BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Lyricism 101 - #1: 30 Bars

Astronomical observations'll let us bear witness to the star of David (1) The morning star which gave us light from the life that he traded (2) Cuz he's running his father's business, hence the living proof Restoring us to the Adamic paradise to see the naked truth Prophetically, there's a beast from the east, In the West there's a feastAttentively, I set my eyes north from a fiery hell, that's why i left Greece Jesus descended to the center of the world, precisely why he's near east (3) Demons beheaded when he ascended unto the heavens, a High priest Truth is relative because i'm in submission to a king who's reign is absolute Learning from the real teacher of God, that's why i never have a substitutePhilo (4) was in a philosophical root, i'm a new recruit to the theological attribute That's why i pay my respects when i pay tribute to the one with endless magnitude Introspectively searching for a new perspective, projective of a new identity imperceptibly, i'm awaiting to be perfected, protective of my own integrity Philosophically ponderin' n' plunderin' wanderin' n' wonderin', blunderin' Periodically Psychologically sufferin', smotherin' n' conquerin', wanderin' slumberin' physiologically Chronologically castin' crowns on cryin' Christ, cuz i critically create a celibate causality Theologically trashin' towns as i'm tryin' twice to typically translate a testament totality Have i been so selfish that my heart's like shellfish? Nas exists (5), but emcees narcissistsTryna to lyrically mimic the lyricist, make deliveries that kill beats n' leave no carcasses Concentrate on creatively expressin' the blessin', tonality trashin' turbos, lot of turbulence Stick to the fundamental: fund the mental, use riches to find potential Count your blessings n' if you fall short, no worries, the rest is providential That's what why must unite then we'll be unified, this is a unified theory A man and his wife must dwell within purity, prototypical when you marry Each individual must freely give as they contribute to this ecosystem Because it's an equal system, a never ending seasonal circular rhythm Like Romans, we seek Romanticism, no romance, lets show passion of the ChristLets affirm this covenant, may we never be divided, seal it by the meat that's sliced Love is demonstrated when the soul has violated his life, as God provides his sacrifice Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. Jesus called a morning star Rev. 22:16 "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this message for the churches. I am both the source of David and the heir to his throne. I am the bright morning star."3. http://en.wikipedia.org...4. http://en.wikipedia.org...; 5. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Lyricism 101 - #1: 30 Bars

Rules-Not a troll debate-No Purple Circles-No DDO Character Avatars-Must have an uploaded pic as avatar-30 bars/lines-Con post his/her 30 in R1-Con passes R2 with "Acceptable Pass"Voting-Select a Winner-the best display of rap lyricism.-FF is automatic vote for other opponent-trolling is automatic vote for other opponentLyricism What is lyricism?-an intense personal quality expressive of feeling or emotion in an art (as poetry or music) http://www.merriam-webster.com...-the practice of writing verse in song form rather than narrative form to embody the poet’s thoughts and emotions http://www.thefreedictionary.com...-It’s saying what your saying in a creative way. It’s the format of which your concept is presentedhttp://genius.com...-A "lyricist" to me is someone who focuses their energy on making good lyrics. I don't think lyricists necessarily hafta have a real nice flow or a good rhyme scheme. With lyricists, it's more about the use of poetic devices, the cleverness in their wordplay.http://rapmusic.com...Example:Not lyricism: Soulja Boy up in it (OH!) Watch Me Lean And Watch Me Rock Super Man Dat (OH!) Then Watch Me Crank Dat Robocop lyricism: Cause in my physical, I can express through song Delete stress like Motrin, then extend strong I drank Moet with Medusa, give her shotguns in hell From the spliff that I lift and inhale, it ain't hard to tell https://answers.yahoo.com...Put applications in Comments or in a PM.
It is right to say that America should have never become involved in Iraq's affairs

Although, you have once again made a very good point. We must realise that this is sometimes the best decision. It is true, that in dark points in history like the holocaust - many people would say that we should have been involved, because it would have saved the lives of many people, but we must remember that Germany has rebuilt itself and is now a strong country once more. If we give a country enough time it will rebuild itself, and start 'the healing process' - all we have done by sending American soldiers in is killed people who didn't deserve to die! Lets face, we haven't got anywhere since we sent the troops out there! The question we should be asking, is are we ever going to get anywhere?
It is right to say that America should have never become involved in Iraq's affairs

If an acquaintance of yours were dying in front of you, would you not get involved in their affairs? The same can be said with Iraq, a country is perishing right in front of the US and it is difficult to just watch it die. If we helped Iraq we could of gained a friend and made a perishing country successful. So Americas president George W. Bush thought that all this would be good to gain just by going to Iraq's aide.
It is right to say that America should have never become involved in Iraq's affairs

Although this is a good point, there has never been any evidence of 'weapons of mass destruction'. Regardless though, is it not true to say that, Iraq would have never 'attacked' America or the allies unless provoked? I do not see Iraq lashing out towards countries in Africa, and why? - because they never provoked Iraq. I am not talking about whether America should get involved now, I am debating whether America should have got involved when Iraq was facing problems. Yes, it is a theory that George Bush 'invaded' Iraq because of Oil, and this would have been a sufficient argument to stop me from starting this debate, but the problem, however, is that there is little or no evidence that Big Oil, (Such as the oil in Iraq) an extremely cautious beast in the global corporate menagerie, favoured a war. There is especially no evidence that the U.S wanted anything to do with Iraq's oil supplies. Particularly because that risked destabilizing the world's most oil-rich region, especially Saudi Arabia and the emirates, and this is not what the U.S wants, no country wants to destroy another! I still believe and have always believes the reason troops were deployed out to Iraq was to help with their issues, such as the unstable government, and my question is was it right to help? I think not, because we have involved ourselves in something we did need to.. Yes, people may say that 'If we didn't 'invade' we would have been bombed!' Well, to be honest I don't know whether this is true, it could be, but if we hadn't provoked Iraq in some way there would be no danger of that whatsoever, and surely provoking them is getting involved in their affairs, and we shouldn't have done it!
It is right to say that America should have never become involved in Iraq's affairs

George W. Bush sent troops into Iraq for a reason we are not sure of. All the lies he has told lead to an unclear reason why there are troops in Iraq. The lies have ranged from Saddam having links to 9/11 to Iraq having nuclear weapons that they were going to use on us and our allies. So if the reason why are troops are in Iraq is unclear then we have no right to say that it is not right to say that we should have not gone to Iraq.
It is right to say that America should have never become involved in Iraq's affairs

To start this debate off, I would just like to pose a question.. Was it right for George W Bush to send American troops into Iraq? This question has raised much controversy, and it is understandable why. Many people have different opinions on it, this is very dependant on whether you believe in a bigger picture, or if you look at an individual. I believe, that George Bush, could not have been more wrong, sending American troops to Iraq. It is true, that it was done with great intentions, George Bush wanted Iraq to be able to build up its own government, creating a stable foundation, on which the 'new' Iraq would be built. Although this is a grand fantasy, is it really all that plausible? Is it not fair to say that Iraq is responsible for its own fall? Why should the USA get involved in their affairs, it is true to say that Iraq have 'lashed' out on numerous occasions towards the US, but this is because they were provoked, would they have lashed out unless there was a reason? - No, they would not! So therefore, to say that if the USA had not become involved in Iraq's affairs, we would not be facing this problem now. Why not adopt the policy of isolationism once more? Was that not successful?
It is right to say that America should have never become involved in Iraq's affairs

What does the holocaust have to do with this? The US true was late in stopping the holocaust but they at least helped at the end. Yes, this is a black mark on US history and I am greatly upset by the US's actions for I myself am Israeli. Our government is currently as we speak trying to get our troops out of Iraq. It shall take time but something IS happening. But, pro your comment "If we give a country enough time it will rebuild itself" cannot be proven so therefore is an incorrect fact and cannot be played in this debate. We cannot tell what the future will be and during the time troops were sent it was a good idea.
Mixed martial arts / Ultimate Fighting Championship

The International Sport Combat Federation (ISCF) has very many medical and physical requirements that must be met before a fighter may compete. This includes, but is not limited to: a physcial examination and blood work (to show the fighter has no transmittable diseases or any performance-enhancing drugs (PED tests are before and after the bout)). The fighter must also be declared 'medically fit' by a doctor before he is allowed to compete. There are many more requirements involved, which you may look up here: http://www.iscfmma.com... The average Joe may not simply waltz up to the cage, get handed a pair of gloves and mouth price, and start going at it. There are many requirements that must be met. I agree, street fighters are not martial artists, and street fighting is not a martial arts competition. The sport of MMA has very skilled athletes who are dedicated to their disciplines. There is a certain degree of brutality; but this is present in almost all contact sports. If a fighter is not well trained he will not be able to compete at the level of the other competitors. A prime example of this was Kimbo Slice. Slice was a very accomplished street brawler, but did terrible in the UFC. MMA is not at all about brutality; it is about skill, finesse and knowledge of the sport.
Mixed martial arts / Ultimate Fighting Championship

I disagree, according to founder Rorion Gracie, the Ultimate Fighting Championship was to determine which Martial Art was most practical, effective, and useful in a real fight. http://www.mmafighting.com... Gracie Jiu-Jitsu took the tournaments by storm. The game evolved into what we watch on TV today as fighters added new styles to their game. As an avid Mixed Martial Arts practitioner, I must disagree with your statement of MMA being "Barbaric and not martial arts at all." It is a science that must be learned, studied, and reviewed constantly. If you are lax in your training, or have no knowledge of the sport you will face the consequences.
Mixed martial arts / Ultimate Fighting Championship

Does anyone else think that mixed martial arts and ultimate fighting is just barbaric and not martial arts at all? Have you read the sign up waiver they will let anyone fight even people that watch the show and think they are martial artists. I am against every aspect of mixed martial arts and I find it disgraceful to true martial arts. Because it's just a bunch of immature mindless zombies following a new trend thinking it's cool because there is blood and you can beat someone up. UFC and MMA is for immature belligerent bourgeoisies . I am against ufc and mma because it shows the true intelligence of the people that are fans and the people that actually fight in the sport wannabe. UFC is just pointless it's like watching queer eye for the straight guy except you can't tell who the straight guy is.
Pedophilia is not a sin

"Pedophilia =/= lust."That you believe pedophilia to not be a form of lust, is your opinion which you have given no supporting evidence to back up."Children are harmed..."A decent attempt at a pathos appeal (emotions), yet such was never in question. Thus irrelevant to this debate."...age 25."Utterly irrelevant. Doubly so since the resolution was changed to one you could more easily support of "the Christian God does not prohibit a marriage between a 30 year old and a 10 year old." Now saying that anyone having relations (perhaps limited to marriage) with someone under 25 (say 24) is a pedophile, seems to really "not compute here."Conclusion:My argument of the seven deadly sins stands. According to the bible lust is a sin, in the case of pedophilia that's two sins within the ever-popular seven deadly ones [7]. As legally marriage must be consummated at least once, lust is a required factor within it. Pedophiles are therefore of the worst sinners.
Pedophilia is not a sin

Now that we have a clear goal for this debate, let us begin (my comment section suggestion, would have saved you a round, giving you more time to make a case).The Seven Deadly Sins.From the biblical book of Proverbs 6:16-19: "These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:" It goes on to specify both "hands that shed innocent blood," and "an heart that deviseth wicked imaginations" [7]. These both fit the definitions of a man bedding a little girl, as it would both require a heart full of wicked imaginations, and almost certainly the shedding of innocent blood.Sources:[7] http://www.biblegateway.com...
Pedophilia is not a sin

"Sin: Something God tells us not to do"I find this simplified definition acceptable (from the source I provided, there were also religiously toned meanings). Shall I assume this debate shall be over the Christian God? Or religions in general? Or is there a different one you have in mind?"Pedophilia: Marriage between someone under 18 years old and someone who is more than 2 years older than them."I disagree with this definition, mainly due to specifying such a late age for children. Please cite a dictionary.More Definitions: Children are "a young person especially between infancy and youth" [4]. Youth is "the time of life when one is young; especially: the period between childhood and maturity" [5]. The exact age of maturity varying person to person, but each culture has expectations on when it should be archived by. Generally I view children as pre-pubescent, and youths as usually teenagers. "In several US States, you can marry someone below age 18."The United States is a democratic-republic, instead of a theocracy. Thus the source cited is irreverent so long as your definition for Sin is to remain religious."There is no real minimum age for marriage in Pennsylvania"Semantically true. From US Marriage Laws "Applicants under 16 years of age must have both the written approval of a judge of the Orphans' Court Division of the Common Pleas AND a parent or legal guardian given written consent" [6]. Is this debate to be changed to focus on the judgement of the Orphans' Court Division? Also what cases call their judgement on this into question?"Saudi Arabia"A valid argument only if the definitions are selected which match that nation.Suggestion:To give you rounds to build your case, we may want to use the comment section to narrow down definitions.Sources:[4] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[5] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[6] http://www.usmarriagelaws.com...
Pedophilia is not a sin

I am not sure if I have the right words for the following definitions. You may correct me if I'm wrong. Pedophilia: Marriage between someone under 18 years old and someone who is more than 2 years older than them. Sin: Something God tells us not to do. In several US States, you can marry someone below age 18. http://pbump.net... There is no real minimum age for marriage in Pennsylvania and Saudi Arabia.
Pedophilia is not a sin

As Con it is my job to refute your arguments, and when possible present my own case against the resolution. If you have any questions about the debate process, please use the comment section (to include if you spot fallacies, but don't know their names [1]). Definitions (key to all debates, as pro and con must be clearly arguing the same issue):According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary. .. Pedophilia is "sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object" [2]. Sin is "an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible sin to waste food>" [3]. (as in instigator pro is welcome to challenge these, taking from any respected dictionary of his choosing)"Minimum age[s]. .. " (to clarify points, headings taken from the other sides own words are great)In most counties there are minimum ages for marriage (arranged marriages not being consummated until adulthood) and sexual consent. This includes national theocracies. Is there a certain area of the world pro wishes to argue? Sources (the numbering shall continue forward into future rounds, for ease of reference):[1] . http://www.informationisbeautiful.net...[2] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Emoji are Taking Over the World

My opponent stated, "People can write whole songs in emojis." Not only is that an excessive hyperbole but it is just not possible to write a whole grammatically correct song in emojis. Now, referring back to the early dates of the Internet, back in the early 2000s. Let's pick the specific year 2007. 2007 was the year where AOL was very popular and well-known among those who used the Internet. Though AOL was initially released in 1997, the early 2000s were the years where AOL got its jumpstart. AOL was an instant messaging system that had the ability to connect you with almost anyone internationally, nationally, and locally. Now, AOL may seem a bit irrelevant considering this topic is based solely on emojis, but the earliest form of emojis was the basic and simple, " :D, xD, :(, :), etc.." Not many children born in the 2000s remember this "Golden Era of the Internet." But I do, simply because I was born in the early 2000s. Back to my initial statement, those "early-emojis" are still used on many games. Now, let's think for a second, when people used the early form of emojis excessively, no one would think twice to censure them, but now why is it such a big deal? My opponent stating, "Emojis are Taking Over the World," as a statement only really shows how mature they are. Emojis can be used or not used. Emojis are funny emoticons, if you don't like them, just simply install them off your mobile device. As simple as "1-2-3.'
Emoji are Taking Over the World

My opponent started off by saying that society does not look down on those who use emoji. Yes, it is fine for people to use them, but it really gets out of hand when others are using them for EVERY. SINGLE. LITTLE. THING. Some of these emoji-ers (which I define as the term for those who use emoji excessively) have to add ten or twenty emoji to every sentence. Which brings me to my first point: Emoji are everywhere. They are in songs, in TV, in almost every chat system imaginable... Face it. They're everywhere. People can't stop using them. My second point is that people can stop, but they won't. It's fine to use some, but, seriously, some people go overboard. People can write whole songs in emoji!
Emoji are Taking Over the World

Emojis are emoticons that express feelings of joy, happiness, sadness, depression, etc.. I do not believe with the statement that 'Emojis Are Taking Over The World." Emojis aren't harmful to anyone. Unless you're that type of person that gets itchy about anything, discernibly, this website isn't for your mindset. If you're 16 and below, emojis are acceptable by you. Society approves of your use of emojis. I don't see why people who are 18+ are looked down upon for using the uncontrollable laughter emoji. Many people don't posses creativity with words and your language. So let's say for a particular instance that "Sarah" was texting her friend "Karen" about how the professor in Spanish 101 was talking. Sarah thought it was funny. So she texts Karen, "Haha." "Haha" is an ambiguous statement. People could interpret it as saying, "Oh she's being sarcastic." or "She doesn't think it's really funny." So let's say using the specified example characters previously, Sarah texts, "Haha. (uncontrollable laughter emoji.)" People will automatically know that she's laughing and that she thinks that the topic is something that is hilarious. Emojis are emoticons that add onto/express even more in detail to what you're talking about. For someone to say that there are too many emojis and that they're supposedly "taking over the world." Really it does illustrate your maturity ranking. That's like saying there is a rapidly producing number of cats and that you must execute all the cats that are known to Earth's surface. Emojis were created for a specific purpose and they are being used to fulfill that particular purpose.
GMOs

I want voting privileges on this website so somebody please debate me on the topic of GMOs! I would love for a Con to maybe present ideas I hadn't previously thought of or even make me reconsider my point of view. Here are only 3 arguments (for the sake of brevity), which I believe stem from science, empirical evidence, and logic. I can provide more sources for each point if Con wants. 1. GMOs have been proven by numerous independently-funded, long-running studies to be relatively safe. 2. Human beings would not be able to maintain our current food supplies without the use of GMOs. They are the only way we are able to sustain a population growing at such exponential rates. 3. GMOs have benefited us in various ways. Examples of this include genetically modified yeast that produces omega-3 fatty acid, healthier crops with more vitamins, crops that are more resistant to weeds/diseases/insects, crops that grow faster and produce food that lasts longer, etc. That's it for now, good luck! Sources - https://www.washingtonpost.com... - https://classes.soe.ucsc.edu... - https://www.washingtonpost.com... - https://www.nature.com... - I can provide more sources if Con wants.
Taxes Are Stealing

Good luck. --I will begin with my rebuttal to the points you have brought up. "For instance, there are a lot of people out there that are hooked on drugs and sponging off of the government to live, rather than trying to make an effort to sober up and be a productive member of society. " --While this is an unpleasent side effect of the system of welfare, it is not the Government's intent to allow freeloaders to "sponge" off of the system. This would go against their interests. If you look at the definition again, you will see that it is necessary to establish intent to do wrong in order to argue this side of the issue. "Also, jails and prisons. I feel that since we are spending all of this money on having these inmates in jails and prisons that we should at the very least make a better effort to rehabilitate them, so that when they are released there is a greater chance of them not returning to the facilities. " --Jails and prisons keep a large percentage of criminals off of the streets. Although a rehabilitation program would do *more* good, it is not needed. A rehabilitation program would also cost even more taxpayer money. --I would argue that paying taxes is no more being stolen from then paying rent. If you do not like the fact that you have to pay it then move.