BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
TV's rap battle tournament

The Coen Brothers vs. Clint EastwoodWe're here to take down this ugly old bitch We're the New York Jets, you're just their jock itchYou think you got skill well you just know you're wrongYou're that skinny blonde bitch, we're fvcking King KongYo man, everyone knows we invented the cult classicYour prime was way back in the early JurrasicWe smoke out with The Dude all the fvck damn timeWe bada$$ mofos, we don't care it's a crimeGran Tarino was a huge a$$ piece of shatHundred-twenty whole lousy minutes to laugh atYou should watch Fargo, maybe learn a lesson or twoLearn to direct from our point of viewYou should really stick to actingThough we can see what about directing's attractingControl the set, control all the actorsThough your suckiness you forgot to factorSo for now I guess we'll have to sign offYou can respond to this after you jerk offI know it gets lonely being an old fvcking fartNo time for pity though time for us to depart.
NFL is too easy on their players

That is merely opinion, for example, Ray Rice, who beat his wife in a fight she started which is very clear in the video, is out of the NFL forever, which is pretty sad. The NFL kicked him out, and she could have pressed charges, but she didn't. The NFL did their part, the booted him. However, they are not the courts, so that is the best punishment they can legally dish out. And as for the Adrian Peterson thing, he is out for the entire season because he spanked his kid. Really? So we are not allowed to spank kids any more? The NFL is not too easy on their players.
the ncaa ought to represent student athletes as employees under the fair labor standards act

To begin, NCAA athletes are not employees. They are students attending a university to further their education while competing in an intercollegiate sport. In no way do they even resemble employees. 1. You state that colleges should pay their athletes as a way to give thanks. Athletes, according to an article entitles "How to Win a Sports Scholarship" by the collegesolution.com, either receive full-ride scholarships or no scholarships depending on the school's desire for the athlete 2. Not only are University's choosing athletes; athletes are choosing the university they are attending. Why should a University have to pay a student, who is enrolled as a student, any money for playing college ball. Universities alone accepting an athlete should be thanks enough for that athlete. 3. This argument has already been presented to the U.S Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit which was ARGUED on SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 " DECIDED DECEMBER 5, 2016 in, Gillian Berger vs. NCAA. The case, which was Penn State track athletes arguing that they should be paid for their services, tried to appeal to the courts. The court motioned in favor of the NCAA unanimously. This is a excerpt from the above stated court case, "Appellants in this case have not, and quite frankly cannot, allege that the activities they pursued as student athletes qualify as "work" sufficient to trigger the minimum wage requirements of the FLSA. Student participation in collegiate athletics is entirely voluntary. " With this in mind, I disagree NCAA athletes should be considered employees.
There is good evidence that God exists.

Point 1: There is no contemporary extrabiblical historical account of the life of Jesus. By "contemporary" I mean within the commonly-accepted date range in which he was considered to have been born, through up to 10 years after his supposed demise. Furthermore, many major historical events within the bible relating to his birth and life contradict extrabiblical historical records, such as the fact that Herod the Great was dead before the first Roman census took place.[1] The last sentence of your first point is debatable, and irrelevant being that it's an appeal to authority rather than evidence. Point 2: No contemporary extrabiblical source records such an event, as I mentioned in my response to your first point. Point 3: This does not prove his existence. An alternative explanation is that the legend was created in such a way as to fulfill these prophecies. Therefore this statement is meaningless. Point 4: Or, it may just be conjecture and self-delusion on the part of the believers. Human memory is notoriously unreliable, and the eyes are easily fooled. At any rate this is nothing more than an "argumentum ad populum" fallacy. Point 5: This statement is meaningless to someone who doesn't believe such a being exists. It cannot be considered fact, especially in a debate about the very existence of the being in question. [1] http://www.infidels.org...
There is good evidence that God exists.

Fact 1: The God of the bible came to Earth and lived for over 30 years as Jesus of Nazareth. This is recorded history. No competent historian will argue against the historicity of Jesus. Fact 2: Jesus was crucified on a cross and was resurrected the third day, after which he was seen by over 500 people. Fact 3: Jesus fulfilled over 400 prophecies set forth in the old testament books, a mathematical and statistical impossibility for anyone other than God himself. Fact 4: God maintains a personal relationship with billions of humans alive today. Fact 5: God loves you.
Christianity(pro) VS. Atheism(Con)

No loving God would punish those who don't like him. God gives us a period of good time, and then sends us to hell. That's even worse than sending people directly to hell, because you long for those good times. If God was perfect, why would he test us? He's omniscient, remember! He'd already know, and testing us is just making it worse. If the world was perfect then God would want people to create besides him, so he creates people to create besides him in all the creativity of God himself. So he would have a reason. If he was a good God, he would allow us to create our own universes and want to see what we come up with. If god is good and he made us, he wants to see what we can do! Thus, explains your rebuttals.
Christianity(pro) VS. Atheism(Con)

God created us because he loves us, and he created Satan as ruler of hell for a place that the bad people go when they die as a punishment. Free will is a gift and honestly I don't know why he gave us free will but I'm guessing it was because if god didn't love us then he would make us do stuff without giving us a decision. I'm sorry that you've had a hard life but you can't take it out on god, I have a hard life to and he does have mercy or else don't you think he would just let atheist suffer a lot and make them go to hell the minute they were born. God created sin as a test here on Earth to see if we love him. Our god is good and he punish's sin because it's like a consequence on Earth If this world was perfect than what would be the purpose of us being here, he wouldn't need us and we would have no purpose on this Earth.
Christianity(pro) VS. Atheism(Con)

1. If mankind was going to sin, why did God create us, and why did God create that sinful tree, and why did God create the serpent, and why did God give us free will as a supposed gift, and why did God implement the idea of inherited sin?! Free will is NOT a gift at all! All it does is give more hardship to mankind (especially me) to choose a decision! It doesn't make anything easier, not even for God if he has one tiny hint of mercy for us! 2. If all sin is going to be demolished, then why did God create something that would start it? 3. A good god would not only create a perfect world, he would never create Hell and send everybody to Heaven without judgement. He's omniscient so he did know he would create a sinful species. 4. A good god would never punish sins in the first place, as of 3. CHECKMATE, THEISTS
Christianity(pro) VS. Atheism(Con)

First of all god's not the reason we sin it is because Adam and Eve ate from the tree of life letting the other people sin and that continued throughout Mankind. In the end all sin will be demolished and there will be no more sin, and he can see into the future and change what happens now but he doesn't because being on Earth is like a test for mankind to see who loves god just like Satan was tested in heaven before he went to hell. God is perfect but that doesn't mean this world is perfect or this universe is perfect but everything in this world is perfect and just the way he wants it to be. You said where the human race exists and it does exist I mean your a human being and I'm a human being right? God is not evil I mean he created us instead of just letting it be him in this world, and he does give us the opportunity to go to heaven but some people don't take that offer. You don't have to worship god to go to heaven all you need to do is believe that Jesus is the son of god. Don't you think that he's nice since he did kill his son for us but Jesus is still alive in heaven and he does forgive us, he didn't just send his son to forgive our sins he also sent him to remove our sins, now isn't that a loving god that he would send his only son to die for our sins.
Christianity(pro) VS. Atheism(Con)

OK. --- Free will can exist without sin being a part of that --- God could have, with his omniscient mind and his omnipotent hands, created a world where the human race has free will but is physically unable to sin. In our world as it is right now, I can't increase my velocity any faster than the speed of light. So why couldn't he make us physically unable to eat the apple from that tree? --- God cannot be Omniscient --- If God is omniscient, then he can see into the future and change what happens now to affect the future. This, in itself, is problematic. If God can change the future that he originally knew, then that new future was the future, and God's omniscient thinking was wrong! If he saw the finalised future, then he would not do anything, thus he could not have either seen one future or the other, because in any case it would not happen. --- God cannot be perfect --- If he was omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient, he would create a world where sin does not exist, where the human race still exists, and if he had to be hidden, where only atheists go to heaven. Because that is not what the real world is like, God could not have been omnibenevolent, wasn't omniscient, or not omnipotent. If the world was perfect, a God would have these desired properties, but he can't. --- God is evil --- An evil God, on the other hand, would try to deceive and torture humans. What we see in the Bible is the works of an even worse God - he gives us the opportunity to reach heaven then he denies it unless you constantly worship him. Plus, he never negotiates unless you give into him, and he can't plainly forgive. No, instead he has to kill someone. Even if it's his own son. What an evil God! Conclusion: In no way can God exist and be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent at the same time.
is xenophobia as a result of poverty and longtime marginalisation

Hello and thank you for the debate challenge- While it can certainly be argued that poverty leads many into desperation or desperate actions: we must ask "how and why?" First of all...that statement that I just gave above can be said to be wrong. It gives the impression that poverty and marginalization directly leads to so and so. If I say that by eating a cupcake an obese man will doom himself to a heart attack latter that same night after eating it, I am only using empirical observation to form guess work. I do not know as a matter of fact that the man had the attack due to the cupcake; by using my statement I am only assuming as such! The same goes for the man who says that by not getting a spot on the high school football team, a male student would be doomed to unpopularity or by not getting her hair done a girl would be doomed to be looked upon as 'plain.' What lurks in the minds of individuals cannot be ascertained so easily, and how genes hold up in the face of environmental factors cannot be ascertained so easily as well. It may be said that most people who may not think for themselves may be 'swooped up by social stigmas and threats of poverty' but we only need to look to historical philosophers like Socrates and Diogenes; to see that poverty does not equal xenophobia. If we want to say that white people in the western world have marginalized black people as an example, or because black people have been poverty stricken and marginalized; that has in turn led to racism, we must go on from there! For we cannot say that racism existed only after the marginalization! Because someone's skin color is one of the superficial traits that I can notice, it stands to reason that racism may indeed come before xenophobia in most cases. Only after I notice your color can I then assign traits to you or it.
is xenophobia as a result of poverty and longtime marginalisation

I would ask then...why have not white or black people historically attacked members of their own color when it came to economic marginalization? For example why do the conservative poor folks (who are white) in the United States never rise up and attack rich white people? It is because they have a social belief in their heads that people of their same color are entitled to more. It's not a nice or pretty thing to say but it is true...very true in fact and we see it all too often. For example when China was occupied by the European powers in the 1800's; the Chinese did not attack their own rich and powerful people who were helping to exploit them...instead they attacked the European peoples. Now you could say that was because the Chinese were more loyal to the Chinese, and that is true, but what is also true is that in history it has been easier for angry people to be racist. Because to be racist it means you do not have to actually think.
Narritives of suffering and racism should not be talked about in academic communities

No, thank you CON. You are exactly right in my point. I apologize for the long explanation. I wanted to use academic scholarships to prove my thesis and point without just stating claims. That was a really good summary that CON gave in the last round, in which I guess you can cross apply to this round as it would be my explanation. The argument that Con made was precise, but there was one particular point that was made that I disagree with. CON said that "the analysis that I have provided doesn't meet the BOP and that it is tailored towards claiming that suffering is bad no matter what." That is not necessarily true. I may agree with that category for the second half of my argument dealing with scenes of subjection and narratives being passed down to marginalized children (which I will rehash and explain in the summary portion tailored towards round 5) creating a political analysis of despair, but I disagree with the claim for the first part of my argument. The first, part of my argument is tailored specifically to the university, which is an academic community as talked about in the topic. Research as stated in my claim above is specifically tailored to the university and is an academic activity. (People may disagree with me, but an alternative interpretation wasn't talked about in this round so prefer mine) Therefore, the act of research is specifically tailored towards academic communities and when we present narratives of suffering for social sciences and anthropologist to view then "it places you as the object to commodification and subject to research and profound investigation. I was invited to sit down and talk about my urban life. The subaltern can speak, but is only invited to speak his or her pain for the perpetuation of the academic institution in terms of critical race, class, and, gender studies." Social sciences and Anthropology as well as other studies uses research to subjectify and in doing that takes the other's voice. You can extend my main points from above. Thank you CON, back to you! :)
Narritives of suffering and racism should not be talked about in academic communities

I'll just summarise it for him. In a nutshell- correct me if I'm wrong, but he's saying that being studied as an object of suffering can disenfranchise you, expose you to alienation etc. etc. I will submit to that point- HOWEVER this does not meet the BoP, which is that Narritives [sic] of suffering and racism should not be talked about in academic communities. This means that they are bad, no matter what. Over to you, Pro. (arguments next round, I need some time)
The United States of America is a Republic not a Democracy

So basically this is the debate, I am arguing that the United States of America is a republic, and you my oponet are arguing it is a democracy. Now on to the debate. Often times teachers, or other news worthy figures will refer tot he United States as a democracy, and other times they will refer to it as a republic, and to most people the terms are synonymous, but there is a major difference. In my opening argument I will include the following: 1. Defining the difference between a republic and a democracy 2. Thoughts from the founding fathers 3. Our history and our constitution First of all lets define the definition of a democracy. The word democracy comes from the words demo + kratia literally meaning government by or of the people. When defining the word republic the word comes from he Latin words res + republica meaning everybody' s thign or interest. The Merriam Webster dictionary offers this definition of the modern word: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law. The exact definition clearly explains that a republic is a group of elected officials with a supreme leader such as our president. The difference between the two forms of government basically a republic: Rule by Law vs a democracy: Rule by Majority. While a republic is a government ruled by a Constitution a democracy is basically mob rule. Not once in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution is the word democracy mentioned. We sing the Battle Hymn of the Republic and we pledge allegiance to the flag of "the Republic for which it stands." Even the "Father of the Constitution" James Madison warns of the dangers of a democracy: "In a pure democracy there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent." This was stated in the Federalist 10. That is my opening argument and I can't wait for whoever responds. Sources: 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. http://www.devvy.com... 3. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 4. http://www.garymcleod.org...
The United States of America is a Republic not a Democracy

My opponent's claim was that the "USA is a republic, not a democracy". I have contended that he is not correct; that the USA is in fact both a republic and a democracy. My opponent has posted links to dictionary definitions of both terms. I have taken no issue with those. In fact, I adopted those definitions. In accordance with those definitions, the USA is both a republic and a democracy. It is not a question of some "single similarity in voting", as my opponent has claimed in his final round. I don't want to go as far as to say that my opponent is being dishonest by making that statement. You have seen the definitions, they are there for you to look at again. I have clearly demonstrated, using my opponent's OWN dictionary definitions, that the USA meets every single word of the definition of democracy. The USA IS IN FACT a democracy inasmuch as it is a republic. It has been ranked highly on the democratic index. It is there described as a "functioning democracy". This only leaves one issue. I have addressed it before and I will address it again. My opponent claims that I was expected to prove that the USA is a democracy and that it is not a republic. I disagree with that. It is HIS resolution that states that the USA is a republic and not a democracy. By showing that the USA is both a republic and a democracy, I have proven his resolution wrong. That is all that is required of me. It is true that he stipulated that I need to show that the USA is a democracy (in his Round 1). However, I have in fact shown it. My opponent seeks to rely on wikiepedia. I take no issue with that. I have in fact posted you a definition from wikipedia itself which classes the USA as a democracy. See my Round 1. My opponent now says that in "my standards" it was impossible to win (he doesn't make it clear just for which of the parties it was impossible to win). These are not "my standards", ladies and gentlemen. My opponent's resolution made it clear that he sought to prove that the USA is a republic and not a democracy. Nowhere in the resolution NOR in his Round 1 does he contend that I need to prove that the USA is a democracy and NOT a republic. In these circumstances, all I have to do is disprove his resolution. I have done just that. I thank you for taking your time to read this debate. I urge you to accept, based on clear evidence, that the USA is both a republic and a democracy and therefore my opponent's resolution fails.
The United States of America is a Republic not a Democracy

First of all I thank my opponet for his response. But the problem is that his response did not prove the argument the debate was set on. He argued that he would prove and that the U.S. is boh a republic and a democracy, but that is not the terms of the debate. I state in my opening statement that, "So basically this is the debate, I am arguing that the United States of America is a republic, and you my oponet are arguing it is a democracy." It clearly shows that he is arguing that the U.S. is a demcracy, as in the the form of government. And I am arguing that it is a republic, not arguing it has parts of both, because in many forms of government you can find similarities. He even states near the end of his argument that "The USA is undoubtedly a republic." Looking into the definitions he misrepresents both definitions. Although both definitions do state that both a democracy and a republic can have representation there are clear differences. The base differences, are that: 1."a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president ." Are government has a leader, a president who is elcted by officials, the definition of democracy does not include a cheif of state, or leader. 2." a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law" Basically in a republic we elect officers and representitives to govern for us. At first glance this may seem no different then the term used for democracy. But in the term republic it states at the end, "... and governing according to law." This clearly shows that although we elect are officials they must follow a set of laws, or outlines, an example would be our Constitution. While a democracy's definition only shows majority rule, where they must not follow set guidline, while a in a republic they must. Unless my opponet is able to show that we are a democracy NOT a republic, as stated in the openign lines, then he will not be able to win this debate NOTE: I am sorry if I may come off arrogant. I do not mean too, because it is hard to express emotion in text. Thank you, and I cannot wait for you response.