BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap battle

From lookin at your picture, you see yourself with 2 glocks, Tu Pac While i rap so destructively, you get shot non-stop, a G is what you not! Shadowkingstudios? As if you have your own record label... Your name in and of itself is just a mere folklore, a fable Typical black man wit saggin' pants n' weed smokin' An end to your stereotype is what i'm dearly hopin! You look Martin Luther King bad with your whack tries Cuz everybody can see right through your lies You only wrap sandwiches, flip burgers n' pass fries Get out of my sight before another fool dies so say your prayer of fate i'ma end you like the undertaker Put a streak through your name, take your mom, dissect her To see what in the world brought you into this world Your words shall be used against you, leave you unfurled Your finished, diminished, leave your rap name whirled
killing these homos is not immoral (they are too different than us)

Since Pro used their Closing to make more points and inquiries, I will summarise and extend my position. In Conclusion, I argued that suffering and the ability of killing sentient self-conscious beings like our ancestors would be good and reasonable grounds to conclude that in the realm of morality, that is how we should and ought to behave in our individual relations and our broader societal relations, that we can say with a great deal of confidence that there are two overriding reasons to say killing 'homo's' is immoral.Consequence on broader societyPro made one specific argument, that is 'they are too different than us', but pro never clarified difference. Differences in what? Species? Looks? Intelligence? Physical ability? On the simple and singular point of 'difference', it is not a slippy slope fallacy to say that killing based solely on 'difference' with no clarification can lead to destructive and detrimental effects on our broad society. Religious difference, racial difference, physiological difference, and even intelligence gaps or poverty lines as deciders. To me, not only is being 'different' not in and of itself grounds to exclude their consideration for morality, but if we say it is not directly immoral to kill the homo, a point I have not conceded but for my second point.Let's pretend. In that case, my points about broader society would imply that the act of killing 'homo's would lead to suffering of individuals we may under Pro's framework care about. On that note, we can say that the direct consequence on broader society is enough to condemn the action of killing Homo's.Suffering and desiresSimply put, these beings can feel pain, they were the precursors to us, and therefore it follows that they had a nervous system identical to us, anyone familiar with evolutionary theory would know, a new or different nervous system takes more than even 25 species. So, these beings suffer, and it would be unfair to cause them needless suffering simply because they are not our species. We would be sickened with someone who killed kittens in front of the mother, and since these species are social animals, the suffering of needlessly slaughtering them in front of each other, or even the lack of presence of one you have murdered in quiet, is enough to condemn the practise.In conclusionPro made no argument at all, and my original point was not challenged. I made a case and presented multiple reasons for concluding that it is morally wrong to kill Homo's.
killing these homos is not immoral (they are too different than us)

so where do you draw the line? how far back on the evolutionary scale is okay to kill and not kill? they are not homo sapien. they might not even be able to breed with homo sapien. are you that familiar with the science of it all that you know they are so similarr as to warrant not killing them say for sport? what makes you so sure about your stance? my guess is that they are homos, and you just don't like kiliing homos.
killing these homos is not immoral (they are too different than us)

No argument has been made. I will make it very simply, killing another sentient self-conscious being involves destroying their future plans, relationships and also killing can also involve pain and misery for both the individual and the relations of that individual. Our pre-ancestors were family and group based, therefore it is not unreasonable to say killing one of their members is both an act of causing suffering and also taking the life of a being who in most cases do not want to die. It seems plain absurd to say the suffering of individuals should not matter because they are 'different'.
Gay Marriage

I believe that marriage is a simple right that each and every person should have. It is a ridiculous separation that the gay community faces from the straight community, and it also makes the U.S. more of a hypocritical nation than it already is since "Liberty (freedom from obligation, restriction, hampering conditions) and Justice (the quality of being correct) for all" is not being followed through yet again with the laws of this country as not only is the inability to marry a restriction on the people but the opposing arguments are all based on religious values which are completely invalid to the constitution. Marriage between religious sects and between races used to be completely wrong in society but have been overturned and allowed. Why can't we add gay marriage?
Civilization V is better than or equal to Civilization IV.

Okay, haven't been on Debate.org for a couple of months, so this shall be a break. Anyone miss me? Only joking. So, let's begin! Thank you Darknes' for starting this debate. Anyway, let's go on: Civilization 5 vs. Civilization 4. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Civilization 5 is better or equal to Civilization 4 because of the fact that Civilization 5 include almost all the features of Civilization 4 plus some improvements that better off the game. City warfare has been revamped. Other Civilization games depend on garrisoned units, which is not very helpful actually. Cities can attack and defend, which is perfectly awesome. There is balance between ranged and melee units, which, of course, balances the game and makes it even harder. Civilization 5 has more units, so that basically means that you may have more improved units. Civilization 5 also has AI-controlled leaders, which is always fun to play with. Therefore, Civilization 5 is the ultimate version of Civilization 4. That should be for now and now it's your turn Darknes'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sources http://en.wikipedia.org...
should trump be potus

Donald Trump is a misogynistic, racist, white supremacist and will be the downfall of our country. He makes women feel unsafe in their own bodies, promotes the idea of women being sexual objects and thinks it is OK to "grab a woman by their p****." I do not see how someone so infantile could even run a bathtub. If he can't control his own hair, how is he supposed to control our country? In the past 100 days he has already gotten rid of LGBTQ+ Rights and the Black Rights pages from the white house website, put a ban strictly against Muslim countries, and dismantled the Affordable Care Act. It is unbelievable our country could be so stupid to let someone so closed minded into the office.
Tony Blair Was A Good British Prime Minister

My opponent makes the point that Tony Blair was deeply inspired by Marxist's. I don't know exactly to what extent this is correct but it doesn't really matter because we are not debating whether the inner values of Tony Blair are good or bad. What we are debating was whether Tony Blair was a good Prime Minister. For this argument to be valid he would need to link it to decisions based on Marxism that Tony Blair took during his time as Prime Minister that backfired. Simply stating that the likes of Stalin were not good leaders is beside the point. My opponent also says Blair focused on and I quote, "the importance of the young people in Great Britain and their so called superiority in intelligence, while constantly belittling elders in Great Britain as those who clung to the past." Once again this is not a proper argument because my opponent does not give any evidence as to this actually happening. "It is my belief that had Britain had a more autonomous role within the European Union, Brexit would never have succeeded". Not that I wish to come across as pedantic but once again it is difficult to rebuke my opponents claim because he offers no evidence to back up these claims. In terms of his source as far as I could find I could not see any European Legislation. If he wouldn't mind sending me some links to specific articles its just I don't have time to work my way through hundreds of complex pieces of legislation. I agree that the Iraq war was a major mistake but I am arguing that he was good Prime Minister. He did make mistakes and the Iraq War was the biggest of these mistakes. I would say however that he did have some very successful foreign interventions including in Kosovo in 1999 where he managed persuaded the US to join him in threatening a ground invasion. A move that would force the Serbian Dictator Milosevic to capitulate ending the threat of mass genocide. - It is a BBC documentary. The clips that I am refering to start on 26:58 and end on 38:10.
Tony Blair Was A Good British Prime Minister

The original terms of the debate asked CON to set out why Tony Blair was not a good Prime Minister. However I am perfectly happy to kick this one off. I would like to start my argument by saying that I am not arguing Blair was the best Prime Minister Britain has ever had, but that he was a good Prime Minister. During his ten years in office Blair achieved many things. He got unemployment down from about 8% to 5%. He took child poverty down from about 27% to 17% meaning he took over a 600,000 children out of poverty. He did something very similar with Pensioner Poverty reducing it by over a million. Overall poverty also reduced during this time. He was also incidentally the first Prime Minister since Jim Callaghan who avoided a recession while in office and brought about the lowest period of sustained low inflation since the 60's. In public services he invested record figures into the public services. He hired over 14,000 more police officers, 85,000 more Nurses, 32,000 more Doctors and 36,000 more teachers. He got heart disease deaths down by 150,000, Cancer deaths down by 50,000 and he cut crime by 32%. In school we saw record levels of literacy and numeracy. He build 2,200 sure start centres. He introduced the minimum wage and then raised it to "5.52, something Britain had needed for a long time and this contributed to the steady rise in wages seen in Tony Blair's premiership. He legalised same-sex relationships and civil unions. In terms of issues like Iraq I am sure we will come to those later in the debate. https://en.wikipedia.org...... sorry i cant insert one of my sources but just type into google 50 best achievements of Tony Blair and its the word press article. I now await my opponents response.
students getting paid for making good grades

I took a pole in one of my classes to see how many would try harder for money. The class had twenty-five students. Out of that twenty-five students twenty two said they would the other three didn't partake in it. So with that said other countries pay their students just for showing up and we can't even give ten dollars for a high C or twenty for a B or fifty for an A. What dose that say about us? How long until the government gives this a try? If and when they do they will see how much their test scores increase as a whole.
students getting paid for making good grades

Not every school district has the funds to pay for such luxuries such as new things for sports teams. Take the current condition of the state of Illinois for example. In the current state debt, how can they be expected to pay for student grades, when there are much more pressing matters? And even in the terms of getting paid for a grade, a C is too low of an expectation. C is considered average. Not anything spectacular. Most club outings that people know of, earn the money themselves, through private fundraisers, not school funds. They earn them. Public fundraisers at schools usually put the funds towards improving the school, not trivial things such as paying students. A good education, is reward enough.
students getting paid for making good grades

In response to that all I have to say is if they can afford to buy all the new stuff for the sport team's and the different types of so called club outings then they can cut out a little bit every nine weeks to pay the students for their grades being at least a high C or above. And I know for a fact that the school system is a lot better off than it seems even with all the fund raisers that the students partake in.
students getting paid for making good grades

Students should not get paid for getting good grades for a few simple reasons. First this debate could be taken in two ways, based on whom pays the students. If parents are supposed to pay their kids for good grades, parents in a bottom-class situation simply may not be able to afford the extra expense, if they struggle with bills and food as it is. If you are talking about the school system paying, then my argument there is the fact that school districts already struggle with budgets affording many things that should be mandatory in a students activities. Some teachers are laid off, because a district cannot afford to pay them. School is a place to learn, that is enough of an incentive to attend, as you create the opportunity to make a living for yourself, instead where you getting paid for good grades can teach students to feel as if they get free handouts (in cases of where a class can be an easy grade.)
The trinity is un-Biblical.

So we agree at least that Christ and God are one in the same. Now consider the attributes of God. Well compare the attributes of the Holy Spirit: Eternal - Heb 9:14; Omnipresent-Psalms 139:7-10; Has a will-1Cor 12:11; Demonstrates love- Romans 15:30; Speaks- Acts 8:29; 13:2. When speaking of Christ as a man The Holy Spirit led Christ and filled Christ in Luke 4:1 and was responsible for raising Christ from the dead- Romans 8:11. As far as names go based off the link you provided, Peter infers the Holy Ghost and God are the same in Acts 5:3-4: But Peter said Ananias why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? While it remained, was it not thine own? And after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. Lastly, Seems to me the idea of the trinity comes from Biblical texts so how can it be un-Biblical?
The trinity is un-Biblical.

Matt. 28:19 is a great scripture for doctrine. Figure out what it's trying to tell you. Figure out the name! http://mballestero.files.wordpress.com...The name is.... Jesus! Jesus is described as the Father in Isaiah 9:6, the Son of God in Matt. 16:16, and the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, in John 14:26. Earlier in the passage, He says, "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you".Next, the reason He said, "I and my Father are one", is because He was specifically talking there about His duality. He was 100% man and 100% God. Remember, the MAN Christ Jesus was flesh, but since the fullness of the Godhead was in Him, He was also 100% God. (Colossians 2:9)Then, when He said, "I AM", He was talking about how He was the Jehovah of the Old Testament. He said, "Before Abraham was, I am", in John 8:58. He was trying to tell them, I am the I AM of the Old Testament, and I am the I AM robed in flesh.All for now, new debate with you soon on same topic?
The trinity is un-Biblical.

If the word echad can be utilized to mean 'one' as in number, or 'one' as in unification, who is to say which one is being utilized in the book of Dueteronomy? Comparison between websites have contrasting point of view on the issue, so it's equivocal. For my argument, I can reasonably say it's used in the context of unification. You mentioned the baptism of Christ - In Matthew 28:19, Jesus says, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," - Ergo equality between all three. Otherwise, the Commandment would have been, "..baptizing them in the name of the Father." Comparison between God and Christ also shows equality - Christ says in John 10:30, "I and my Father are one." In Luke 22 and John 8, the Pharisees questioned Christ's being equal with God - in response, He say, "I AM". God identfied Himself the same way to Moses in Exodus 3:14.
The trinity is un-Biblical.

Rebuttals- Echad as used in Deuteronomy 6:4, can mean united, but, it can also mean one, alone, a man, etc. Besides, in that scripture, two different people aren't being referenced here as two are in Gen. 2:24. Another event people mistake for the showing of a trinity is at Jesus' baptism. There were three main reasons for this event. 1. Jesus' Benefit- The man Christ Jesus needed this confirmation as it would start his ministry. 2. John the Baptist's Benefit- John had no idea as stated in John 1:33 who the messiah was. 3. The people there- This event confirmed to the people that Jesus was the Messiah. The Dove was for John so he could see who the Messiah was as stated in John 1:32-34. The Voice from heaven confirmed to the people and to the man Christ Jesus that he was indeed the Messiah to save the people. In summary, there wasn't three different persons in the Godhead there, only two signs and the man Christ Jesus getting baptized. Next up, why the trinity contradicts itself.
The trinity is un-Biblical.

You are correct in what God stated in Deuteronomy 6:4: Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God , the Lord is one!" - The Hebrew word "one" in this verse (being the Old Testament was written in Hebrew) is 'echad. The same word was utilized in Genesis 2:24 when referring to the unification between a man and a woman in marriage: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." Obviously we understand that they don't actually mold into one another to become one - but they are recognized as one even though they are separate. http://halfshekel.com... Describing a book is a perfect illustration - You can describe the length, width and height of a book. The length is not the book"s width, the width is not the book"s thickness. The dimensions are described differently, yet together, they make up the book. If you remove one dimension, you are no longer describing the book. In the same manner, the Trinity is comprised of three, yet they are all one.
The trinity is un-Biblical.

God revealed himself to the Jews as one God in Deut. 6:4. Also, he has said there is NO god WITH me as stated in Deut. 32:39. Jesus Himself said that the first commandment was that there is one God. Mark 12:29. Many people confuse the duality of Jesus as more than one God or persons talking to each other. Jesus, as proven and shown by Pentecostals and Trinitarians alike, is a duality. 100% man and 100% God. http://studiesinscripture.com... Since Jesus was 100% God, He could calm the waves of the Sea of Galilee. Also since he was 100% man, He had to pray to God as a man as we all should. Jesus, was literally God robed in the flesh. (John 1:1-14) You see, since God is a Spirit, (John 4:24), he could not show himself to man the way he wanted to. So, he took on flesh and dwelt among us. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself. (2 Cor. 5:19) It wasn't a separate person showing people the way to another. It was God showing Himself to us.
The trinity is un-Biblical.

The trinity, referring to the Christian trinity http://en.wikipedia.org... , is un-Biblical. For this debate, we will only use the King James Bible to prove or disprove it. Burden of Proof is shared by the Pro and the Con. This is a debate between Christians, so if you are not a Christian, please don't accept this. I, the Pro, will be proving the trinity is false, and the Con will prove the trinity is true. Best wishes!
Nothing suggests there must be a God

First, everything doesn't come from God, everything is God. God is existence itself. Also, it can be known that God has a Will from the balance of things, and even life itself as well as the metaphysical and physical balance within. Even bringing up a statement that there is or ever could be "a nothing" shows ignorance toward what I actually meant when referring to nothing. Nothing does not exist, and never could exist by its definition. That is my point. Many believe that there was once nothing outside of a singularity in the Big Bang Theory. The point is that nothing cannot be something. By the things directly observed, it is possible to understand what is not directly observed. For example a chess board set up with all its pieces is observed. The game's outcome is not known, but based upon each possible move, we can see possible outcomes. The bottom line is that everything has always been everything by its definition. Nothing will never be anything by its definition, and life must spring from life by its definition. In the end, it doesn't matter what you believe or question. The only thing that matters is what exists as God is existence.
Nothing suggests there must be a God

So... "God" refers to a place, that has a will. And this place is where everything else comes from... So, how do you know that there is a place with a will? How do you know that it's where everything comes from? What does it mean for a place to have a will? Have you ever observed a "nothing" so as to determine how it works? How can you make positive statements about the nature of something you've never observed? If we had nothings to observe, maybe it'd be common knowledge that things come from them all the time. Naturally, I couldn't say. My ignorance of the nature of nothing (having never observed it) keeps me from saying it must work that way, just as your ignorance of the nature of nothing should keep you from saying it must work another way. "it is known to be true that existence has always existed because it exists now." Why does the current existence of existence imply that it's always existed? Not that I'm sure how this relates to the debate ;) Feel free to ignore the points about the "nothing/something" business if it's not relevant.
Nothing suggests there must be a God

In saying that God is existence, God is more of a place than a person, but a place with its own Will similar to that of a person. The place that is God is where all other things spring from. What it means to say existence has always existed is that nothing comes from nothing. Nothing is just that, nothing. The end. However, we are. Others are. The stars are. Also it is known to be true that existence has always existed because it exists now. As I have said, nothing springs from nothing.
Nothing suggests there must be a God

What does it mean to say that God "is existence?" What does it mean to say that something "is existence?" What do you mean by "existence has always existed?" How do you know that it has always existed? I know that our observations within the universe suggest that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Do you believe that this constraint is also true outside of or before the universe as we know it? If so, how do you know that be true?