BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap/Poetry Battle: Secular/Atheist versus Christian

Ima break the trend from my previous battles and take this sht to a serious level This girl is trying to convince us that God exists, hell she even believes in the devil Explain to me why we should believe in something with no evidence to back up its claims The only evidence for a God is circumstantial, and if you believe that sht you should be ashamed Belief in a deity is some medevil sht, and we should have outgrew that type of faith years ago Let me explain why science has all the answers, and hell ima even do it using some flow In ages past people had never heard of the big bang, and they even thought that the earth was flat As science progressed these beliefs were brought in the true light, and everyone acknowledged that. Now we know a cosmic explosion was the start of everything and the reason that all life exists. That is one answer science gave us , and that is just one answer on an endless list We now know that the earth round and for all practical reasons we accept that is true We also know the earth is older than 6 thousand years,so are you starting to see what science can do The catholic church used to kill people for preaching the earth was flat and they discarded evolution Now even the pope believes in evolution and the rest of the churches beliefs are in question, it literally is dilution So when you look at it practically the church is making the scripture adapt to science, in some forms that is pollution There is a practical way to solve all this and that is cut out the middle ground and just turn to science as a solution Christ didn't die for me, hell he never even was the son of God This stuff this girl is preaching is almost a crime in science, its literally fraud If you commit your lives to God "you wont waste them", is what shes trying to preach Living your life how you want should be encouraged , do anything that is morally permissible and within reach The bible teaches us to follow a tyrant, and live by faith alone I live by facts, truth , and evidence, I will never worship someone on an invisible throne. God never came to earth to die for our sins for that he would have to exist My advice is live life how you want without fear of someone non existent plot twist.
Rap/Poetry Battle: Secular/Atheist versus Christian

Hey everyone it's Mikal versus Jasper Neither of us are gonna use the terms Mistress or Mister Mikal be like "bring it on" and Jasper says 'don't be sinister' Even though I'm a girl I got sense, I put it in to words--you got a whole twister. This is the story of a person I know real well I'm not famous but I aim to be pretty swell Don't mind my yell Because the words got a message with a heart-ringin' bell. Yo...I lay in bed, my body covered with yarn and a sheet Trying hard to think but all my thoughts are incomplete I look out the window, I see a person and I hear my heart beat The night is dark, can't see much but a shadow and some feet. Nobody hears me scream In my grave it's all serene Life is just my conscience and me But since it's over it's Hell or Heaven in eternity... ...let it be...cuz the only thing that's workin' is if I let life control me I remember a time when my boyfriend looked me in the eye He asked me "are you going to be with Jesus when you die?" I thought I knew the answer but I didn't reply 'Mnot one for talking, I was always kinda shy. Then it happened--inexplicable--my arms started flappin, I thought I was high My boyfriend said "What's your goal: earthly items or treasure in the sky?" "I don't know right now, I don't care," I tried to imply But he started praying for me and then I gave up on my lie. She said something like 'the Holy Spirit's gonna rip you apart You gonna cry like a baby, cuz God knows who you are at heart' Weak or strong, I realized, tall or short God can transform your life and make into a piece of art. I always thought "get baptized, be good, the rest'll follow through' But that's impossible in this sinful world: Me, get a clue! The only truth or path or light is in Christ who died for you. And without it you gonna fail when the Judgment Seat comes for you. So follow His example, walk in the purposeful footsteps Remember that your journey could end abruptly dudes and dudettes No matter how good your life is now, tomorrow is diff'rent, non-knows how or yet No matter your money, kiss it goodbye Cuz it be gone when your death is set Now's the time Make your decision, don't choose the slime You can go downhill or live life in sublime God's creation is ubiquitous (which I'll define) Don't wanna waste your life on crappy objects Listen to your heart, not yourself, not your conscience Be happy about your strengths, don't look down upon your weaknesses... God's got a special plan for you Don't look so sad and hateful and blue With God's Army we'll all fight with and for you. Ubiquitous means everywhere and always--cue-- ...God knows someone who needs ubiquitous love THAT'S YOU.
It is morally permissible for parents to choose the sex of their child.

__________ "Although I am Pro, Con has the significant burden of proof" ---I do not see how I have a significant burden of proof. We are debating morality. "Contention 1: Allowing parents to choose the sex of their child give the parents more options. " ---Hitler said the same thing, except about a master race. Hitler believed his preference was better than others. I do not believe that Hitler is morally permissible. __________ Contention 1: Hitler believed that choice/preference of race was best. Hitler's beliefs are not morally permissible. Mass murder of humans (especially Jews) is not morally permissible. Contention 2: Parents would undoubtedly choose boys, and this would lead to a gender imbalance. As a boy, I assume my opponent would agree that men are the dominant gender. They are harder, better, faster, stronger. Parents would undoubtedly prefer boys over girls. The gender imbalance would eventually lead to a world with no females. The human race would then become extinct. Extinction of humans for such a trivial issue is not morally permissible. ---See YouTube video on why men are better than women. . http://www.youtube.com... __________ I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.
It is morally permissible for parents to choose the sex of their child.

I do not think that any definitions are necessary. To clarify, assume that the parents have some means of pre-assigning the sex of their child. Although I am Pro, Con has the significant burden of proof: all else being equal, choices should be allowed. Con is arguing that the choice should not be allowed, so he or she must explain why. Contention 1: Allowing parents to choose the sex of their child give the parents more options. There are many scenarios in which parents prefer to have a choice. Say that parents already have four boys, and want a girl. Or say that they want their first child to be a boy. There is no sound reason to permit them from making this choice.
It is morally permissible for parents to choose the sex of their child.

"-I quoted and rebutted many of my opponent's round 2 arguments. -I reiterated arguments I made in round 2 that my opponent did not properly rebut. -I rebutted my opponent's new contentions. I wouldn't call that avoidance. " ---You quoted me, only to say that I didn't say that in Round 1. So you didn't rebut my Rd.2 arguments. "They don't have to be supported by evidence, but they should at least be supported by logic. My opponent has provided no logic; he has only made outlandish claims without any support for them. I could just as easily claim "When parents are allowed to choose the sex of their child, the world becomes a magical utopia where everything is perfect. " His third and fourth contentions are to be ignored. If they are not accepted as true, then my sentence about magical utopias must also be accepted as true. " ---My contentions make sense and are historically relevant. Your magical utopia is not. My contentions stand. "The second sentence is not only unsupported, but I refuted it" ---The burden would become stronger because the father expects his child to become a star quarterback, because he knows his son will be a boy. If he didn't know his son was a boy, he would not place a burden. -------The whole slippery slope thing has gone out of control. The voters can decide. "Then we should not have children at all. When a child's gender is randomly selected by nature, it is no more the child's choice than when a parent chooses it. The child loses no freedoms whatsoever by having a parent choose his/her gender as opposed to the gender being selected randomly. " ---But now the parents take away even more freedom, by having their own choice. Nature should be the selector, not parents. ============= My opponent has provided 1 contention, which has been refuted. I have provided 7 contentions, which the voters can decide if they have been refuted or not. The choice is clear.
It is morally permissible for parents to choose the sex of their child.

MTGandP--- in your first 5 paragraphs in Round 3, you avoided my points in Round 2, and refuted my points in Round 1. If you feel as though, you want to let my points from Round 2 stand, that is fine with me. ==================== "And forcing everyone to choose Hitler's race of preference is vastly different from ALLOWING PARENTS TO CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES." ---It still creates a master race (gender), so it is not different at all. I'll leave the whole debate about men vs. women and overpopulation vs. underpopulation where they are right now. They are not that relevant to the debate, and I will let the voters decide that issue. "My opponent's contentions 3 and 4 are unsupported." ---They don't have to be supported. We are debating morality. These contentions stand. "A father is just as likely to demand that his son become a star quarterback if he gets the son by chance. If his child turned out female, there would be different expectations (such as becoming star cheerleader)." ---Exactly. So you concede it is unfair to put an unfair burden on children. And these burdens would become stronger with sex selection. "This is, interestingly enough, known as the slippery slope fallacy, and is invalid." ---My sources say otherwise. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) ---The slipper slope fallacy is clearly valid to some, and invalid to others. For this reason, you have to refute my slippery slope argument or it will stand. "1. It's not "supposed to be" anything. It is a tool of natural selection." ---This does not refute my point. "2. If parents want it to be "beautiful and precious", they may choose to have a child the traditional way. But we should not force all parents to choose the "beautiful and precious" route." ---And we should not force children to be a gender they did not choose. Birth is a natural process, not a mechanical process. "3. There is no evidence that choosing a child's gender in any way inhibits the beauty of childbirth." ---So what? There is no evidence that Megan Fox is hot. But people believe it anyway. Just because there is no concrete evidence, does not mean it is not true. -----Sources----- (1) http://www.infidels.org... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://www.csun.edu... (4) http://www.analphilosopher.com... (5) http://keithdevens.com... (6) http://www.iep.utm.edu... (7) http://www.kspope.com...
Black History Month is racist and hurts the cause it was created for

Black History Month was created to promote black history, which was, at the time, being completely ignored. It became highly successful. Today it's a little bit rote and unneeded but it is the most successful "month" declaration ever. There's other months declared other things by other people, but they don't tend to be remotely as successful. It isn't racist to point out that people are racist and intentionally or unintentionally leaving out a large section of American History as Black History is American History. Thank you for reading.
Black History Month is racist and hurts the cause it was created for

November is National American Indian Heritage Month. Sorry you lose. We should learn from the mistakes of our past, but when no part of black history was covered at all, it was something that needed attention drawn towards it. Black history wasn't seen as anything at all. It was completely overlooked. To look at a 1950s history book was to look at a very whitewashed form of history going from the revolution to the present day without so much as noting any struggle of a significant section of our population. It is far better now than it was then. We at least note the contributions of African Americans, the abolitionists, the struggles of the civil rights movements. That was the cause Black History Month was created for, and that's the cause that has been overwhelmingly successful. To say that one can ignore race and make everything perfect is a fine goal for looking forward (even if quite short sighted) but for looking backwards at history and racism you cannot have the anti-slavery movement or the civil rights movement with paying no attention at all to race. Race was the primary reason for the oppression and to understand the oppression you very much do need to understand the reasoning for it. There are certainly good sources for understanding black history and why the understanding of black history was so overlooked for so long. I brought up Wikipedia because even the most cursory glance renders your claims completely moot. The reason for making Black History Month was that due to racism, black history was not seen as history. It was utterly ignored. Things are certainly better now, but the cause is extremely successful. Black history month is not racist. Black history is history. Black history month serves the cause very well, in that, it does a lot to promote an understanding of black history. You admit that the media focuses on it. That's the cause. It works. You can't just suppose prejudice is in the past and must be completely denied. That's naive and rather silly.
Black History Month is racist and hurts the cause it was created for

The whole premise of "black history" is racist. If for no other reason than there is no Native American history month, who some may argue were treated as badly if not worse than African Americans. Both instances cast very dark shadows of bigotry on the history of our great nation that should never be forgotten. Rather, we should learn from the mistakes made in the past. To say that black history month is overlooked has no basis. The whole month it is the primary focus of nearly every media outlet. Also, if you care to read up on the subject I suggest a more reliable source than Wikipedia. It is important to remember every brave person who fought against tyranny and intolerance. It is vital as a civilization to not only accept, but flat out ignore, the pigments in one's skin and to make judgements based solely on the character and actions of the individual. This is the only thing that matters after all.
Black History Month is racist and hurts the cause it was created for

Black History Month is not racist but rather asks us to look into and respect black history. The journey of the civil rights movement and escape out of the bonds of slavery and the struggle of a large section of our population is certainly worthy of some reflection. We aren't being asked to praise all black people or do anything remotely untoward. We are being asked take note of the struggles of African Americans throughout history, and not simply by African Americans. There were a number of white civil rights pioneer and others. It's in February because, in part, that's when Lincoln's Birthday. Black history is a largely overlooked section of American History and we should certainly take note. Black History is not a nebulous bravo towards black people. History is constructed of the events surrounding people. It was a largely overlooked section of history and overlooking it was largely due to racism. http://en.wikipedia.org... I suggest you read up. You could argue that it overwhelmingly descends into hollow ritual and becomes largely pointless, and I'd agree. But, it isn't racist and certainly isn't racist for the reasons you cite. It was created for the cause of making people take note of black history. It does that. The cause it was created for is quite obviously well served. The only way it could hurt the cause is if we stopped paying attention to Black History in February.
Resolved: a just government ought to ensure food security for all its citizens

Round One: Acceptance Round Two: Argument Round Three: Rebuttal Round Four: Conclusion Definitions: Just: acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good Government: the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it Ensure: to make sure, certain, or safe; to guarantee Security: the quality or state of being secure Good Luck, I look forward to a strong debate.
Resolved: a just government ought to ensure food security for all its citizens

Firstly, my opponent began his argument with a question which I deem to be totally irrelevant. The resolution at debate assumes that there is such thing as a "just government" and that is taken as a given before debate even commences. Were the debate rather on the proper role of government, we could debate that fundamental principle. But as strong academic debate is impossible if certain things can not be assumed as true for the sake of an argument, I feel that all arguments made under that umbrella heading of "Is a government's role to be moral at all?" ought to be dismissed as irrelevant to the present debate. As to the point in which my opponent states, "that it is not the job or the right of the government to uphold morality and quite frankly it is impossible, allowing the government this power violates its 1 function which is simply to protect its people and thus this resolution undermine the entire premise of government, a concept which the founders would also agree." I would like to provide a statement from John Adams, the father of the Constitution, which totally defeats the argument: "We ought to consider what is the end of government, before we determine which is the best form. Upon this point all speculative politicians will agree, that the happiness of society is the end of government, as all divines and moralphilosophers will agree that the happiness of the individual is the end of man. From this principle it will follow, that the form of government which communicates ease, comfort, security, or, in one word, happiness, to the greatest number of persons, and in the greatest degree, is the best."(John Adams, Thoughts on Government, emphasis added)Indeed, the very father of the Constitution does not agree with my opponent. The statement claiming that the founders agree with him, is totally false. The final point which my opponent makes seems more well founded on the surface, but below the skin there is a much more illogical argument. My opponent seems to believe that one possible result of such a policy is enough to discount the immediate benefits thereof. If I am understanding correctly, my opponent seems to believe that the millions of people who are impoverished should starve to death, that a government should not protect the lives of the people they have the responsibility to protect, and that a chance reality based on no solid evidence. Indeed, I believe that it is foolish to throw away the lives of so many people simply out of fear of a chance future. As none of the arguments my opponent made have any substantial ground, I solicit the votes of the judges. Thank you for your time well spent.
Resolved: a just government ought to ensure food security for all its citizens

As the topic is a resolution, and I am taking the affirmative, I fully agree that I should take the Burden of Proof. That being said, let us begin. Resolved: a just government ought to ensure food security for all its citizens. We shall begin with the most fundamental role of government. The protection of mankind's universal rights. This is the most basic, moral, and "just" function of government. This is the basic principle upon which Thomas Jefferson based the Declaration of Independence. The most basic role of government is to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens. Like Thomas Jefferson, I will build my argument upon this principle. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights details 30 rights which ought to be ensured to all people. Two of these rights are the right to life and the right to social security. Youth For Human Rights defines these two rights as: Life: We all have the right to life, and to live in freedom and safety. Social Security: We all have the right to affordable housing, medicine, education, and childcare, enough money to live on and medical help if we are ill or old. Based on these two definitions, I feel it is reasonable to assume that every person has a right to their life and for the necessities for life. If the base function of a just government is to protect the universal rights of its citizens, and each person has a right to life and the things necessary to sustain life, then it is only reasonable to say that a just government ought to ensure food security to its citizens. I find it to be a truly moral and just resolution. I hope my few words have rung true. With hope of a dignified response, I solicit the votes of the judges. Thank you.
The gender pay gap is nonexistent change my mind.

I can tell you are good at debating but I was simply talking about the US firs of all second all in the us women who make good choices actually earn significantly (8%)more than men so your argument is nonsensical also women have huge advantages in getting into college through the scam called affirmative action. Also boys like toy guns because they are BOYS and I believe that almost (not every) parent would let their girl get a toy gun if they wanted one. Also you made a huge mistake by saying choices are sexist let me put it this way your a young and smart woman who can go into college you have straight A's and a really good scholarship which lets you get into most colleges for free and at this point you have to choices you can go into stem and once you graduate work long hard 80 hour weeks or you go into your dream job of teaching and work 40 hour weeks which one would you rather do? Also I recommend reading the sources for link springer they aren't exactly that good. My point is not. https://money.howstuffworks.com... https://www.wsj.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... https://www.today.com...