BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
TV's Rap Battle Tournament- Badgers vs. Giraffes

Hello Badger boy, welcome to the rapWait now it's too late, you've stepped in my trap Bitch seriously? you think you got game?Come on, you gotta know you're raps are so lameI'm wild, and you well you're much too tameAsk around and I'll predict, everyone will say the sameI'm G-raf, that's my tagYou go around digging, like a little furry f@gMy d1ick's as long as my long long neckCan't even see yours, it's not even a speckBut you come up here and try to compete?You'll be bang bang dead, before your rap is completeGo back to digging a hole or eating some dirtBefore I really step up, rap hard and you get hurtCome on man, you know you ain't even worth itYou square as a box and my rhymes are fly and 'gitYou can see me graze majestically While you sit in a hole bored, and scratch your hairy bellyIt's been fun but I got to go manWhile I;m gone you need to work up a planI'll be waiting for you to come up here with a fussWhile I go to the plains, and pound some a that giraffe puss.
Fracking

Lets say fracking does create jobs. What good will those jobs do when we don't have a planet because we over polluted it and acted like we have another planet to live on after this. Each fracking well removes millions of gallons of freshwater from the water cycle, in a t ime hen water is more precious than ever. Each well uses up to five million gallons of freshwater which will be permanently contaminated by toxic chemicals contained in the fracking fluid. There are some indications that up to half of the water used in the fracking process makes it way back into the water supply that we humans drink. At least eight other states have reported surface, ground, and drinking water contamination due to fracking. Fracking is dangerous and its job creation does not outwiegh the dangers it brings to families and people who drink the water in the nearby areas.
Fracking

The process of fracking has it's faults but it does have a positive economic influence. It creates jobs and the natural gas that is a product of fracking is used for other home heating, electric generation, and industrial use. One of fracking's biggest known faults is the pollution that comes along with it. The only real solution to this problem is to do it in low populated areas. Of course the fracking is being done on property that the frackers have bought. Fracking is legal on land that one may have purchased.
Fracking

Fracking in America is a downright dangerous process. If it is the vicinity of water, it will be polluted, it will kill species living in the water and the surrounding ecosystems will be destroyed. During the process of fracking, methane gas and toxic chemicals leach out of the system to the water. Methane concentrations are 17 times higher in water wells near fracking sites. There have been over 1,000 documented cases of water contamination next to areas of gas drilling as well as cases of respiratory, and neurological damage due to the drinking of contaminated water. The waster fluid of fracking is left in one air pits to evaporate releasing harmful VOC's into the atmosphere, contributing to fracking's deadliness.
Iran Deal

"First, the fact that they still have 5,000 centrifuges is a part of the compromise. The United States would prefer, in a perfect scenario, that Iran have 0 centrifuges. However, Iran would prefer to have more than the original 9,000. We were able to decrease the threat of the potential of Iranian nuclear weapons." Saying that we were able to decrease the threat of the potential Iranian nuclear weapons is pretty rich when we were not even able to decrease their capabilities to build such a weapon by 50%. Sure, the United States has the ability to investigate Iran, but what is the guarantee that they can or will regularly investigate? "We, through the Iran Nuclear Deal, took the option of nuclear weapons off of the table, but Iran still gets a small increase in power. That's called a compromise." I would say that gaining access to the ability to buy conventional weapons and $60 billion dollars is a little bit more that a "small increase in power." We basically gave them a DIY kit to attacking other countries; access to weapons on a large scale, and a requisite sum of money to start them off. We have to look at why we were so bent on taking away their ability to create nuclear weapons that we gave them a huge amount of military power in exchange. " Although the main objective of the deal was to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, another was to create better relations with Iran." Oh boy, this is a good one. I think we can safely say that this objective has summarily failed, considering in your very words that Iran still wants "death to" the United States. That's not a small disagreement, or even a large argument. That's like if someone was sending you death threats repeatedly and you tried to give them stuff to make your relationship better. Obviously the situation with countries is much more complicated and it's a fallacy to represent Iran with one person, but clearly better relations with Iran were not achieved. The above rebuttal leads me into my next point, which is to ask the question, "What was the Iran Deal supposed to achieve?" The conductors of the deal have been no less than cagey about this, so it's left up to us to hypothesize. The most obvious goal would be to to remove Iran's capability to create nuclear weapons, but to that I ask, "Why?" We certainly haven't permanently removed this capability, as the deal will wear off in 10-15 years. We have given them the resources to build up a sizeable conventional arsenal in the meantime, and Iranian government leaders have many times expressed the fact that they can get around the restrictions we have put in place to stop the creations of a nuclear weapon. They have the ability to delay inspections with red tape and bureaucracy, as said by the Iranian Foreign Minister. The other goal of improving relations with Iran is definitely far from achieved, especially considering the leader of Iran said that they will not change their opposition towards America. What exactly did this deal accomplish?
Iran Deal

I will begin my second argument by refuting my opponents points, and then carry on with continued points of my own. Opponent's 1st Point: "The Iran deal left Iran with 5,000 working centrifuges, which isn't even a 50% decrease from the 9,000 they previously had. We know that 9,000 centrifuges would have allowed them to create a bomb in 6.8 months, and from there we can extrapolate that 5,000 centrifuges would allow them to create a bomb in about a year. Is it really so farfetched that Iran could secretly go against the deal if it meant that they would have a nuclear bomb in one year?" First, the fact that they still have 5,000 centrifuges is a part of the compromise. The United States would prefer, in a perfect scenario, that Iran have 0 centrifuges. However, Iran would prefer to have more than the original 9,000. We were able to decrease the threat of the potential of Iranian nuclear weapons. Second, The Iran deal occurred far more than one year go. The reason why Iran does not "have a nuclear bomb [after] one year" is simple. Because of the other parts of the deal that you chose to ignore. One of them is the fact that the United States, through the United Nations (where the United States controls a lot of power), has the ability to investigate Iranian uranium facilities whenever we want. If they attempt to build a nuclear weapon with the remaining 5,000 centrifuges, we will notice, and reimpose the sanctions and re-freeze the now unfrozen assets. Opponents' 2nd Point: " While not the $150 billion that some politicians like to spout, the closer estimate of $60 billion is still sizeable. Combine this with the removal of the weapons embargoes on Iran and we can see that Iran does not need nuclear weapons to be a significant threat to worldwide peace." Sure, by giving Iran access to their money and the ability to purchase weapons again, they would become more powerful. This is yet another example of the compromise. The Iranians would prefer, in a perfect scenario, many nuclear weapons, which would give them the ability to devastate a nation, like the United States (who they want "death to"). The United States, would prefer that Iran isn't a threat at all. We, through the Iran Nuclear Deal, took the option of nuclear weapons off of the table, but Iran still gets a small increase in power. That's called a compromise. At this point, I will continue with my points. Iran has not obtained a nuclear weapon, and the United States, and out allies, will continue to ensure that that is the case, through investigation of facilities and ability to impose sanctions. If at any point, Iran wants to cheat the deal, we will stop them. Although the main objective of the deal was to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, another was to create better relations with Iran. United States-Iranian relations are very poor right now, which is why, by working together on things like the Iran Deal, we can achieve better relations with a growing international power.
Iran Deal

Let"s start off by looking at what this deal was supposed to achieve. Obviously, the goal of these negotiations was to stop the progress of Iran with regards to making nuclear weapons, certainly a reasonable goal. However if we look at what the deal actually achieved, we can see that this is clearly not the case. The Iran deal left Iran with 5,000 working centrifuges, which isn"t even a 50% decrease from the 9,000 they previously had. We know that 9,000 centrifuges would have allowed them to create a bomb in 6.8 months, and from there we can extrapolate that 5,000 centrifuges would allow them to create a bomb in about a year. Is it really so farfetched that Iran could secretly go against the deal if it meant that they would have a nuclear bomb in one year? Of course, this is a hypothetical situation and not necessarily relevant. What is relevant is the monetary value of Iran"s assets that were freed up as part of this agreement. While not the $150 billion that some politicians like to spout, the closer estimate of $60 billion is still sizeable. Combine this with the removal of the weapons embargos on Iran and we can see that Iran does not need nuclear weapons to be a significant threat to worldwide peace. Conventional weapons from Russia and China will do just fine.
Iran Deal

The Iran Deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, was an agreement reached on July 14th, 2015. It is widely considered to be one of the major successes of the Obama Administration, although the full affects have yet to be seen. The best word to describe this deal is "compromise". The United States, as well as other allies, negotiated the terms of this deal with Iran for years, and neither side got exactly what they wanted, as is commonplace in eventual agreements. The main criticism of this deal, is how much money the Iranian government received from the United States'. This grievance is not only unfounded, but unnecessary. The assertion that Iran would agree to all of the terms we set is quite ignorant and, to say the least, ambitious. The ultimate goal of the agreement was to keep the Iranian government from obtaining nuclear weapons. This agreement does just that. At the time the agreement was made, many of the countries who had sanctions against Iran, which brought the Iranian government to the negotiating table, were about to end their sanctions. If we had allowed them to do this, it would have made it extremely easy for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. The bottom line is this: we stopped Iran from getting nuclear weapons, and that, despite the cost, was an excellent decision for the Obama Administration to make.
Taxation is Theft AND immoral

Seeing that the entirety of my opponent"s proposition is based on the single proposition that taxation is done without consent, I will proceed to attack it. Taxation firstly, is carried out only to those who reside in the given area. Tourists, for example, are given the chance to refund their taxes, on the basis that they do not reside in the area. Taxation is carried out only to people who reside in the area. When residing in an area, you agree to that area"s laws, in exchange for protection by that area. When you apply for residence or citizenship for example, you are required to sign papers that legally bind you to that area"s law. This agreement guarantees you citizenship rights, which may include healthcare education and military protection. But this agreement also subjects you to the law, which includes laws on taxation. By residing in your country, you have agreed explicitly to this agreement, and agreed to be subjected to the country"s law, and therefore you have consented to being taxed. By consenting to this legal social contract, you have also agreed that you will be punished if you do not pay your taxes. Therefore, while you might be punished, it is only at your prior consent. And since you agreed to be taxed, the taking away of money from you is with your consent and therefore not theft, which also makes your argument on how taxation is immoral fall, since it requires the premise that taxation is theft. Secondly, tax money is almost always used for the development of a country. Such developments requires funding that comes from taxes, and therefore development is a consequence of taxation. Development has the goal to improve the lives of people, and therefore taxation has good consequences making taxation moral by consequentialism.
Taxation is Theft AND immoral

I must defend two main syllogisms to fulfill my burden of proof: 1.) Premiss One: Theft is initiated force aimed at revoking one’s right of ownership over something without consent and granting a new right of ownership to the thief. Explication: Definitional; when a highwayman demands money, they are removing your ownership of the money and making it their possession. This is theft not because of the transition of ownership rights, but because the transition does not respect the self-ownership of the victim, in that the victim was not able to decide whether or not to give up ownership of the money of their own accord; the choice was made for them, thus stripping them of free will. It is force or the threat of force which grants the highwayman his power. Premiss Two: Taxation is theft. Explication: For an act to not be theft, one criteria must be met: that the act be done with the consent of all involved. Just as one cannot be said to “consent to sex” at gunpoint precisely because of the violent consequences of one of the two responses (yes or no), one cannot be said to consent to anything at gunpoint. In the same vein, consent means the consent of he who is in charge of governing his rights: the individual. One cannot consent on another’s behalf; ten cannot make it so that one consents; ten million cannot either. Likewise, one cannot assume that another consents “by default”. What other meaning of “consent” is imaginable? Taxation is by no means consensual. Consent implies that one can either say yes or no; if one says no to taxation, they are jailed. If one tries to escape their unjust imprisonment, they are shot. Taxation is backed by guns. Conclusion One: Taxation is [the initiation of force]. 2.) Premiss One’: The initiation of force is, without qualifiers, immoral. Explication: Axiom: Humans are able to purposefully act. Axiom: Morality determines the proper acts and aims of moral agents. Extension: Where one cannot purposefully act (where one cannot choose one's goals and means), morality plays no role. Definition: Saying "X should do Y" is a moral claim. Axiom: All essential things being equal but the agent, moral judgments retain their validity. Extension: "X should do Y" is equivalent to "X' should do Y" if X and X' are essentially indistinguishable. Proposition: "X should give up his own freedom" is a contradixion. Demonstration: The statement professes an acceptance of morality (it is normative), but advocates that one discard morality (for giving up one's freedom destroys moral agency). Proposition: "X should violate Z's freedom (make Z give up his freedom)" is a contradixion. Demonstration: If X giving up his freedom is a contradixion, it cannot be prescribed, and if Z giving up his freedom is effectively the same, morally, as X giving up his freedom, the new statement also falls. The same applies to "X should give up freedom in favour of another value." Premiss Two’: Taxation is the initiation of force. Conclusion Two: Taxation is, without qualifiers, immoral.
Taxation is Theft AND immoral

I accept this challenge and will attempt to prove that taxation is not theft and is moral. Taxation shall herein be defined as the governmental action of collecting a portion of the people's money for the further development of this country. Theft shall herein be defined as the criminal act of forcefully taking money from a person without the person's consent. Morality shall herein be defined as in the general philosophical sense, but I would require for my opponent to try and prove taxation's immorality in a variety of means, including consequentialism, Kantian categorical imperatives and perhaps in terms of Aristotelian virtue. One other note, please keep this debate secular. Thank you, and I will allow my opponent to speak now.
Vegetarianism

Eating meat isn't necessary for maximum development. All of the vitamins, minerals etc. in meat can be found in other foods. Plants don't have a conciseness while animals do. Even if they did, it still doesn't justify the eating of meat. Does the taste of meat really out-way the costs of killing? My conclusion: I'll keep it short and simple. Vegetarianism is a good thing because it saves lives, helps one's health and it helps the environment. I didn't bring religion into this debate but almost all of the major religions (even the ones that allow meat eating like Judaism and Christianity) agree that vegetarianism is better than eating meat.
Vegetarianism

"Nowadays we can find the same nutrients and protein that helped us to develop large brains and intelligence in the form of vegetarian food. " Plant proteins are somewhat compromised by their limitation of one or more amino acids. When we restore the relatively deficient amino acid in a plant protein, we get a response rate equivalent to animal proteins. It is better to have a balanced diet from both plants and animals, to ensure maximum development...without one or the other the diet is somewhat limited. Plants don't have a conscious. They are alive but they will not feel pain as there is no central nervous system connecting to a brain. My point was they felt fear electrochemically. Also, they live too no? And we have "no moral or nihilistic reasons to deprive them of this right". Animals don't feel pain anyways, as I have told you above in my precious points. Furthermore, the simple fact that our taste buds crave meat isn't a reason why people should eat meat as it serves no true benefit - just taste which is quite superficial. Taste isn't superficial...there are whole economies and lives built around taste, and meat. Which brings me to my next point; If we did away with all the meat eating-related jobs, from sanitation to ranching to cooking, what would happen to the economy?
Vegetarianism

I apologise for failing to comment on your points. As I mentioned in a comment, I didn't see them. I shall argue against them here: Nowadays we can find the same nutrients and protein that helped us to develop large brains and intelligence in the form of vegetarian food. Furthermore, the simple fact that our taste buds crave meat isn't a reason why people should eat meat as it serves no true benefit - just taste which is quite superficial. Crops don't have to be grown in the USA. About my points: I submit to you that morality is subjective. Nevertheless, the common view is that chewing gum is not as much as a moral dilemma as killing. I provided you with stats and evidence concerning health issues. Plants don't have a conscious. They are alive but they will not feel pain as there is no central nervous system connecting to a brain.
Vegetarianism

"If you read what I wrote under "Animals have the right to live", you'll realise that I did explain how it is more ethical for humans not to eat animals." That may be true, but would it not be more moral for humans to simply eat raw vitamins and nothing else? Or to simply let our race die off to allow animals and plants to live? Humans should solve their own problems before attacking a completely species problems. Morality in this case is subjective. "Chewing gum isn't exactly morally questionable. Killing animals is immoral and, as i mentioned before, "if we do not need to inflict pain to animals in order to survive, we should not do it." My point here is that the morality of killing animals is subjective, not objective. "About health: science is showing that cutting back on meat is healthier for just about everyone," Statistics? My points on eating lean meat show that it is more healthy to eat mat, whereas you show no proof whatsoever. " and more and more people are doing just that: today, 3 percent of American adults (over 7 million people) never eat meat, fish or poultry. The Meatless Monday campaign - a successful voluntary reduction effort in the U.S. during both World War I and World War II that was relaunched in 2003 at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health to help Americans cut down on saturated fat"has become a full-blown movement. Cities like San Francisco have made official Meatless Monday proclamations; school systems and college dining halls have adopted the philosophy; celebrity chefs like Mario Batali are leading the charge in restaurants. Meatless Monday programs are thriving in countries such as Korea, Brazil, Croatia and Canada. You probably know several people who"ve given up meat"maybe dairy and eggs too"every day of the week. Maybe you"re one of them. (http://www.eatingwell.com......)" Bandwagon fallacy/appeal to popularity. Just because a lot of people do it doesn't mean we have to do it. ex. The romans kept slaves...we should be able to keep slaves too! You also failed to address my points. Also, since plants respond too, and it would require a lot more plants be killed for a sustainable vegetarian diet, would that not be more immoral? As I said, there are standards and regulations on meat eating. Animals live pleasant, short lives, and have almost perfect lives. The only time they may feel pain is when they are killed. Modern slaughter techniques minimize the suffering of animals. US slaughterhouses must conform to the Humane Slaughter Act (HMSA) which mandates that livestock be stunned unconscious before slaughter. (Ingrid Newkirk, "Temple Grandin: Helping the Animals We Can't Save," prime.peta.org, Feb. 14, 2010)