BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
resolved: mettal is better for society than rap, wich is detramental to society.

its true you would get kicked out of class for plagerizing... on a report or a paper, but in debate you use pre-written cards you get from reliable sources, you read those in your first speach, then argue based on it in your later speaches and in the questioning piriods. on another note... you are abusing this round... ....expecting to win based on spelling alone, not giving me a single on-case argument untill your first speach ....introducing new evidence after your seccond speach and sence you are, i will as well- A- Rap is known for its horrendous use of bad language in the majority of rap you here on the radio, there is allways spaces and beeps where theese "artists" use foul language. among theese, the 2 most common are "f-ck/b*ch" and "n-ggers". now the first pair is an extreamly sexist word and the seccond is an extreamly racist word. do you know what the purpose of language is? the purpose of creating a language is to be able to define reality and whats around you. and in a language where theres this common hiarch referd to in such songs that have such a heavy influence on youth, this will in reality create opression of blacks and womyn. and as proven by history, opression of a couple inevitivly leads to opression of many. B-the majority of rap on the raidio and on the ipods of americas youth is not christion, or music with good values christion rap is only a small % of rappers as a whole and statisticaly dont have a very strong infuence on todays youth, seing as how in the past decade, rap has become overewelmingly one of the most popular type of music, and seing the crime raits go up in sequence with raps popularity. c-ANYONE CAN WRITE LYRICS i dont know anyone who cant ryme 2 words and work it into a phrase D-all you argued is that rap has tallent, but didnt talk about how it was not harmfull to society. in not posting any on-case arguments to this specific resolution, and relying allmost wholy on your good spelling you have lost this debate. in a debate who cares about the spelling? all that matters is the winning of oncase arguments and the majority of offcase. kritiking spelling is just stupid, lol that would be laughable if thats the only argument you brought up in a real debate round. to the spectators: all my opponent has done is provided a lazy off case kritik of my spelling and has answerd none of my numerous on-case and off-case arguments. he has ruined this debate by basicaly working his way around the actual resolution witch is extreamly harmfull to fairnes and education wich is a voter. so please, vote AFF! =)
resolved: mettal is better for society than rap, wich is detramental to society.

http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Thank you for posting your next argument. Sadly you have still failed to provide a real argument using your own words. The words that you do use are very hard to interpret. You did not answer any of my questions that are necessary for this debate. Plagiarism is still cheating, no matter what you want to call it. Have you ever taken a debate class? You can be ejected from the debate for using plagiarism. You did not put in your own commentary throughout the debate, but rather posted a short rant at the beginning. You have take offence to a simple debate. You have cheated by using plagiarism. You are using horrific grammar and your ‘argument' fails to answer my questions in depth. Despite all of this I will post a brief argument, though I know this debate is already won. There is no way of telling which music is better for society. The reason is, there are so many different people, white, black, northerners, southerners, short, tall, Christian, atheist, gay, strait, ect…. There can not be one type of music for all of them. You claim that rap music requires no talent. Well first let me say that many people would take that claim as racism, but in this debate I will not use that card. Watch video #1. Okay, now ignoring the amazing talent this person has to make a beat, he can rap better than you. He came up with the lyrics which takes talent. Saying that it does not take any talent to write rap is saying that it takes no talent to write songs. You also say that rappers just need to pay someone to push a button. Can't you say the same thing about singers in the metal bands? They pay someone to play the drums, they pay someone to do the guitar, and they pay someone to scream in the background. It is sometimes called teamwork. You say that you are a Christian, well, please view video #2. If you believe what you said here, "All you need to do is talk into a microphone about the STUP!DEST SH!T" Then you are saying that about your religion. Did you know there is a such thing as Christian rap, it is a form of worship. The truth is that it all depends on what music the individual likes, and not just what you like. I have tried to base my argument off of your own words. My references in this argument are the videos I have shown. I encourage you to try to post your own words in the last debate. Audience, please vote con. Thank you
resolved: mettal is better for society than rap, wich is detramental to society.

my opponent has tried to avoid the issue and make a retarded offcase argumant on how i shouldnt use anything i didnt right. but i would like to bring up the point that in a real debate you use cards (witch you dont wright), you basicaly argue off of any information you can find thats out there, what i am doing is perfictaly legitament, i took an artical and added a little of my own commentary creating my arguments (unlike my oponent who has curently no oncase arguments). and as far as your questions, go read my first speach. it specificaly talks about how rap is a negative influence witch harms education, raizes crime raits and hurts society in generaL. I WILL NOT WAIST MY 2AC RE-EXPLAINING ALL OF THIS!! Dont be lazy just go and read it. Spectators, you should vote AFF because the NEG as of currently has not created a single oncase argument to counter any of the number of arguments i have brought up, and therefore has conseeded to all of them. all he has ran is a failed offcase argument saying that using bits from other articals is bad. This being the case that the neg has posed no valad offcase and no oncase resons to vote neg, you have no reson to vote neg and thus should vote aff. (also even if my oponent brings up arguments in his 2NC, this would be abusive of the round and just another reson th vote AFF) (P.S. who cares about perfict spelling?)
resolved: mettal is better for society than rap, wich is detramental to society.

My opponent is trying to prove three things. 1.Rap is bad for society. 2.Rap requires no talent 3.Rock music is better for society than rap I would like to start of by saying that pro has plagiarized by copying his words from http://www.stabroeknews.com... and http://www.associatedcontent.com... Since my opponent has fail to word his own debate, I will simply use this round to ask him some questions. I expect for him to use his own words in round two, only then will I reply. Question 1: Do you think rap music should cease to be on the Radio. Question 2: Why is Metal good for society? Question 3: What do you think that talent is? Already my opponent has clearly lost the votes of spelling and conduct. Sources: (1). http://dictionary.reference.com...
resolved: mettal is better for society than rap, wich is detramental to society.

ok where is the talent in rap? so what you can rhyme a few words and loop them 1000 times to some crappy synth beat. anyone with musical talent need not apply to the realm of rap cuz to make it in the rap industry you just need to pay someone to push buttons to make a song and all you need to do is talk into a microphone about the STUP!DEST SH!T and boom your a millionare corrupting the music industry. Metal is a lot better for a simple reason. Its a lot of variety! You have tons and tons and tons of bands and styles. So even those that don\'t like the Growling can find something they like. rap is bad for society- link - youth/crime Rap music tends to focus on wealth. The wealth is attained by being a thug and participating in such activities as gangs, drug dealing, and larceny. The message all too often is crime pays, and pays in a very big way. The problem lies in the fact that the get rich quick and easy life style is far too alluring to young people especially in a society which promotes individualism and looking out for number one to begin with. When you multiply the effect by hearing that crime pays, a dangerous pattern begins to emerge. link - education Visit almost any public school high school in America and the impact of rap music is instantly visible. From young men dressing to emulate their favorite rap artist to young women dressing to match the women and dancers featured on the feature videos. however, the influence does not stop with clothing and jewelry. The achievement gap separating the poor from just about everyone else springs from a powerful, anti-education culture rising in the poor community, a local think tank argues in a new report. Parents who undervalue education, and a mass media that peppers youth with the quick, shallow rewards of hip-hop lifestyle, are steering alarming numbers of boys down a dead-end path, PolicyBridge contends.
same - sex marriage

Since you have recently forfeited the round, allow me to continue on why gay marriage is wrong in so many cases. According to the website gaymarriageprocon.org, "Gay marriage will accelerate the assimilation of gays into mainstream heterosexual culture to the detriment of the homosexual community." (gaymarriageprocon.org). The gay community has created its own vibrant culture. By reducing the differences in opportunities and experiences between gay and heterosexual people, this unique culture may cease to exist. Marriage means adopting heterosexual forms of family and giving up distinctively gay family forms and perhaps even gay and lesbian culture. Back in colonial time, it was forbidden that people of the same sex could be together. The article "Gay Rights Timeline" states that "In 1610, the Virginia Colony passed the first known anti sodomy law in America. Under this law, the practice of sodomy was punished by death." (Proquest). While all of the colonies passed laws against sodomy, the records of prosecutions of such acts are scant. The Puritans of New England condemned sodomy, whether it was heterosexual or homosexual, because the act did not result in the production of offspring and it went against their religious beliefs. The Massachusetts Bay Colony used the Old Testament of the Bible when enacting legislation on homosexual activity. It included in its 1641 law the passage from Leviticus, which states "if any man lieth with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed abomination, they both shall surely be put to death." (Proquest) Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law. On the contrary, same-sex "marriage" is intrinsically sterile. If the "spouses" want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage. Same-sex "marriage" opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility. If homosexual "marriage" is universally accepted as the present step in sexual "freedom," what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? "Gay Marriage ProCon.org." ProConorg Headlines. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2013. ProQuest Staff. "Gay Rights Timeline." Leading Issues Timelines.. 2013: n.pag. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 26 Oct 2013
same - sex marriage

Children who need to be adopted should not be able to live in any household regardless of sexual orientation. According to Friedman, "The public interest in marriage relates to how it moves toward bridging the male-female divide, toward favoring; procreation, and toward parents setting aside individual satisfaction to cooperate in raising children" (Friedman, 2010). Society will suffer because the families that form its basis lose their stability; an affect that will have repercussion for future generations. Just four days ago, the state legislature began work on legislation that repeals the constitutional ban and substituting a gender neutral definition of marriage Nevada had ban same-sex marriage. According to the article "Group appeals ruling that upheld Nevada's same-sex marriage ban", "Nevada holds the key to access for the sweeping array of spousal rights and responsibilities under federal law and keeps them locked away from same-sex couples under the marriage ban" (Chereb 2013) The promoters of same-sex "marriage" propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementary in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children. I get that gay marriage will take over all of America within a few years from now, but as of right now, only 14 states such as California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington allow gay marriage to happen here in America. If you look at the link below, you will see that most of America has banned gay marriage in certain states such as Texas and Florida and mostly the southern states of America. http://www.npr.org... You will see that people in America are still not accepting the fact that people of the same sex are falling in love. They are used to seeing a man and a woman fall in love with each other and watching a same-sex couple fall in love is unfamiliar. I get the fact that people of the same-sex love each other, I really do, but it's something that most of America is not alright with right now. Chereb, Sandra. "Group appeals ruling that upheld Nevada's same-sex marriage ban". Las Vegas Review Journal. 18 October 2013. Print. Friedman, Lauri. "Gay Marriage". New York: Gale Congage Learning, 2010. Print. "Gay Marriage ProCon.org." ProConorg Headlines. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Oct. 2013. ProQuest Staff. "At Issue: Same-Sex Marriage." ProQuest LLC. 2013: n.pag. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 22 Oct 2013
same - sex marriage

It is in the child"s best interests that he or she be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. According to the website gaymarriageprocon.org, "Children without a mother or father are deprived of the emotional security and unique advice that mothers and fathers provide. An Apr. 2001 study published in American Sociological Review suggested that children with lesbian or gay parents are more likely to engage in a homosexual behavior." (gaymarriageprocon.org). The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex marriage. A child of a same-sex marriage will always be deprived of either his or her natural mother or father. They will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with them. They will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model. Friedman explains that "in reality, children raised by homosexuals do not do as well, than children raised by heterosexual father-mother pairs" (Friedman, 2010) Same-sex marriage definitely isn't in the best interest of children. Although people empathize with those homosexuals who long to be married and parent children, they mustn't allow the compassion for them to trump our compassion for children. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and well being of the spouses. The website gaymarriageprocon.org claims that "marriage is a privilege, not a right. Society can choose to endorse certain types of sexual arrangements and give support in the form of benefits to these arrangements" (gaymarriageprocon.org). Marriage was created to allow society to support heterosexual couples in procreation and society can choose not to give the same benefits to same-sex couples. Friedman, Lauri. "Gay Marriage". New York: Gale Congage Learning, 2010. Print. "Gay Marriage ProCon.org." ProConorg Headlines. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2013.
same - sex marriage

Marriage should be more focused on a man and a woman rather than a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Daniel R. Hemibach says that "a male and a woman are the ones that exist to strengthen society by sharing property and children" (Friedman, 2010).The dictionary definition of institution is "a well-established and structured pattern of behavior or of relationships that is accepted as a fundamental part of a culture, such as marriage" (Dictionary.com). Same-sex marriage is not something that's institutional. It has been something that has been something that has been around for a few years. People in America are still not comfortable accepting the fact that people of the same sex are together because it is something that is a new idea. They are used to seeing a man and a woman fall in love with each other and watching a same-sex couple fall in love is unfamiliar. It is a burden on business when same-sex couples marry because benefits must now be extended to those spouses also. If a same-sex choose to adopt a child, it will eventually lead the child to "sexual confusion, depression, criminality, and drug abuse" (Friedman, 2010). Fiedman, Lauri. "Gay Marriage". New York: Gale Congage Learning, 2010. Print. "Institution." http://dictionary.reference.com.... 18 October 2013.
same - sex marriage

Marriage should be defined as two people who love each other and should not be focused on gender. The website "Balancedpolitics.org" says that, "same - sex marriage does not hurt society or anyone in particular." How does two men getting married directly affect a family down the street. Their marriage is their own business and no one else's. Society should not dictate what two adults do. If a person loves another person that is all that should matter. If society points the finger and says how same - sex couples should not have the right to marry then that is doing more harm then good. Two heterosexuals getting married and then one of the spouses finally deciding to come out of the closet does happen. But this is not directly related to same - sex marriage. It has to do with their own personal issues. Two persons of the same gender getting married did not cause their marriage to crumble. It was the fact that one of the people was not staying true to themselves. Also, many other issues are the reason that people get divorced. According to The Huffington Post it says, "states that allow same-sex unions have lower divorce rates. Since the Defense of Marriage Act was found unconstitutional talk of same -sex marriage and divorce has dominated the news. In states where same-sex marriages are legally recognized, the divorce rate is 20 percent lower than in states that only allow marriages between a man and a woman. For example, Massachusetts, which was the first state to legalize same-sex marriage (in 2004), also has the lowest divorce rate in the country (huffington post)." This shows how trying to defend marriage as only being between a man and a woman is unconstitutional and that in those states the divorce rates are going down. You can't just institutionalize marriage as being what it has traditionally been. Times are changes and as a society and a nation we must be progressive and move forward. Not everyone is going to agree with everything and it is our job to look at the bigger picture and ask ourselves, "I may not agree with it, but it is actually effecting my way of living?" Messerli, Joe. "Should Same-Sex Marriages Be Legalized?" - Free Balanced, Non-Partisan Discussion of Political & SocialIssues for Debate (Pros and Cons). N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2013. <http://www.balancedpolitics.org...;. N/A. "Gay Marriage: States That Allow Same-Sex Unions Have Lower Divorce Rates." N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2013. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;.
same - sex marriage

Same-Sex marriage will indeed hurt heterosexual marragies. Accoording to the article "At Issue: Same Sex Marriage", they claim that "the oppentents of same-sex marriage claim that marriage is between a man and a woman and view anything else as morally wrong. They argue that allowing homosexual couples to marry is unconstitutional and would destroy the sancity of marriage." (At Issue: Same Sex Marriage 1). More heterosexuals have been getting divorsed than ever before beucase of the fact that eithetr the man or the woman have claimed to be gay, which can hurt alot of people, epsically children. These homosexuals then go on to get married themselves which can hurt the person they married first. Marriage is not just about intitutionalizing any kind of relationship, but only male-female ones that exist to socitey by sharing property and children.
same - sex marriage

Same - sex marriage will in no way hurt heterosexual marriages. According to Gaymarriageprocon.org it states, "... In 2009 Social Science Quarterly found that laws permitting same - sex marriage have no adverse effect on marriage..." If two guys or two girls want to get married it is not going to effect anyone else's marriage. It's not like if two people of the same sex get married another persons marriage is automatically going to fall apart. If that does happen then it is a problem between those two and not the outcome of two guys or two girls getting married. Say you found out your neighbors Peter and Joe got married and they go about their business as usual. Is that going to force your marriage to crumble. It's like when two heterosexual people get married and nothing happens to another couples marriage. Like Ellen DeGeneres said, "Portia and I have been married for 4 years and they have been the happiest of my life. And in those 4 years, I don"t think we hurt anyone else"s marriage. I asked all of my neighbors and they say they"re fine." http://gaymarriage.procon.org...
When you accept a debate you should also accept that the resolution is real/applicable.

I've had a fun time gahbage. Thank you for this debate. And I like your new monkey picture as well. It's cute. ----- 1. My first argument still stands. I quoteth: "Alright, I worded the resolution poorly... That's an exception...". Gahbage agrees that his resolution was falsely written to his intended view, and that I have successfully found an exception to this false resolution. However, he does not tell us what he would change the resolution to. Thus, the current resolution stands. Again, I only need to find one exception to win this debate -- this has not been disputed -- and I have found one. Thus, I win this debate. He does go on to cite his Adam and Eve example, but this is negligent and should be ignored. All I needed to do, was to find an example, and I did. 2. My second argument still stands; gahbage misunderstood my reasoning. The word "you" when used reflexively as the indirect object of a verb is highly informal. In gahbage's R2 (and less so in his R1), it is more than obvious that he is speaking to me. Thus, I was only right to assume that "you" must refer to me. What other specified person(s) could he be talking to? He does not tell me. 3. My third argument still stands. My opponent agrees that attacking a resolution is fair game under certain circumstances. Like I have said, I need only to find one exception to his resolution. Here, he blatantly writes that there are exceptions to his resolution. Therefore, I win this debate. All my arguments stand. Now, you, the audience, must weigh them against gahbage's one argument. The winner is clear.