. So do appropriate care and feeding of sick children, oral dehydration therapy, control of parasitic diseases, and programs to treat vitamin A deficiency. This is what the United States money would go to. Not the corrupt governments, not the military, or the rebels, but the people in need of help. It would go to private organizations, baby-friendly hospitals, crisis centers, disease research, bed nets, water sanitation, and most importantly education. Our money would go to help the people in Africa understand how to live healthy lives, and provide for their children.
We should give money to Africa

In Africa, 1 in 3 children are orphaned because of aids (about 14 million) o By 2010 there will be an estimated 44 million v ï¿½ of the world lives on less than $2 a day v 30,000 kids die each day just due to poverty v In 2006, there were approximately 160,000 Christians martyred or killed for their faith v 6,000 people will die TODAY in Africa o That is 2 times the number of people that died on 9/11 How can we look at these statistics and say nuke Africa or just let them die, there's no hope. We morally can't. Did you know that the US receives 2/3 of it's oil from Africa, therefore refusing to help would lead to political conflict. Your turn.
Abortion should be legal

Legal abortion is one of those topics that I see necessary for a functioning society where everyone is equal. I see many people arguing against it which saddens me to see, because is it not the right of a woman to have control over her own body? Is it not her choice to decide what to do with it? In the US, a survey was made asking the American people what their opinions on abortion was - 51% thought that it should be legal in mostly all cases, while 43% opposed, thinking it should be illegal (1). These stats have remained relatively stable and of course, the fact that 51% thinks it a positive thing, there is still 43% remaining. This does not even include what the people think is morally right and wrong. Only a meek 15% thinks that it is morally right! (1) To me, this is almost outrageous. Especially religious people seem to think that it is morally wrong to have an abortion, which makes me wonder. As a Christian, I see God as an important figure in my life too. But I think He would not wish for some to be oppressed and to be in pain for something they do not wish. The pain goes to both the pregnant woman and to the child! Why should she suffer 9 months to give birth to a child that she would not want? Is it being said that it is better for a child to be left to die, rather than to lose it's life before it becomes a conscious being, thus not inflicting harm? At the best in the cases where the woman have the child despite her wishes, they might be left in an orphanage to wait, possibly for many years in our already crowded homes for orphans. At worst, they will be left to die. Recently, the issue is brought up again which is a start and we are moving in the right direction. However, I think it wrong that all the states of the US have not yet collectively decided that this is an actual issue, because it is. Many people get abortions - And they will continue to, even when it is illegal! The only difference is, that since it will then have to be done in secret or with the fear of being found out, it will be much more dangerous for the woman. If medicines, and medical students and doctors cannot offer what they need to help and give the correct procedure to the patient, it could cause permanent damage, perhaps even death to her. So, Con, I am open to hear your arguments - Whatever you have to propose, I am listening.
I will not contradict myself

Thank you, Phoebe, for those amazing answers. 11. Do you find any man attractive? 12. Do you love me? 13. Are you a neocon? 14. Do you believe the motives of the United States in Vietnam were justified? 15. Are you altruistic? 16. Are you misanthropic? 17. Do you enjoy the company of people? 18. Do you believe your sister is a crackhead? 19. Do you think Gregory is a good name for a male? 20. Do you like people who do drugs?
I will not contradict myself

;) 1. Do you listen to Miley Cyrus? 2. Do you agree with Karl Marx on anything? 3. Do you like Barack Obama? 4. Can God create anything? 5. Can God life everything? 6. Can God create something he cannot lift? 7. Do you believe humans should act in accordance to their biological imperatives? 8. Do you believe it is dumb when guys act territorial over a girl? 9. Do you eat meat? 10. Do you believe everything has a right to life?
I will not contradict myself

I stand in affirmation to the resolution, "I will not contradict myself in this debate." contradict- to assert the contrary or opposite of http://dictionary.reference.com...... Rules: 1. In Rounds 1-4, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions. 2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes or No, or with an explanation as to why neither Yes nor No would be completely correct or appropriate. 3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers. 4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over. 5. If CON ever fails to ask PRO exactly ten Yes/No questions when necessary, CON automatically loses. 6. If PRO ever fails to answer every question asked in the previous round by the rules, PRO automatically loses. 7. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself, PRO wins. 8. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself, PRO loses. 9. Because sources are irrelevant to this debate, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. Good luck, Jenny ;)
I will not contradict myself

I'd like to make some grammatical changes to some error I've made. "and look fDo yorward to this debate" should be and look forward to this debate. "Can God life everything? " I meant to say lift. In 26 when I said ,"Do you IB benefits people? " I meant to say do you think IB benefits people. My opponent has contradicted herself. In response to question 21 she says that she is for gay Americans to receive the same rights as straight Americans. However, she is for civil unions. Civil Unions do not provide gay Americans the same rights as straight Americans. In question 15 she states that she is altruistic yet she also states that she can be malevolent. Malevolence and altruism are antonyms, thus she has contradicted herself. :)
I will not contradict myself

21. Do you believe gay Americans should receive the same rights as heterosexual Americans? 22. Does my cat ever cause you physical harm? 23. Do you enjoy the cello? 24. Would you listen to the Barney song? 25. Would you go to a discotheque? 26. Do you IB benefits people? 27. Do you do things that benefit yourself? 28. Are you malevolent? 29. Do you cheat at board games? 30. Do you believe Alexander Nevarez possesses an unnecessary evil?
Women rely heavily on the opinions of others in selecting a companion.

My opponent again claims that his hypothesis is true for 'most' women. This seems to be based on established stereotypes that one might find on television or movies. As we all know, television and movies are often incorrect in their depictions of reality. As there are many different types of people, so too are there many different types of women. Within these 'types' are varying degrees of emphasis place on 'status', and I would contend that most of them have a lower degree than my opponent suggests. He cites as evidence the 'fact' that most women would respond to the question of 'who they really dress up for when going out' with 'for other women'. This is, again, a broad generalization at best. I wonder from where this 'fact' was gathered, television and movies? Real human interaction shows us that people cannot be categorized into such broad generalizations. Are most black people rappers? Are most Chinese people good at math? The same answer applies to 'Are most women interested primarily in status?'. Lastly, my opponent does not seem to take non-capitalist cultures into account. Capitalist women make up a fraction of the approximately 3.3 billion women of the world.
Women rely heavily on the opinions of others in selecting a companion.

As with most generalizations, this statement is simply not true for many (if not most) females. I would counter that a similar trend can be found in males." Generalization are usually untrue when they are are applied to ALL of a particular group. I say I am generalized precisely to avoid that scenario. I am not saying that all women do this. Many do not. I am speaking of women in general. "To put as much emphasis on status completely ignores the many women that form a 'romantic alliance' with someone perceived as belonging to a lower 'status'; who abandon their network for a 'romantic alliance'" Again, I am not completely ignoring those who value other criteria. I am only speaking of most women. Women seek so much more than physical attraction in men, whereas men rely heavily on physical attraction to select a woman. How they are perceived by other women is a measure of their personal status and is an important motive for selecting the right man. For example, if you ask women who they really dress up for when going out, most will admit it is primarily for "for other women." Why is it better to send a woman flowers at work versus to her home? I would submit that it is because the other women in the office will envy her (and her relationship). They will also be happy to admit it, knowing the value of such an acknowledgement.
Women rely heavily on the opinions of others in selecting a companion.

As with most generalizations, this statement is simply not true for many (if not most) females. I would counter that a similar trend can be found in males. Certainly approval within her network is a contributing factor (to varying degrees) as to whether a 'romantic alliance' will be formed and maintained, but you lend too much weight to the question. 'Personal status' from those outside of a person's social circle carry even less weight (in most cases). As you mentioned, physical attraction is an important aspect, as well as personal 'chemistry', common interest, and many others. To put as much emphasis on status completely ignores the many women that form a 'romantic alliance' with someone perceived as belonging to a lower 'status'; who abandon their network for a 'romantic alliance'; and who form a new network beginning with their 'romantic alliance'. Also, different age groups will have generally varied emphasis on status when selecting a mate.
Women rely heavily on the opinions of others in selecting a companion.

I'm generalizing of course. But guys, if you want to ruin your chances with a female (regardless of how attracted she is to you physically) just find a way to make sure her friends disapprove of you. The perceived personal status that would result from a prospective romantic alliance weighs heavily on a woman's decision to select or reject a man. Do not confuse my claim to mean women will only seek men with fame, fortune or good looks to increase their status. Depending on a woman's peer group, there are many attributes, including humor and intellegence, that will garner their approval-- and in many cases envy. There is no better aphrodisiac for a woman than to know she is envied by other women. I realize this is a better topic for discussion than debate, so comments are welcome.