BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Vampires v/ Werewolves

Continuing with the Twilight information, because as a girl, that is sadly what I know best (along with Underworld). Werewolves seem to have the ability to have hands and four paws interchangebly at will. And werewolves seem to be chronologically frozen so that they do not age physically while they have the ability to phase. You have a point on the blood thing, but that can be also switched to a weakness, because what happens if they don't get blood? They're hungry. And thus, weaker. Werewolves don't have that weakness because they can eat anything.
Vampires v/ Werewolves

How is that 'real' evidence? There is no actual proof that Werewolves/Vampires are real, despite how awesome that would be. Those are interpretations of myths. And in the Twilight Saga, which I see on that list of references, the Vampires are vulnerable to fire and werewolf attack, and of course bloodlust. Werewolves change at general will, and they're only vulnerable to being actually physically attacked. They heal themselves. If you tear off a vampire's arm, and hide it, it doesn't regenerate. If you throw it in the fire, it's gone for good.
Vampires v/ Werewolves

Here is real video proof that Vampires are better than Werewolves #1: osemtv.com/watch_video.php?v=132AOMR6H39B #2: osemtv.com/watch_video.php?v=132AOMR6H39B #3: osemtv.com/watch_video.php?v=7HD23DKM888U #4: osemtv.com/watch_video.php?v=59UXS9HB7H6U #5: www.dailymotion.com/.../xvejpq_the-twilight-saga-bre... As you can see by my evidence we know the supirior race.
Barack is one of the worst presidents

I would like to point out that your argument that debt is Obama's fault is completely invalid for one reason. We have had debt ever since the conception of this country. According to The Bureau of Public Debt, we have been in debt since The American Revolution which costed $75,463,476.52. That started our debt deficit. Then in the 1830s, under Andrew Jackson our debt was gone, and the Pro-Jacksonites soon became the democratic party. Then our debt amounted to millions soon after. So every president will have to deal with debt. And as the years passed into the 1900s, our debt grew to 22 Billion dollars. And the debt being high can't lead to debt in America. America's debt is high because of MANY factors. And about the debt leading to another Great Depression, which sources did you use? Because there are many news networks that have more bias, than fact. During the Great Depression the people spent more money than they had, when the credit card became popular. And the gas prices are completely unrelated to Obama, so may I ask how that is relevant? And gas prices have consistently risen since the beginning of gas. Everything has gotten more expensive, to be more accurate. You used to be able to buy a new car for $5,000. Many prices have escalated because the value of money has changed. http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov... (Debt info)
Barack is one of the worst presidents

If Obama is such a good president why do we have a debt of 16.9 trillion dollars and increasing, Also Health care plans to hire more I.R.S workers and it will force people to have health insurance, and back to the debt thing when the debt gets to high that means there will be more debt in america and it could led to another Great depression. Another thing to mention is gas prices are getting higher. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk... and http://www.mrconservative.com...
Barack is one of the worst presidents

As I've stated before, debt will continue increase day by day no matter who is in office, I have explained this in more detail in my other argument. But I do believe that he is trying. If he wasn't trying then he wouldn't have been re-elected. I will restate something I've said before: We have been in debt since the beginning of our country. Debt is debt is debt. That is something that the US will struggle with for years upon years. It's not like President Obama came into office and we suddenly have billions of dollars in debt. This has been an accumulation over the years. No matter who was President, we would have debt. And the purpose of me taking part of this debate was to not only voice my political opinions, but to see and understand those who view things different than I. So while I respect your opinion, I do not believe that President is necessarily is a bad President.
Rap Battle.

So, LeafRod stayed at home to beat his Meatwad, over his rhymes I Leapfrog [PAUSE] I'm the shepherd, he's the sheepdog He forfeited, of course he did He had to when he thought a bit He must be mad to challenge The conceptual contortionist The sort of sh1t I talk and spit Sends children to the orphanage I finish sh1t before it starts Like I was an abortionist [PAUSE] Again I pause a bit Competitors get torn to strips Try to go to war with this You'll find you're gettin more than dissed So shamed you'll change your name again knocked off the wagon, you're not no dragon If your method on the mic's so bangin' Why d'you leave the battle hangin? ___________ As specified that's twenty bars without holding back (much) :). Imagine the beat dropping out for the last four. Videos have no relevance to lyrics, merely setting the scene and making the post more symetrical lol. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Rap Battle.

Thanks to LeafRod for the opportunity to participate in what will be my first ever written battle and my first ever online battle. I have a lot of respect for LeafRod's taste in and knowledge of hiphop and I'm sure this will be a fun and competitive battle which I hope nobody takes overly seriously. I won't try and grab an extra round over my opponent, I will allow the instigator to set it off. http://www.youtube.com...
Rap Battle.

My opponent can start in R1 if he or she wants. There is a somewhat loose line limit—try to keep it below twenty lines. What constitutes a line isn't too rigid, but don't be ridiculous, meaning don't try to stick loads of words into a line and call it one line. Likewise, if you want to put a couple of words on a separate line to enhance the verse's feel or something, that doesn't have to count as a line. Voters, remember, quality over quantity, although I suspect there won't be trouble making it to twenty lines. As always, forget flow, because it can't be judged by reading lyrics. Just a quick note, these rap battles don't necessarily have to be dissing the other person, though that's obviously welcome. Finally, try not to vote according to whatever odd notions you may have of rap battling and think should apply to rap battles universally.
Rap Battle.

Thanks again to LeafRod for the fun little battle, I won't bother posting another verse as we've done one each. Couple of quick explanations on my verse above, apologies for patronising if it is all obvious. The meatwad thing is pretty self-explanatory, anyone who is unsure should check LeafRod's recent Haiku battle for a more poetic description of the implied activity. The sheepdog/shepherd thing is kind of a big-up and a diss; an insult wrapped in a complement. I'm saying that in hip hop terms, many behave like sheep but Leaf has the potential to lead and guide others. However as a shepherd, I am at a much higher level haha. Basically I'm saying he's my 'dawg' but I could also make him my b!tch lol. The line partly obscured by my avatar says conceptual contortionist. I am suggesting that I can lyrically take a topic or idea and twist and flip it in many different ways. I'm really just saying "hey, I'm clever and stuff". Like a lot of the violent imagery in hip hop, my statements about killing adults and embryos are purely a metaphorical description of the verbal violence I can deliver. LeafRod has had other accounts on here, most notably iamadragon. Falling off the wagon is a UK phrase meaning to begin consuming drink or drugs after a period of abstention. I understand (may be wrong) that Leaf is tee-total and doesn't do drugs and I'm implying that the shame of this defeat will force him to find solace in intoxicants. LeafRod has a Wu Tang quote on his profile "my method on the microphone's bangin'". Also I meant to say: "over his *round* I leapfrog" as a reference to the forfeited round but for some reason I wrote "rhymes" instead. This was fun. Thanks for reading. Con.
Rap Battle.

Set to the beat of "Top Billin'" by Audio Two: http://www.youtube.com... I have a mild feves, but that won't hamper If we were two leaves then I'd be damper You set up a verse but I have to tamper My shots burst and MCs scamper I'm an ill MC, chicks call me Leaf Real quick's how, I give grief I bust up mics, a hip-hop chief I even get dykes, all dudes got beef I'm at your house, got your girl Up her blouse while my words unfurl What spurred this twirl, what's wrong with Fever? And so I heard you just can't relieve her Clearly I'm gifted, I have mad skill Sands have shifted when I spill I cut dudes up cause I'm from Seville And I'd pass that bill if I were on Capitol Hill I never let down so I never refund it There's no other, ask a pundit I could go on but that's redundant I'm the best and proof's abundant [finish] Just a note, this is not at all my usual style. I wasn't even planning on writing a verse here, so I decided to go with a really old school style, especially because I've been listening to a bit of Audio Two and wanted to try something new. So yeah, this verse was kind of messing around for me, haha.
chicken or egg came first- i argue the egg

con gives no reason why we shouldn't be able to define what DNA is required to be a chicken, and have a cut off point. if we do this cut off point, the parents would not be chickens. in fact, it's not even necessarily arbitrary. i'll be sure to include these points in the next debates i create on this. if we have a regression for what are clearly chickens, and what are clearly not chickens but are ancesters.... eventually you will find some that cannot mate, a true hallmark for speciation. for example. x is not chicken. y is a chicken. they cannot make. y's parents cannot mate with X's offspring. if you keep going back in time with the chicken, and forward in time with the non chicken, eventually you will get to a point where they can in fact mate. this is around the cutoff for chickens. once we get to the point that they can mate, we have to step back a generation to the point they can't mate. and then we would map their DNA. this would be a highly complex project, finding those who can mate and those who can't. and in some ways it'd be impossible since ansesters of chickens are extinct. but, we now in principle this point exists. that theoretical point is the DNA point. the first chicken would be the first in that train wreck of possible mating that can't mate with its acestorial counterparts. there would surely have to be a point where the offspring couldn't mate with teh ancester, but the parents could. it has to happen at some point. and it might not be exact in practice.... the offspring might not be able to mate, but at certain attempts could, and or its offspring might be able to but the parent cant, cause there is a lot of variability with being able to mate or not, gentetically and in practice. but there is a certain theoretical point where it's not possible. and this is a species that comes first as an egg.
chicken or egg came first- i argue the egg

answer: the egg. the lithmus test for whether the chicken or egg came first, should be a defined list of DNA being met. science is inexact in listing what constitutes a species. if the animal meets criteria like two wings a beak two chicken legs etc, then it is a chicken. the problem is that this is an inexact science. it is sufficient for everyday use, sure. but a line has to be drawn. how do we draw it? the only way is to make a criteria in DNA and stick to it. we run into a problem similar to someone trying to sell something. a man wants to sell his 57 chevy for ten thousand. would be take a penny less? sure. two pennies? you see where i'm going with this. the man must set a limit. 9500 and not a penny less? so someone were to offer him a penny less and he does take it, is it really a firm limit? in practice, the man might take it, but we all know a point must be drawn. in practice, scientists might take a nucleotide or piece of DNA less, but a point must be drawn. what constitutes a chicken then will have a firm limit. in the line of chicken like animals before a chicken, there will be close calls no doubt. but it will be one animal that will evetually fill the criteria, meet the DNA match's minimum. and that animal will be first an egg, which hatches into the chicken that meets the match. practically, the parents of the chicken might be called chickens in everyday use, but a line indeed must be drawn, so they technically are not chickens.
Trinity is not logical and biblical

Some of my 'old' debates that I would like to recommend my opponent to read first, just in case some kind of argument had been refuted by me before : 1st debate : http://www.debate.org... 2nd debate : http://www.debate.org... 3rd debate : http://www.debate.org... To prove that God does not exist as trinity, I will give you some biblical verses that will refute trinity. Here it goes (all are NRSV) : + Jesus have a God (Please recognize the use of the word 'our') - "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:" (Deuteronomy 6:4) - "Jesus answered, "The first is, "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one;" (Mark 12:29) "Then the scribe said to him, "You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that "he is one, and besides him there is no other";" (Mark 12:32), confirming Mark 12:29 and the one God. "When Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." After that no one dared to ask him any question" (Mark 12:34), Jesus confirm the confirmation of the 'scribe'. + Jesus was sent by God (meaning he is a messenger) - "And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." (John 17:3) - "I glorified you on earth by finishing the work that you gave me to do." (John 17:4) And a logical question for my opponent : - If Jesus was sent, how come he is the sender? - If the Father is God, the Word is God, and the Spirit is God, while they're distinct from each other (they even 'talk to/send' one another) why only one God? - If Jesus was fully man and fully God, wasn't he supposed to inherit 100% of man's nature and 100% of God's nature? Those three questions, I hope that my opponent will answer them, along with his/her/their opening statement. Very simple rules : Round 1 : Opening statement and Rebuttal Round 2-4 : Rebuttal (again) Round 5 : Rebuttal and Closing Statement (to be continued if no one's satisfied) Please refute, enjoy, and Thank you for your time.
DDO Olympics: Abolish The Minimum Wage

Preface This is a debate for the DDO Olympics, individual tournament bracket B. Full Topic Resolved: The US ought to abolish both federal and state minimum wages Rules 1. No forfeits 2. Citations should be provided in the text of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Be civil 5. No trolling 6. 7. Do not question rule 6 8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate 9. The BOP is evenly shared; both debaters should affirm the desirability of their respective approaches 10. Obey the structure Structure R1. Acceptance R2. Cases/rebuttals R3. Rebuttals R4.
DDO Olympics: Abolish The Minimum Wage

Teenage unemploymentMy opponent has not responded to this argument after I proved a correlation between minimum wage and unemployment. Raising the minimum wage causes unemployment to increase. Need to make a living wageThe majority of minimum wage workers don't need to make a living wage. My opponent provides a source that argues otherwise, but the fact remains that employed people in poverty are a very small minority, and the minimum wage actually increases the number of people on government assistance programs by increasing unemployment. In conclusion, abolishing the minimum wage would not increase the number of people on government assistance, nor would it be reduced by raising the minimum wage. Stimulating the economyAbolishing the minimum wage would increase employment, stimulating the economy. My opponent claims that keeping the minimum wage would stimulate the economy more, but that's not true, because fewer people would be employed. Increased consumer spendingMy opponent claims that the minimum wage increases consumer spending, but the reality is that it just raises prices, forcing people to spend more, which is not a good thing. Increasing wages is no good if prices increase with it. My opponent also assumes that businesses wouldn't raise prices in order to stay competitive, but he ignores the fact that the reason businesses raise prices is to make sure they make enough money, so their competitors would raise prices as well if they lost money from a minimum wage increase. ConclusionI have proven that the minimum wage causes unemployment and high prices, and that keeping the minimum wage is not beneficial in any manner. The minimum wage should be abolished to eliminate or reduce the effects of these harms.
DDO Olympics: Abolish The Minimum Wage

Jumping right in: "Naturally, if the cost of living is higher in a certain area, businesses will have to offer higher wages if they want to hire anyone" A lot of minimum wage workers simply receive extra money off of welfare form the government because they can't afford to live by just a minimum wage alone: http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu... Your idea may sound good in theory, but in reality, minimum wage workers sometimes just have no choice and are forced to live in poverty with very little to no room for anything other than bare essentials. "If there were no minimum wage, employment rates would rise, and the employed would send their money right back to businesses, stimulating the economy even more" No evidence is given to demonstrate that it'd be more money, and I already demonstrated how businesses would not be inclined to fire people in my opening round. My opponent just makes bare assertions again. "In this case, increased consumer spending is a bad thing, because it occurs due to higher prices, which are harmful to lower income people such as those on minimum wage" There's a distinction between federal and state minimum wages... In addition many businesses would not raise prices in order to stay competitive. My opponent also neglects the fact that workers can afford to buy more which in time offsets these costs. "Workers who really need a living wage would most likely not have a minimum wage job. Besides, welfare should be abolished, so the government doesn't need to spend that money to begin with" This is refuted both by http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu... And the fact that it's a bare assertion on both points raised. ""Many companies simply pocket the money and increase the salary of CEO's rather than employing more workers." Evidence?" The fact that some CEO's make tens of millions of dollars any ally shows they could have put a bit more effort into increasing their workers wages... "People on minimum wage jobs rarely have to support a family. The vast majority of them are just trying to make a little extra money" Actually 73% of US welfare expenditures go to workers with insufficient wages: http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu... A minimum wage increase would decrease the amount of money we would spend on welfare as a result. "As for your statistics, only 28% of those people have children. Most of those are probably people with spouses who support their family with a different job. You need more statistics than that if you're going to try to refute the fact that minimum wage workers don't need a living wage" Again, I already demonstrated that people are suffering from underpayment. The vast majority of those people are adults. My opponent's myths about "extra spending money" are completely refuted by these facts that he's neglected to refute this entire debate. http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu... Thanks. In conclusion my points were not met with much evidence and my opponent made multiple logical fallacies over the course of this debate. Thank you.
DDO Olympics: Abolish The Minimum Wage

Rebuttals"If the goal were to guarantee low-paid workers everywhere in the country the same real purchasing power, that would require hundreds of different minimum wages, scaled to each locality"s cost of living."Naturally, if the cost of living is higher in a certain area, businesses will have to offer higher wages if they want to hire anyone."Money that minimum wage workers receive is spent right away and basically just sent right back to businesses, stimulating the economy."If there were no minimum wage, employment rates would rise, and the employed would send their money right back to businesses, stimulating the economy even more."According to a paper released by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, "an increase of $1.75 in the hourly federal minimum wage raises aggregate household spending by roughly $48 billion in the year following the minimum wage hike""Your source explains why: "Using a variety of U.S. and Canadian data, we demonstrated in Aaronson (2001) and Aaronson, French, and MacDonald (2008) that immediately after a minimum wage increase, limitedservice restaurants (i.e., fast-food restaurants) employing minimum wage workers pass close to 100% of the higher labor costs on to consumers in the form of higher prices."In this case, increased consumer spending is a bad thing, because it occurs due to higher prices, which are harmful to lower income people such as those on minimum wage."Because the minimum wage would ensure that way more minimum wage workers receive a living wage, the government would need less money to spend on welfare. As a result, we could implement a corporate tax cut which further lessens the burden on companies."Workers who really need a living wage would most likely not have a minimum wage job. Besides, welfare should be abolished, so the government doesn't need to spend that money to begin with.Defense"Many companies simply pocket the money and increase the salary of CEO's rather than employing more workers."Evidence?"It doesn't really matter if more people get employed if the jobs are not sufficient to support them anyway and require welfare form the government."People on minimum wage jobs rarely have to support a family. The vast majority of them are just trying to make a little extra money."And in regards to his graph, correlation does not imply causation and that does not account for multiple economic factors such as the housing crash."The economy started recovering from the housing crash in 2006. [1] If you look at my graph, you can see that teenage unemployment rose in 2007, and it rose every time the minimum wage rose, and only when the minimum wage rose. That's obviously causation.As for your statistics, only 28% of those people have children. Most of those are probably people with spouses who support their family with a different job. You need more statistics than that if you're going to try to refute the fact that minimum wage workers don't need a living wage.ConclusionThe minimum wage raises unemployment rates, and they aren't necessary to help people support a family.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...