BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap battle!!!

This will be a custom rap battle rules 1. you do not have to create the rap yourself, please paste a video of the rap on the debate though. 2. please choose a rap that does not include bad language (not much at least). 3. lyrics can be posted but are not required. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.youtube.com... STAR WARS GANGSTA RAP lyrics: It's not the east or the west side. No its not It's not the north or the south side. No its not It's the Dark side. You are correct. Keep frontin' of the Empire, So all you vader haters out there, go blow your planet up! What is thy bidding my master? It's a disaster Skywalker we're after. What if he could be turned to the dark side... Yes, he'd be a powerful ally, another dark jedi. He will join us or die. We got deathstar (DeathStar) We got deathstar (DeathStar) We got deathstar (DeathStar) We got deathstar (DeathStar) We got deathstar (Deathstar) We got deathstar (Deathstar) We got deathstar (Deathstar) We got deathstar (Deathstar) And you know that we got it (Deathstar) And you know that we got it (Deathstar) Fades... Uncle Owen: Luke, getcho *** over here right now, Stop monkeying 'round that landspeeder, Where them two droids I asked you to clean boy?, Did you clean your room? Luke: Uncle Owen, I know I'm on probation I cleaned the droids Can I go to tashi station I got a lay away on a power converter But now you're treating me like a scruffy nerf herder Obi Wan (Ben): Luke use the force and run Run to dagobah run to dagobah Luke use the force and run Run to dagobah run to dagobah Yoda: I'm Yoda, I'm a soldier I'll mold ya and fold ya I though I told ya Don't be unwise Judge me not by my size You won't believe your eyes Once the X wing rise Luke: Yoda why you bein' a playa hata You know that I must still confront Lord Vader Yoda: But Luke, Not ready are you Luke: But there's a city in the clouds where they're keeping my crew A Jedi's got to do what a Jedi's got to do So now Vader, I'm coming for you Vader: Impressive now release your anger You must have sensed what your friends are in danger Luke: OWW! Why'd you slice off my hand Vader: Its imperative you understand Obi Wan would never bother Telling you about your father Luke: He told me enough - he told me you killed him Vader: Then there's something I must reveal him I'm your father I'm your father I'm your father I'm your father I'm your father I'm your father I'm your father I'm your father Uncle Owen: Knock em out the box Luke Knock em out Knock em out the box Luke Knock em out Knock em out the box Luke Knock em out Knock em out the box Luke Knock em out Knock em out the box Luke Comments to these lyrics Leave a Comment (Maximum characters: 500) You have characters left. Verification: Enter the text in the image No comments to these lyrics yet, be the first!
Christianity V.S. evolution

You want proof it changed? This should explain it http://www.nola.com... 2. I don't have to believe in the big bang or a creator to believe in evolution. I believe there was a different beginning. What logic is that? Einstein didn't believe in the big bang http://guardianlv.com... or a God (or a personal one at least). Stephen Hawking doesn't believe in God (and says there is no need for one) and evolution http://www.dailygalaxy.com... As for your long list of questions let me ask you some that you probably can't answer to most either. 1. Did you see God create the universe? 2. Did Jesus really go 40 some days without food? 3. Which rib did Adam give to God to create Eve? 4. How long did it take for God to create the universe? 5. Why doesn't God populate the Earth? 6. Why doesn't God have offspring like Gods like in the Greek pantheon(s)? Also why do you continue to use the Bible as a source? It's inaccurate and it's changed (as mentioned above) so why don't you pull out RELIABLE facts from REAL sources?
Christianity V.S. evolution

First of all, prove the bible has changed Second, if you don't believe in the big bang then you must believe in a creator therefore you can not believe in complete evolution. The miracles that I have witnessed are many that to you may not be but that's because you don't look at things the same way because you are what us Christians call spiritually blind, in other words you don't see God in stuff you just see it as a coincidence or luck. One of the specific miracles that I have seen is I was looking for where the bible says the Earth is round and I opened right up to Isaiah 40:22. About natural selection, I don't agree with it the only thing that could be prove is that the strongest survive. Now for my final argument... You have never seen evolution occur and you have faith just like we do so show me the evidence that evolution is a fact and not just an opinion. Which evolved first, male or female? 2. How many millions of years elapsed between the first male and first female? 3. List at least 9 of the false assumptions made with radioactive dating methods. 4. Why hasn't any extinct creature re-evolved after millions of years? 5. Which came first: "the eye, "the eyelid, "the eyebrow, "the eye sockets, "the eye muscles, "the eye lashes, "the tear ducts, "the brain"s interpretation of light? 6. How many millions of years between each in question 5? 7. If we all evolved from a common ancestor, why can"t all the different species mate with one another and produce fertile offspring? 8. List any of the millions of creatures in just five stages of its evolution showing the progression of a new organ of any kind. When you have done this, you can collect the millions of dollars in rewards offered for proof of evolution! 9. Why is it that the very things that would prove Evolution (transitional forms) are still missing? 10. Explain why something as complex as human life could happen by chance, but something as simple as a coin must have a creator. (Show your math solution.) 11. Why aren't any fossils or coal or oil being formed today? 12. List 50 vestigial or useless organs or appendages in the human body. 13. Why hasn't anyone collected the millions of dollars in rewards for proof of evolution? 14. If life began hundreds of millions of years ago, why is the earth still under populated? 15. Why hasn't evolution duplicated all species on all continents?
Christianity V.S. evolution

Yes actually I have seen some miracles that the only explanation is God and to you they may not be but you have to look at stuff different ways and the bible talks about Jesus performing miracles on Earth and Jesus is God. Now The bible has not changed they have just made different versions where they word the words deferentially and Science has changed so many times that there has been so many different theories and they are just opinions of people not fact. There was no one to observe the universe exploding either so you can't prove the big bang theory or any of evolution for that matter except maybe natural selection.
Christianity V.S. evolution

"I didn't say he saw a "draglm" I said a "dragon"." I typed that on my phone. Ignore that. Anyways, you say he can do anything? Can you prove that? Have you seen him enact miracles on Earth? How am I sure they are right? How are you sure the Bible is right is a better question. Seeing as it was written thousands of years ago and then changed over the years. At least scientists bring up tenable arguments and presumable pieces of evidence. My point? My point is evolution has been proven more than creationism. You can't prove God said "Let there be light" because no one was actually there to record it. Also the Earth is not 10,000 years old. It's around 4 billion. Want sources? Here http://www.talkorigins.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.universetoday.com...
Christianity V.S. evolution

I didn't say he saw a "draglm" I said a "dragon". Second of all I said it can be edited and what if someone didn't see the mistake. How do you know the bible isn't accurate and it doesn't say he feed thousands with one piece of bread it says he made a lot of bread to feed the multitude and Jesus is GOD so he can do anything. Third, I didn't say it made the science look stupid and how do you know that the fossils are millions of years old, faith that scientists are right, right? Fourth, I argued in my other argument if you read past the part where I say you need faith. My rebuttal... and your point is...
Christianity V.S. evolution

I'm defending my points now. First-How can you be sure Alexander actually saw a "draglm". Were you there when he saw the "Dragon". Also they are stories for a reason, Second-Saying Wikipedia isn't reliable because it's added by random people isn't true. Wikipedia checks it's facts. Also the bible isn't accurate either, seeing as it discusses Jesus feeding thousands with a loaf of bread. stupi Third -We have advanced technology. Mistakes are common but not so common that it makes the scientific community look stupid. Fourth-Saying I haven't seen evolution is the equivalent of me saying you didn't see god create the universe correct? Now my argument... Darwin went to the Galapagos islands and saw 4 finches each with different beaks and shapes. To further add, the finches colonised the island...however they diverged on the different islands with distance so breeding wasn't it. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...'s_finches
Christianity V.S. evolution

My first point is The word dinosaur wasn't invented until 1842 by Richard Owen and in the bible it talks about so called "Dragons" in Isaiah 51:9 - "Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD; awake, as in the ancient days, in the generations of old. [Art] thou not it that hath cut Rahab, [and] wounded the dragon?" There have also been stories of "dragons" like after Alexander the Great invaded India he brought back reports of seeing a great hissing dragon living in a cave, so don't you think it's possible for the "dragons" to be dinosaurs. Second of all Wikipedia is not a reliable source since people can add anything they want. My third point is how do you know that the way we tell the age of things is accurate and what if the carbon dating made a mistake after all we are humans and we are not perfect nor our machines. My fourth point is have you ever seen evolution occur with your own eyes and your answer is probably no, so you have to have faith in your evolution. Now you may ask if I have ever seen GOD create the universe and the answer is no and I have faith the same as you do but I have seen stuff that to the spiritually blind might not be anything but to Christians it is the work of GOD. For example, if someone says something like "oh god loves us" and starts proving it, to the spiritually blind they may think of it as nothing but there could happen to be a christian walking by who over heard it and may have been asking for proof that god loves us. http://paleobiology.si.edu... http://www.genesispark.com... and the bible
Christianity V.S. evolution

There is evidence of evolution. One, dinosaurs. The earth can't be thousands of years old if dinosaurs are MILLIONS of years old. Second there are skeletons of previous life forms more than 10,000 years old. Third evolution has been slightly proven before. Whales have evolved from the Indohyus and Pakicetidae. The skeletons have been found in Pakistan. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
If an omnipotent, omnicient, and omni-benevolent God can exist with evil.

As Neg in a religious debate, I always allow the Pro to present his/her arguments first. The premise of this debate refers mostly to the Christian God, which is said to be all good, all knowing, and all powerful. This point can be contested as to the meanings of omnipotent, omnicient, and omni-benevolent. Also, the meaning of evil can be contested. The whole resolution can be contested in meaning. I leave such variety, as this is a philosophy debate mostly. The form presented does not matter, but I would like an experienced, serious debater to accept this debate. So I now leave it to the Aff to prove the resolution. Thank you.
Abortion should be legal

Hello, I'm just a 13 year old kid who just like to debate. So the argument is abortion should be legal because people can choose to have a kid or not, and forcing them can suffer the child and the parent. Making it illegal will make women who want to abort go to dangerous place that can harm them and possibly kill them. Unborn baby only feel pain at 20 weeks and most of these abortion is when the women life is in danger.
The Eternal Debate For Integrity: Science Student V Religious Scholar

Allow me to defend my honour, your honour. In order to become involved in the sciences, one must achieve the highest grade standards, spending thousands and thousands in education fees. What does a religious scholar have to do? - go church and library every Sunday!! lol lmao (exaggeration for dramatic effect, spectators burst out in hysterics) Furthermore, scientists must attain perfect mindfulness when performing practical examinations, and must also develop an eagle eye for detail when conducting analysis. In other words, scientists have to be highly versatile in a competitive industry. Science evolves around theories and trial-and-error, as it will constantly adapt and change with the times, whereas scriptures are literally out of date. Anyone can claim to be a prophet if they are highly influential. Without science you'd have no cures to diseases and famines. Without science you'd have no technology. Without science, you'd fall pray to a priestly paedophile.Dun Dun Dunnnn (The crowd are applauding my brilliance, I've got a standing ovation, the floor is yours)
The Eternal Debate For Integrity: Science Student V Religious Scholar

I accept. I am not a religious scholar, but I will be advocating for the theistic worldview. I wish to clarify the idea of finding which profession is "better." This is a broad term and it depends on what we're trying to achieve. In a sense, science and religion cannot be in conflict because they are seeking to answer different questions. Science seeks to discover how things happen, and religion seeks to understand why. For example, science can tell us that humans survive longer by getting proper nutrition and exercise. But science cannot tell us why survival is something we should desire or deserve. This gets into the purpose of life, and only philosophy/religion is equipped to answer that question. As such, I will be approaching this debate from the position that theism offers more complete, coherent, and practical answers to the questions of origin, meaning, morality, and purpose. In my mind, the side that demonstrates the strongest case in these 4 criteria is "better." Looking forward to a good debate.
The Eternal Debate For Integrity: Science Student V Religious Scholar

ROLE PLAY Picture this, a Scientist (me) and a Religious Scholar (opponent) walk in to an intense, chilling, spectator filled debate hall. With both of their careers at stake, each must defend their profession, and highlight the weaknesses of the oppositions' profession. The aim is to convince the spectators and judges (viewers of ddo) that your industry is the more honest, transparent, and integral of the two. Loser must hang his head in Eternal shame and admit the opponents profession is better and just. Winner gets bragging rights. R1-Acceptance R2-Highlight profession's strengths only, no rebuttals yet R3-4-Rebuttals, point out weaknesses, arguments. R5-comments-:Conclusion and celebration ceremony.
Present arguments that show what's wrong with cohabitation

"Pro" position means that I will be questioning your arguments for why a man(boyfriend) living with a woman(girlfriend) together in a sexual relationship is wrong. " - No, Pro presents why it ISN'T wrong in their opinion. "You provide arguments for why cohabitation is wrong or whatever harm it does. " - That's your job. You are against it, Not me. Even though I accepted and I am "Con", I'm actually not against it, But it's clear that you're against it. "I have to choose a side by default of the website. " - No you don't. When you create a debate, You have the option to choose Pro or Con. It doesn't give you one by default. For proof, I did some research and you did a similar debate like this before: https://www. Debate. Org/debates/Cohabitation-Living-together-before-marriage-will-most-likely-result-in-divorce. /1/ And you chose Con (against it) which you should have done on here. I'm aware of what the discussion format is, You just seem to have a few things mixed up which confused me. "So there's no mention of marriage whatsoever in that context. " According to the definition of Cohabitation, It in fact includes "two people who are not married that live together". Even in that link above, You said "The term is commonly used regarding unmarried couples who choose to live together without officially getting married. " in your Round 1. Please explain that. "So being that your position is not seeing anything wrong with cohabitation. " - Yet in your opening statement and your comment, You make it clear that my role is to say my argument on why cohabitation is wrong though. You are contradicting. You are Pro, I am Con (should be switched around) you can't give me the option to be devil's advocate or whatever the case, Therefore the debate won't be proper. You should have changed the title of the debate, Changed your opening statement on Round 1, And made yourself "Con" so it wouldn't be any confusion. In this debate it, From your Round 1, It shows that you are for cohabitation and that you're not a against it, But actually you are. Proof is even in the link I sent. So this debate should have been me being Pro and you being Con. I will now be "Pro" and you will be "Con" I'll go ahead and state my argument again - They are in a relationship as long as they are happy and they respect each other. They are eventually going to get married. I honestly don't see the big deal. I mean, Sex before marriage is a sin. Not everything is going to go by the book. Convince me otherwise.
Present arguments that show what's wrong with cohabitation

Yes I made it clear in the opening that the context of this discussion is, Why a man(boyfriend) living with a woman(girlfriend)together in a sexual relationship is WRONG. So there's no mention of marriage whatsoever in that context. The only titles mentioned are "boyfriend" and "girlfriend". So being that your position is not seeing anything wrong with cohabitation, You can either play devil's advocate or reconsider accepting the challenge.
Present arguments that show what's wrong with cohabitation

Greetings. One question before we begin our debate. 1. Cohabitation is the definition as follows: The state of living together and having a sexual relationship without being married. You didn't add "without getting married" part. Was it your intention to not add that, Or do you in fact mean "without getting married"? I don't want to make too many assumptions or go off the wrong foot or deep end until you answer question above so I'll keep my first response brief in a simple sentence - I don't see anything wrong with it, They are in a relationship as long as they are happy and they respect each other. After you respond back, It will be easier for me and I will get more in depth.
Should homework be banned? (In secondary school)

I understand that homework helps to clarify what was learned during the school day,and that also gives practice with content, concepts and skills. But, homework must be corrected quickly or students get frustrated and lose interest. Homework disturbs family life and prevents students from doing household chores. Homework is often meaningless busywork which does not promote real learning students do need time to relax, play and pursue sports and hobbies children need free time to regroup and relax, just like adults do Too much homework can encourage cheating because children end up copying off one another in an attempt to finish all their assignments. They then end up being rewarded for cheating which doesn't benefit them at all. According to the researchers, regardless of how much a student generally studies each day, if that student sacrifices sleep time to study more than usual, he or she will have more trouble understanding material taught in class and be more likely to struggle on an assignment or test the following day.http://www.healthline.com... And finally, a lot of teachers don't often have the time to grade papers properly as they are too busy with designing lesson plans and consulting teaching resources in order to just manage lessons. So by the time students are getting their papers back, the class has moved on to a new topic (which is quite annoying).
Should homework be banned? (In secondary school)

Like you I am also in year 10, going into year 11, but I live in Scotland so it's S3 going into S4. So here in Scotland the work in School and the work at home is very different. School work is usually more for learning, so most of the lesson the teacher is talking to the class, explaining concepts, then for maybe 15 minutes at the end the class would put what they have learnt into practice. Homework is not for learning, it is for practicing, this allows for the student to fully practice and understand what they have learnt in class so that the next time they go to class they can move on and actually use the teachers expertise and spend their in-class time on learning, not on revision. Now onto countering some of the points you made: Firstly "it is stressful". Well let's imagine that you go through school with no stress, when you get a job or go to college/uni you all of a sudden have to meet strict deadline, all very stressful. My point is exposure to stress is not necessarily a bad thing, sure too much of it can be harmful, but the stress caused by homework can actually help you learn to deal with stress before you are put into a real life situation where people are dependent on you (which is much more stressful). You then said "it takes away from free time". What is more important? Understanding and getting better at school work or playing Call of Duty. For me, along with many others, the answer is the former. School in general takes away from free time, but that's no reason not to attend school. Another point you mentioned was to do with IQ. As far as I know IQ is something that is fixed from birth, therefore of course homework isn't going to affect it, nothing will. And finally (because it would take me too long to counter everything) you said "It can negatively affect performance". I believe it could go either way - if you are good at managing your time efficiently then I believe it will have a very positive impact on your knowledge and understanding. Reading your closing paragraph I believe we have found a middle ground - I have no respect for teachers who give meaningless homework, I completely agree that meaningless, unmarked homework is a waste of time. Luckily for me I rarely get issued such homework (when I do, it is usually from a substitute teacher). However I believe that homework when issued effectively and marked afterwards is very beneficial for students.