BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS 2 Rap Battle #1

Settin' it off, lettin' it off, beginnin' Rough to the endin', you never been in To move the groove with the smooth rap lord; Like a bottle of juice, rhymes are being poured Down your ear, crisp and clear As I prepare to wear, tear and smear " then I"m outta here With a mark left that you can all cling Cause rockin' a party? Yo, it"s a small thing I rip many places on regular basis, and broken down mics were the only traces That I"d been there and there at the party The mic had my prints, and on it was a body So take caution. I"m not horsin' around in a throwdown, clown I"m takin' yours son So just acknowledge the way that I kicked it Cause if rap was a house, you"d be evicted And dismissed from the microphone, chokin' on a bone, cause Daddy"s home And battlin' me is hazardous to your health So put a quarter and you passed, cause ya played yourself Like a game in the arcade. You need a far aid I"m walkin' the path that our love made I"ll attend and then begin to send a speech to reach and teach So just say when So I can let lyrics blast like a bullet My mouth is the gun; on suckers I pull it The trigger, ya figure, my pockets coming back near Cause when it comes to money, yo, Grant"s my man here You"ve got the groove, emcees, freeze, stand still, nobody move It"s a sabotage, as I take charge. Don"t barge, cause, I"m livin' large Like a giant. You"re nothin' but a midget, a small digit You ain"t hit it, forget it, quit it I reign superior, always takin' care o'ya No-frill rappers, you will evaporate, disintegrate, deflate to your fate As the great will dominate straight to the state Of reignin', gainin'. So put Kane in, that category. Period. End of story.
should middle schools have mcdonalds as a chioce at lunch

I do not believe that middle schools should not have McDonalds as a choice in school lunches. Schools should not allow McDonalds (or for that matter any other 'fast food') into their school lunch curriculum. The students should have healthy choices to choose from. Schools should not offer fast food EVEN AS A CHOICE. Because, especially children, do not have the complete mental capacity to know that they are choosing something so bad for them. They only want McDonalds cause they want something that they think 'tastes good'. And I will admit that many school lunch choices are not always 'up-scale' in the terms of taste, but they are generally much healthier than McDonalds. Fast food consumption is currently something that is causing a lot of health problems in America today. Childhood obesity rates have more than doubled and the obesity rates among adolescents have tripled in the past 30 years. Since 1980, the percentage of obese children went from 7% to an alarming 18%. That means that about 1 out of 5 of every 6-11 year old in America is obese. Similarly, in 12-19 year-olds, the percentage was 5% in 1980 and skyrocketed to, again, 18%. In 2010 more than 1/3 of children AND adolescents were OVERWEIGHT or OBESE. Health Effects: There are immediate health effects that would impact these middle schoolers if they were subjected to McDonalds as a lunch choice. Obese children are far more likely to have risk factors for cardiovascular disease. About 70% of obese youth had AT LEAST one risk factor. There are also long-term effects that these obese children may face when they are an adult. Children and adolescents who are obese are likely to be obese as adults as well and are, in turn, more prone to be at risk for other, even more serious, health problems such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke and MANY types of cancer. Another big problem with the fact of letting McDonalds in schools is, obviously, the fact of advertising in schools. We wouldn't want tobacco companies able to put of Pro-Cigarettes and Pro-Chewing tobacco posters in school. So that is basically what providing a product like McDonalds is doing. It is telling the children that it is even more okay to eat tons of fast food because there schools are offering it to them daily. It is the parents choice of what they want their kids to eat at home, but at schools, it is the schools responsibility to provide healthy choices to the students and provide them with a healthy diet. Whether or not these kids are getting out of school and go to McDonalds for food is what they want, but allowing it into schools will ruin our nations health even more than it already has. So, should middle schools (or in my opinion any school), have McDonalds as a lunch choice? No.
The US should split into smaller countries united by a political Union.

I would like to mention a typo I made in ROUND !. I said sued when I meant used...my apologies to PRO if they were confused REASON 1 "Countries would be broken up along new lines. States that were poor or governed poorly before the break up would no longer exist, instead they would become a part of the new country. With the size of the US government at the moment they tend to sweep these poor states under the rug in order to focus on areas that are making money. Being a part of a smaller country these poor regions are more likely to receive aid.”-R2 PRO My evidence comes from this rebuttal: https://www.google.com... This list says the 22 states get a higher than B- grade. An B- will not be enough to have a successful countries that can agree with reach other. Sure they would be tended too but some leaders are not Politically Correct. Food stamps and federal aid by Roosevelt in the 40’s cares for the impoverished. One government in unity is a lot better than 50 differently ranking polished states REASON 2 "Assuming Alabama wanted to go back to slavery they would be a part of a country that also contained the surrounding states. If the entire country that contained the former state of Alabama wanted to reinstate slavery then it wouldn't cause social tension because everyone would agree. I don't believe Alabama, or any state, would vote to bring back slavery." Yes they would be uniform, but for the wrong reasons. Slavery should not be accepted back into society because as we have learned from history, it causes wars. There is a lot of evidence that they would convert. They were one of the most thriving states with slaves as an income. After the abolition of slavery...they went on one of the most decreased and devastating sprees of poverty and income, losing and losing money. I have no doubt they would want to return to their successful ways. REASON 3 "My point was that there are certain federal policies that benefit much of the US, however these same policies negatively affect some areas. With smaller countries it would be easier to make policy that benefits everyone and that everyone agrees on." My bad that was misinterpretation by me. Here is my response. States have policies too that fit them. A negatively affected USFG policy would obviously not go through. States think alike and if one states have identical policies to another, I do not think a policy like this will pass. That is with future policies. Present policies have flaws sure, but I do not think there is any evidence that they hurt the state as a whole, it has been state policies that hurt the most. For example, Illinois Beverage Tax was not made by congress, it was made by Illinois Government, therefore it was a state matter CONCLUSION Overall, I think this topic is interesting. But it would end up leading to collapse in the end Finally I like to leave a quote "So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." Baha'U'Lla
The US should split into smaller countries united by a political Union.

I do think it will be fun and I'm sure it will be useful to both sides. Good luck! -"States would not know how to govern. yes some states would be successful, but other poor, impoverished, and little economic support would fall into anarchy" Countries would be broken up along new lines. States that were poor or governed poorly before the break up would no longer exist, instead they would become a part of the new country. With the size of the US government at the moment they tend to sweep these poor states under the rug in order to focus on areas that are making money. Being a part of a smaller country these poor regions are more likely to receive aid. -"1. I don't think it would give a boost to slacking parts. This is because the federal government gives reimbursement, free health care, and food stamps to the poor. Some states believe this is not right and if they divide into a separate union, they would not provide funds...Poverty would increase in these "countries"." My response here is the same as above. I would like to add though, federal aid is not the only way to keep an area from being poor. Providing business and job opportunities would be far more beneficial to the majority of the US's poor regions. -"2. Social tensions would not eased! For example, Alabama, a very segregated states, would for sure go back to slavery system because that is what gave them a profit. There would be uproar in these parts and more racism would happen because of the income" Assuming Alabama wanted to go back to slavery they would be a part of a country that also contained the surrounding states. If the entire country that contained the former state of Alabama wanted to reinstate slavery then it wouldn't cause social tension because everyone would agree. I don't believe Alabama, or any state, would vote to bring back slavery. -"3. There is already state protected parks...States have control on that. They would basically do the same with national parks. I do not think that claim is valid to vote on" My point was that there are certain federal policies that benefit much of the US, however these same policies negatively affect some areas. With smaller countries it would be easier to make policy that benefits everyone and that everyone agrees on. MY CONCLUSION FOR THIS ROUND: States would thrive, government becomes more effective, the US Union countries grow stronger than ever
The US should split into smaller countries united by a political Union.

Hello sir...I accept your challenge and I believe it will be a fun debate! This topic is very unique. Good luck to all. CLAIM States would not know how to govern. yes some states would be successful, but other poor, impoverished, and little economic support would fall into anarchy PRO R1 ARGS 1. Economically speaking this would provide huge boosts to areas that are slacking in the country, as well as further grow already successful economies. 2. Social tensions would be eased. 3. Areas that are suffering due to policies that benefit the majority of the country can change those policies without affecting or angering other areas. MY RESPONSES 1. I don't think it would give a boost to slacking parts. This is because the federal government gives reimbursement, free health care, and food stamps to the poor. Some states believe this is not right and if they divide into a separate union, they would not provide funds...Poverty would increase in these "countries". https://en.wikipedia.org... Wiki Sources were sued from USFG poverty 2. Social tensions would not eased! For example, Alabama, a very segregated states, would for sure go back to slavery system because that is what gave them a profit. There would be uproar in these parts and more racism would happen because of the income My source was history 3. There is already state protected parks...States have control on that. They would basically do the same with national parks. I do not think that claim is valid to vote on Sources were list of state protected parks CONCLUDE States would go into anarchy, govt would collapse, the whole U.S territory would crumble
The US should split into smaller countries united by a political Union.

I believe the size of the USA creates social and economic problems within the country. I propose the US separate into two or more independent countries; with each country voting for representatives to a Union designed to keep peace and hold the separate countries together. I believe there are three main advantages to this: 1. Economically speaking this would provide huge boosts to areas that are slacking in the country, as well as further grow already successful economies. 2. Social tensions would be eased. 3. Areas that are suffering due to policies that benefit the majority of the country can change those policies without affecting or angering other areas.
Who is more likely to murder? (Bullies[Pro] or the people who are being bullied[Con]?)

People that are getting bullied are more likely to kill I believe the opposite . While it is true that there are many news reports and stories of murderers being bullied in the past (just search 'murderers who were bullied' on google and you'll learn stories of bullied children clubbing their bullys to death) that doesn't mean that there are many cases where bullies are the murderers usually.I mean not everyone is a psychopath or crazy enough to seek revenge in the form of murder because they were bullied. Most people, will honor morality and doing the right thing. But because they are also very very scared of the bully or stressed to the maximum point. Instead of returning that stress to the bully, they commit suicide.There are many cases of people being bullied who commit suicide because they believe that killing their bullies is a monstus thing to do and they would be no better than the bully. So ending their own life is the only solution they see to end the pain that the bully has irreversibly caused in their life (perhaps in the form of slandering or ruining a reputation). The point is; If the bully bullies a person until he or she commits suicide, that is a form of murder. In fact there is a debate here on this website that asks whether bullies should be charged with murder if their victims commit suicide. You can find it here ; http://www.debate.org...And the majority here says yes, bullies are muderers if their victims kill themselves--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------And if you want satistical reason to believe that bullies are more likely to be murderers then here is an article. A study from a group called Fight Crime: Invest in Kids concluded that nearly 60 percent of boys whom researchers classified as bullies in grades 6-9 were convicted of at least one crime by the age of 24. And, get this: 40 percent of those same boys grew up to have three or more criminal convictions. - http://www.creators.com...Bullies have a higher chance of being a criminal when they grow up according to the article and being a criminal could mean that they may or may not have comitted murder. Being a criminal doesn't mean you commited murder, but there's a great chance you did.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The main point is that bullies are more likely to murder because I believe there are more cases of suicidal deaths caused by a bullies than murderers who had a past of being bullied.On to Con.
Who is more likely to murder? (Bullies[Pro] or the people who are being bullied[Con]?)

People that are getting bullied are more likely to kill because they want revenge and they feel threatened. Just like the man from the Sandy Hook massacre he was bullied when he was a little kid. He felt that it was his duty to protect those kids from getting bullied and he wanted to relive his childhood. All the kids shoot him down when he wanted to do something big. It is a proven fact that he was bullied as a little kid and he was a smart kid, now said to be a nerd.
The United States Supreme Court is a reliable source in debate regarding constitutionality.

The United States Supreme Court - http://www.supremecourt.gov... Reliable source - a source that satisfies the voters as they take the court's claim as true Constitutionality - compatibility between some action of a government and the United States Constitution Basically, the PRO position shall be that in a debate, claiming that an issue is (un)constitutional by citing a Supreme Court ruling, without an explanation as to why the Court's reasoning makes sense regarding the constitutional issue, should be sufficient in proving a point. As CON, my position is that the Supreme Court is not reliable enough that their decisions can be taken without analyzing their reasoning. There should not be a semantics issue. If you can in any way spot a semantics issue, please tell me in the comments before I start the debate. This first round is for accepting the debate only. Contentions shall start in Round 2. In the final round, the Contender may not use any brand-new arguments, as I shall have no way to respond. Finally, good luck to whoever accepts this debate.
Mixed sex schools provide a better school experience

I think that mixed sex schools provide a better school experience. This is for two reasons: 1) If one is constantly with the same sex, then when one finishes school and begins university or work and is around the opposite sex, one will most probably feel awkward and not act normally. If one is in a mixed school, one gets used to being around the opposite sex and learsn how to deal with relationships and other people better. 2) If one is in an all girls school, there is not much to be in competition with, therefore you do not try your hardest. In a mixed school, one would try harder at their school work and athletic abilities as they would be competing for the attention of someone of the opposite sex.
Outlawing the burning of Americas flag will hurt patriotism

Wow! Your right about the lack of incidents in flag desecration. That is just cool. Here is my theory about why that is, and this would be supported by nearly any News commentator on any channel if they are even half right. In 2008 the people who would have been burning the flag were busy helping Barrack Obama campaign. after his election they now like our country and have no reason to burn the flag. If not then it could just be a slow year. Either way the short absence of the practice for two years doesn't prove they wont start again, people are whimsical that way. As soon as Obama does something they don't like desecration of flag may start again. http://cache.daylife.com... Also, even if for now on the only ones burning the flag are the scouts, that only shows it's only use is in patriotism now and it's being outlawed will only interfere with this preferred act of patriotism in the retirement of the flag. It is good that we are the only ones still burning the flag for now we define what burning the flag means. If the people who still think it is disgraceful were not so ignorant of this they would see that it is an honorable act. once we all can see this is not a problem we will have one less wedge issue wasting our Congresses time. They waste enough time on there own. My opponent claims he still argues that burial is more respectful and dignified than incineration. Yet he provides no argument to go with that claim. It would more appropriate to say It's still his opinion, which fascinating as that is is not an argument. How could burial possible be more dignified. The flag will spend the of its day's to be trodden by whatever creature should walk over that spot. Covered in dirty dirt and surrounded by worms and bugs. An object that spent its life venerating it's country by flying high in the air being in dirt is sad image to behold. These are the sybolisms that dirt offers our flag. Tom you have said nothing of how fire is representative of light, and passion, or how as smoke our flag remains in the air as far as observer will mentally follow is disposal. Can you put together a ceremony that counts as private burial that offers greater symbolism than this? If not than retirement by fire shall remain the preferred method. In conclusion we can say from this debate that 1) burial is not better than burning. 2) pollution is not different in either case 3) the retirement has noticeable good affects on our youths patriotism. 4) Outlawing flag burning outlaws this good practice. 5) And finally, the desecration this law is worrying about is not even taking place anymore by method of burning. So such a law only manages to tread on those who are being patriotic, and bothering no one. Quite pointless. And harmful. http://www.thefreelibrary.com...'S+A+SYMBOL,+NOT+AN+IDOL.-a0147804426
Outlawing the burning of Americas flag will hurt patriotism

As a practical matter, flag burnings as political protests have ceased to occur in the U.S. My Google search for "flag burning" incidents in 2009' resulted in no incidents. http://wbztv.com... It seems that the only folks who are burning the flag are the Boy Scouts. I still argue that a private burial of a flag by a scout troop is a more dignified and respectful manner of flag retirement than burning.
Outlawing the burning of Americas flag will hurt patriotism

I'll start by stating my understanding of the BURDEN OF PROOF regarding the stated proposition: Outlawing the burning of Americas flag will hurt patriotism. I contend that: PRO: Pro has the burden of proof. Pro must prove that outlawing the burning of the American flag WILL HURT patriotism. Pro's burden of proof is a POSITIVE burden: "The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation to shift the assumed conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position. The burden of proof may only be fulfilled by evidence. The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the best translation of which seems to be: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges. " This is a statement of a version of the presumption of innocence which underpins the assessment of evidence in some legal systems, and is not a general statement of when one takes on the burden of proof. .. " . http://en.wikipedia.org... Pro must initially present evidence. Pro should present empirical evidence (scholarly studies) in support of his burden of proof on the proposition. Con respectfully challenges Pro to submit such evidence. CON: PRO CONTENDS that Con must prove that outlawing the burning of the American flag WILL NOT HURT patriotism. PRO STATED: ". .. taking the Con position means you are against flag burning. you have to show that its practice ceasing to continue is not harmful to patriotism. .. supra Thus, Con's burden of proof is a NEGATIVE burden. Con must prove a negative, that something is not the case. But Pro's contention is fallacious: "Burden of proof in epistemology and scientific methodology The fallacy of demanding negative proof Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this. " Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, and especially a positive claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven (see argument from ignorance). " . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... I look forward to Pro's presentation of empirical evidence in the next round. Tom