BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Inspirational Music

Alright so as my first debate, I'd rather be talking about something inspirational and happy rather than shooting negative, derogatory comments about each other's opinions since we all have a right to them. So for this challenge, it's going to be a little weak since I haven't been experienced yet. The challenge- lyric extrapolations. Take a song and artist and take specific lyrics from their song and explain why it deserves the title as most inspirational song. Format: 1. Artist name and song title 2. Lyrics from song 3. Extrapolation of lyrics/argument on why it is the most inspirational song 4. Argument rebuttal (optional) on why the opponents song is not worthy of earning title and why you think this. Again, this portion is optional and not needed. It is there if you want to add a little more argument to the debate. This is an opportunity to show individualism and creativity. Let's debate in a happy, inspirational and fun manner. My debate: 1. Breakfree by Ariana Grande 2. "This is the part when I say I don't want you. I'm stronger than I've been before. This is the part when I breakfree. Because I can't resist it any more." (x2) 3. I choose this song because it inspires me in many ways. "This is the part when I say I don't want you."- I feel that these lyrics can be connected to anything that any individual is trying to overcome. Hardships, drugs or alcohol, a relationship, abuse or anything that needs to be overcome. The lyrics are saying that we can be overcome that hardship no matter how hard or difficult it may be. We all have the power to do it, we just have to take the individual initiative to do it. "I'm stronger than I've been before."- we all have hardships. Things that bring us down at times. Nobody can handle every emotion that is thrown their way. But through overcoming those hardships as stayed in the first part, we can become better. Stronger, wiser, and better than before when we were being brought down by the issues. "This is the part where I breakfree. Because I can't resist it any more."- this is our release. This is us becomin the empowered individual that we can all become after we stand up, become who we are, and face the challenge. This is is not falling and becoming a broken individual. This is us becoming the individuals that we all want to be. Smart, beautiful, powerful, etc. it can be anything. This is us breaking free and becoming who we are because no matter what, we are that person, we just have to find it. By breaking free and searching for ourselves, when we finally figure out who we are and what we want to do with or lives, we will truly breakfree and become stronger before. I can't wait to finally discuss this with another creative and amazing mind out there. Looking forward to meeting my competitor! Good luck to whoever decides to accept my challenge!:)
US Education Requires Modernization

Debatable point: At least one class per day, per student must be dedicated to promote non-traditional "out-of-the-box" thinking over each standardized subject. US education must be broken out of its conventional box and teaching must be taken outside of the regiment reading, writing and arithmetic structure. We should require modernizing our teaching methods in such a way that teaching compliments learning back from our students - we should teach, straightforward, that learning methods, as well, are learnable. Opening Argument: In the United States, our modern teaching methods are void of "modern". While our society maintains a foothold on the edge of technologies and consistently reshaping its product markets to keep up with the very latest trends, we have made little advancement in the teaching methods that are utilized in our public schools. A child of the US is apt to have access to the newest exciting video game only moments after its public release. In the same era, that same child is attending classes in a public school for which the standard teaching methods were designed in the seventeenth century or earlier. By societal design, we are what I label "linear learners", meaning we learn in a step-to-very-next-step structure. As we grow older, we are able to become "conceptional learners", which suggests that we gain the ability to apply one bit of knowledge to the concept of another "untaught" piece of information. However, this powerful ability is not cultivated, nor does it come by way of any credit to our public school systems. My belief is that we can learn to learn better, and our teaching methods should be redesigned to accommodate this empowering skill. Education itself in the US (not the education system) needs revamping. We need to teach our teachers the many uses that can stem from the difference in "linear" to "conceptual" learning.
US Education Requires Modernization

I believe that our school systems need to take a step back to some of the old fashioned teaching methods. Going back to linear learning. Although no one can argue with modernization, there are good ideas and bad ideas for modernization. Recently in Washington state the public education system has shifted to a more modern aproach to math by teaching conceptual math. They do this from elementary school. This has failed and the state is now ranked as one of the lowest in the country. Teaching the modern math from a young age is not ideal. Although the modern methods should be accepted once a fundamental knowledge base is built early use of the methods have a negative impact on the learning. I lived in Japan for 3 years and I built a great math base which has brought me through 7 years of education and allowed me to remain above my class mates in Seattle. Even within my advanced class I see fundamental problems with understanding the concepts. They have not built a strong enough base to understand the advanced concepts of math. (Calculus) In the Far East Asian nations and India the older teaching methods are used. These techniques of memorization are extremely successful and have resulted in great success. The problem with the US education is not only the method but the students. The culture around learning does not nurture good students in America and that is our fundamental problem.
Racist jokes are the best type of jokes.

Nice move! Im gonna provide my favorite (race) comedian in the side panel as a comeback. Aside from the jokes there is a serious side to my argument. That is, there is a social impact of humor that is a signature style of the best comedic-artists, eg: George Carlin, Richard Pryor. The jokes in the videos are by a newer comedian.. But here"s a guy who makes fun of you, me and everybody else. Some jokes do not have to be "racist" to be funny. Some jokes are not mean in tone or delivery. Thus, racism is not overtly bad as long as they make fun of your heritage in a light hearted way. This intentionally blurs the lines between people of different races or make the lines more stark, more visible. Either way as long as humor highlights our diversity and our colour it"s a good thing. Language is most boring when it is colour-less. Or bland. Or correct. Bland like watching Fox News and CNN. This is not about diversity. I don"t think everyone should get along. But its about celebrating who you are. If you are of a different colour than I am and you don"t like my race that is your right to make fun of me. And I don"t mind, because it is through conflict that we realize our true strength. It is better to argue, to fight and to joke about than to ignore. Ignorant bliss is far more hateful than engaging the "enemy", etc. I think you would probably disagree with me at this point.. so as my rebuttal to your jokes I present Russell Peter!! Video Montage: Most importantly Russell makes fun of his own family, heritage and culture to show that he"s not afraid of his own bias. The first two are about India (and making fun of his Dad!). 3rd video: How the Indians do business, vs. How the chinese do. Number 4, 5 and 6 are about all the races mixed (blacks, latinos and asians). Basically, the full house! http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Racist jokes are the best type of jokes.

The rabbit has bitten the carrot, I shall argue that racist jokes are not the best kind of jokes. To defeat you, I shall offer jokes that are not racist as my defense. Otherwise, shared burden of proof. Q: How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb? A: Only 1, but the bulb has to want to change. Q: Did you know that Helen Keller had a treehouse? Neither did she. A black man and a Mexican are in a car, who is driving? Steve. What, did you think that this was some kind of racist joke? Does anyone else get turned on by reading the diary of Anne Frank? Just me? Did you know that Auto-erotic asphyxiation is not when you hump cars? Neither did I. On an unrelated note, I spent a week in jail for something I did at the Ford dealership.
Racist jokes are the best type of jokes.

This is not a argument. Not a serious one at least. No violent words. Humor is the only weapon here. The rules are? We want a good clean fight! No arguments about political correctness. Nothing PC is ever funny. [Period]. Do not waste valuable Rounds on debating the definition of "fun" and "culture" or whether War-Pigs can fly. Just putting out the carrot and see if anyone bites..
Rap Battle

Pro: "You cannot expect all men to assume 1 role in a relationship and all women to assume another specific and absolute role because all men and women are different." Of course. This very debate is a generalization based argument in the first place. Most men are wired a certain way. Most women are wired a certain way. Most women are attracted to strong, dominant, "leader type". Thus, to say the "Christian", version of "gender roles" is nonsense is actually standing against science ,statistics, and reality. Are there sexuality exceptions? Sure. The Bible talks about these differences giving an actually rather lengthy description of eunuchs. Matthew 19:12 is an example of this. -"For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others--and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." Matt 19:12 Jesus said some are born gay. Excerpt from article- -"Here Jesus refers to "eunuchs who have been so from birth." This terminology ("born eunuchs") was used in the ancient world to refer to homosexual men. Jesus indicates that being a "born eunuch" is a gift from God." http://wouldjesusdiscriminate.org... According to experts women are attracted to dominant men. http://theplayboyprogram.com... According to Evolution, our survival actually depends on this phenomenon of women picking dominant men. Essentially females who had dominant mates begat dominant offspring, they survived, so this gene is prevelant in our species. https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org... So when the Bible suggests males as dominant it isn't expressing a view based off of strang dogma or social norm, but science and reality itself. Ever heard the term "nice guys finish last"? Of course you have. It didn't just appear magically one day because of one disgruntled "nice guy". It manifested because it is reality. Being "nice", "beta" or "non-dominate" yields little success with women and yields virtually no success with high caliber women. Why? We know why. http://elitedaily.com...
Rap Battle

Here I go. I'm going to suck. Oh hi- you monkey. Your banana is stolen; now you're just a flunky. To hell with your army, my skills are too good. World war two was years ago do't you realize- your outdated! Your jokes are so crazy from the moment they are created. Hey! Your disguise is useless. Recognize you're clueless. The world may not be dominated. You always were castrated. Your costume; way too big. Your sausage? "little kid." What did you join? A suicide squad? Because you still are flawed. My code is like a fist. Your security? Just pissed. It all is an impurity. Your life? A mess. It will all end as my surety. You seen to be happy with your role but chiefs always have insecurity. You and your false belief. You will fall like a stone leaf.
Resolved: On balance, the United States was justified in going to war with Iraq

As per a forum request, I herby formally challenge the views of my oppoent.The resolution is stated above. The BOP is on my opponent to prove why intervening was justified, which he shall begin in Round 1. To prevent a disadvantage, my opponent cannot post anything short of a rhetorical statement for the last round.Justified- Legally, economically, morally, or politically correct. Good luck!
Carbon-14 Dating is not accurate.

I would still like to stir trouble though. .. In this dating method, you must know the beginning amount of Carbon 14 to know how much time has passed. You can't determine the age of the organism unless you know how much C14 was there to begin and end. The beginning amount is hard to find. It is the concentration of the C14 to C12 in the atmosphere at the time the organism fossalized. We are unable to calculate both. This would be like saying you can give the values of X and Y in this equation: X + Y = 3. You could make an estimate of what X was and calculate Y from it. You can't take the Y value then and claim that it is evidence that X was the estimated value. Dat is all :)
Carbon-14 Dating is not accurate.

There are a few problems I have with Carbon 14 dating and I hope to be completely proven wrong.To predict the age of a dead organism, you must first assume that it has been undisturbed for however many years you conclude it to be. This disturbance could occur from sources of radiation in the earth such as uranium. The closer a substance is to uranium the more Carbon-14 there will be, thus making it inaccurate. Radon, bacterium, and other sources of error could have influenced the age of that organism.Another assumption is knowing the Carbon-14/Carbon-12 ratio in the atmosphere at the given time it died. This changes as time goes on, and there is even abaration in our own atmosphere. This is known as the hemisphere effect. With an unknown ratio, it is impossible to determine how much Carbon-14 has decayed. For these 2 reasons, Carbon-14 dating is unreliable. I hope to be completely proven wrong in your next response :) Thank you and good luck!
Carbon-14 Dating is not accurate.

I'm accepting and, in the comments, Pro has allowed that I start my argument in round 1, so thanks Pro. Carbon-14 dating is a reliable dating technique that uses fixed atomic half lives. The rate at which atoms decay (losing electrons) is a fixed rate like the speed of light or the rate of gravity on earth. It's not a guess, it's a measurable, demonstrable fact. We know the atomic values of the parent isotopes (from which the current isotopes come), because we know the amount of protons each atom has and the electrons required to stabilize the nucleus, so when we find unstable forms of said protons (isotopes) we can tell by the fixed rates of decay, not guesses, how old something is. Because we have already demonstrated radiometric dating, we can take something that is of known age, like a biological relic or some ancient item made of organic material like wood, and subject it to radiometric dating. If the dating matches with the known age, we have a system that can be used to make accurate predictions and guess what. That is the case. Unlike potassium-argon dating, carbon dating is only reliable up to about 50,000 years, so when we have archaeological items from human history, carbon dating is great because it is most reliable within that amount of time. Yes, the details of radiometric dating in general are very complex, but its principles can be simply explained. http://science.howstuffworks.com... does a pretty good job of explaining this process, but here's my paraphrase: There are protons that make an atom a particular atom...hydrogen (1 proton), carbon (6 protons), nitrogen (7 protons), etc. To have a stable nucleus in the atom, the protons and the electrons need to match in number. So for carbon, this would be 6 protons and 6 electrons. If we have an item with unstable carbon, carbon 14, the atom does not have enough electrons, and given the unchanging rate of decay of carbon 14, we can tell by its instability how long it has been decaying from the parent isotope. So a non-decayed atom's nucleus would be stable and would have all of its electrons. Carbon 14 is unstable and therefore its age is measurable. The resolution of this debate is whether or not Carbon 14 dating is accurate. Accuracy is not an absolute idea as it is subject to gradation. So I will claim that carbon 14 is very accurate with its age results of biological items within 20,000-50,000 years, even with the margins of error, given the massive amount of geological time and carbon 14's ability to narrow the age range of objects. Also, Carbon 14 dating is really good with biological material because dead biological matter cannot absorb carbon 14, so if we find trace amounts of carbon 14 in dead organic material, we can tell when it died. The results can be verified by other scientific disciplines, and we can confirm its age conclusions on objects of already known age. I anticipate a healthy refute.
Carbon-14 Dating is not accurate.

Alright, I thought I had explained it well, but perhaps I didn't... You said "you must know the beginning amount of Carbon 14 to know how much time has passed." No. You need to know the amount of decayed carbon 14 in the fossil you have found, so that you can count the half lives back to non-decayed carbon 14 at the fossil's fossilization, which, as thoroughly mentioned before, is a sealed (fossilized) recording of how much carbon 14 was in the atmosphere at the time of fossilization. How do you know if you have decayed carbon 14? If your fossil is of a once living organism that either is a plant or consumed plants directly or indirectly, then it has decayed carbon 14. I found a fossilized plant with decayed carbon 14 levels that match the decayed carbon 14 levels of other fossils in the environmental area. The fixed rate--never changing, even if a nuclear bomb goes off--of carbon 14 is 5,730 years. So if I count backwards in time using this fixed number from the decayed carbon 14, I can count to when it was a non-decayed carbon 14 atom--as it is when it is absorbed by plants from the atmosphere--and at that time of fossilization, that is the atmospheric level of carbon 14. You just need to work the math backwards in time, and you arrive at the beginning amount of Carbon 14 at fossilization. I reject the claim that carbon 14 dating is inaccurate, because of the necessity of carbon 14 absorption by organisms who are or consume plants, the fixed rate of decay of carbon 14, and the atmospheric carbon 14 recording ability of a plant who was fossilized alive. Also, if carbon 14 dating was inaccurate, it wouldn't match up with known ages, or other dating techniques, but it does. Science is pretty cool.
Homosexuality is a Choice

Naturally I cannot explain what this gene may possibly entail or cause because the genetics study does not even know as they merely explain that it is POSSIBLE a gene exists that can alter your sexual orientation so until further research is conducted it cannot be said it does or does not cause changes in sexuality. Homosexuality has indeed be removed as a mental disorder as there has been no scientific evidence that it is a disorder (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu...) and because it is not a mental disorder, nor does it distress the person, there is no reason to search for a cure. Your argument now is that because the numbers are low it is a choice and that is your only argument, which holds no value, same could be said for allot of diseases, for example only 900.000 people died to Tuberculosis, small number so that must mean they chose it, no, that is wrong and faulty logic. It cannot be proven homosexuality is a choice it cannot be proven it isn't
Homosexuality is a Choice

I apologise for the late response, and the issue with the source. As previously stated, in the complete genetic map of human biological structure, a specific homosexual gene is non-existent. You argue that homosexuality may have a genetic or biological origin, however, fail to identify what this origin entails, or its effects on sexuality and mental health. Theoretically, if this gene existed, there is still no evidence to suggest that it would make someone "gay". The effects could trigger a mental disorder, which homosexuality was actually classified as until the mid 1970's when the gay rights movement suppressed the search for a cure [1]. However, if this gene cannot be located specifically, after decades or research, it makes it clear that even if homosexuality was a disorder, it would be a very rare or uncommon disorder. Just look at the numbers, in our society, it is a choice. [1] http://behaviorismandmentalhealth.com...
Homosexuality is a Choice

1.Since the source you mention leads me to the general website I've tried to find the latest article on gay gene(https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org...) it claims it cannot be said there exists a gay gene as it has not been proven however it does say 'it is tempting to claim that this study is concrete proof that sexual orientation is entirely genetic. To say so would be simplistic and, well, wrong. But it does constitute evidence that homosexuality has a biological basis.' 2. The source mentioned(TrueOrigin) makes claims about the 'twins study' that if there was a gay gene both twins would always be gay and since that is not the case it does not exist however genes can be 'inactive' (http://medicalxpress.com...) so it is therefore still possible for both twins to have a possible 'gay gene' but have it simply be inactive.
Homosexuality is a Choice

Thank-you for your arguments, I will now resort to rebuttals. For the next round, I ask that you attempt to argue against my points made in the first round, then make further arguments or rebuttals in the third and final round. 1. People are treated differently for their beliefs or identities all the time. In fact, progressive leftism is by far the most mainstream ideology in North America, and the fact of the matter is that homosexuals are not just accepted, but praised in twenty-first century society. In Canada, 80% of the population supports homosexuality, and 60% do in the United States [1] 2. Animals have no sense of morality whatsoever. Unlike humans, animals have no sexual conscience with regards towards right and wrong, or natural or unnatural. This debate is about homosexual humans, not "homosexual" animals. [1] http://www.pewglobal.org...
Homosexuality is a Choice

I do not believe homosexuality is a choice and these are my reasons as to why. Argument #1: Look at it logically, does choosing to be homosexual make sense? when you look at how homosexuals are treated this would be a clear no, some are killed which is even LEGAL to do making it even more stupid to be gay (https://www.washingtonpost.com...), besides that it also makes school significantly more difficult as you have to hide who you are most of the time for if you do not you will be a prime target to be bullied by allot of people and will most likely not have friends, the results of all this is that LGBT are up to 8 times more likely to commit suicide. Argument #2: Look at nature, animals live by instinct do they not? and yet homosexuality has been found in over 500 species(https://en.wikipedia.org...) so clearly no choice was made. My apologies if I did not respond in the correct format, this is my first time partaking.