BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Classic Rock Competition

Hello audience. Throughout this debate I'd like to take you on a musical journey. One that starts out slow and somber, but eventually reaches a crescendo the likes of which will be most pleasing to your ears. In this first round we'll start off with a sampling of folk rock songs. The first of which is Blowin' in the Wind as popularized by Peter, Paul & Mary. Originally written by Bob Dylan the song quickly became an anthem for the civil rights movement in the 1960s due to its message about the fickleness of freedom and how the song seems to articulate the hardships faced by the black community during that time and their aspirations for the future. Next we have Cat's in the Cradle by Henry Chapin; a song that is often mis-attributed to Cat Stevens. In this song Chapin describes the life of a new father. He has bills to pay and work to do which forces him to miss time with his family. He isn't present for many things in his son's life and all the while his son looks up to him and proclaims that once he grows up he'll be just like his dad. Eventually the son grows up and the father now has time to spend with his son. However the tables are turned and life is keeping his son busy. It's a cautionary tale that basically says that your family is more important than things like work. Lastly there is American Pie the magnum opus of singer/songwriter Don McLean. This song is a tribute to Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens and J. P. Richardson; all of whom were rock icons that died in a plane crash. The date of that crash was thereafter dubbed "The Day the Music Died". The song outlines the day from the perspectives of many different people from many walks of life until eventually describing the horrible crash. This beautiful song is often described as one of the greatest ever written. Next we move on to some songs that are still slow, but begin to pick up in tone and tempo. Popularized during the seventies and eighties, power ballads were written by many great rock bands and often showed off their softer side. Open Arms is arguably Journey's most popular song, even more so than Don't Stop Believing, and describes a man's plea to his lover to forgive him for his wrongdoings and begin their love anew. The song is often described as the greatest love song ever written and is the best power ballad ever written according to VH1. Total Eclipse of the Heart is a whole other beast entirely. Performed by Bonnie Tyler the song seems to describe an erotic dream but however the song is taken to another level of absurdity in the music video due to its complete lack of direction. Ninjas, football players, Greasers and angelic choir boys are only a few of the characters you'll meet on the journey that is Total Eclipse of the Heart. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Classic Rock Competition

(1) All Along The Watchtower - Jimi Hendrix http://www.youtube.com... (2) Mississippi Queen - Mountain http://www.youtube.com... (3) Gimme Shelter - The Rolling Stone http://www.youtube.com... (4) Layla - Eric Clapton http://www.youtube.com... (5) Long Cool Woman - The Hollies http://www.youtube.com...
Classic Rock Competition

--------------Classic Rock Competition-------------- Defined- Classic Rock will be loosely defined, but shall be limited to, for the proposes of this debate, music of the "Rock" genre which was recorded between the years of 1960-1990. Structure- Rd. 1) Intro Rd. 2-5) Classic Rock Awesomeness Format- (1) Debaters will post up to five classic rock songs from Youtube, and will type the name of the song and artist in a list format. (2) Debaters may but are not required to provide brief comments on the song(s) of their choosing. Voting- (1) Judges must be human beings. (2) Judges are requested to listen to all songs, but may vote however they feel like. (3) Rock on. Rules- (1) Debaters must adhere to the aforementioned proscriptions of conduct that the debate may transpire in such a way that rocks on. (2) No debater is to be held liable by judges if the video for the song said debater chose is removed from Youtube. (3) Acceptance of this debate indicates acceptance of all rules herein, and indicates that this debate will be conducted in good faith that DDO may benefit from the intended awesomeness that may ensue. (4) Drugs, sex and Rock and Roll. That is all. Peace and love, YYW
Iron Man is objectively a better superhero than Batman.

Nope I did not lose my lack of time helped me win this here is my refutal-Wealth:Nope the point it that Bruce wayne has more money meaning he woulf have more stuff to help him win the match you beat on.- Motivation: True but since Bruce saw his parents dying at a young age of 7-8.While Tony was in the age of 17-18 a child would normally be damaged more by those events.Tony Stark did not even planning on fighting crime in the start while Bruce's goal at his young age was already to avenge his parents.-IntelligenceUmm Correction not even HULK BUSTER can lift 100 tons.Batman's itema where also designed by him.He made them with his knowledge.The possibility is still there Batamn can disarm the IronMan suit which is weaker than Superman another possibilty is Batman can design a weaponto fire rpg's or even diamonds which he can afford destroying the suit.Batman has proved many times before that he can outwit anyone meaning he has proven that he can subdue that suit.-Biggest BattleCorrection the suit was not sabotaged the nano bots that drain Gamma Radiation where and that would not help either since Hulk has unlimited Gamma Energy.The thing used to stop the Hulk was a satellite plus it was Plot induced stupidity to stop the comic cause Hulk would just get angrier restoring said Gamma radiation they made it so that he reverted back to finish the comic which was desinged to last 5 issues'-LAST FINAL POSTSyou seem to not have refuted the fact that Batman Beat superman in which you cannot argue that Ironman can beat Superman.-I do not think telepathy would be a factor since Batman would not be trying to conytol Stark Himself-Enhancing speed reactions and movements those not prove that he would evade Batman's attacks maybe he can sense it but time and time again has he been shown to continusly get hit by people-I have not seen him repair his armor but I would take your word for it.Would this help if Batman lands and RPG on him which completely destroys the system meaning batamn would be unseen and Batman could come in and completely destroy him while he is trying to regenerate-I do agree he can lift 100 tons but only at his current suit I take back my past argument about not having the ability to do this since he cannot even lift a car with his mark 3 suit if I am correct in his Movie-He can sense other life beings but with batman's ability to prepare which you did not take into account Batman would make sure he cannot be detected in the night or morning they would be fighting since stealth is his main weapon-Batman would prepare and beat Ironman at his own game with time and preparation in which you did not state not to be used.
Iron Man is objectively a better superhero than Batman.

With the Dark knight rises and The Avengers movies past, I present an argument. I believe that Iron Man is a better super hero than Batman. We split the BOP. I have to show why Iron Man is better and my opponent must show why Batman is better. Now because comic book universes are so vast, we are only allowed to use the mainstream continuity of the respective super heros and/or their most recent film franchises. Also critiquing opponent's super hero is very much allowed. 3 rounds of debate, 1st is for acceptance. PLEASE DON'T ACCEPT UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AND PLAN TO ACTUALLY FINISH THE DEBATE. I have yet to actually finish one and its starting to get discouraging.
Should kids 4-6 have tablets

I'm gonna make my arguments in this round. ObservationsO1: The Burden of proof in this debate is shared. Both sides are required to make offense. O2: As this is a 4000 character debate, very short, my arguments won't be that long. Con's caseArgument 1: Very unlikely/ Too heavyThis is a source of what a child can accomplish when he or she is 4-5 years old [1]. They can barely write their name, draw shapes, know words like stop, and can handle a spoon or fork. They can't really lift things, how can they lift a tablet? This is almost impossible, as I shown above, the children are to young to even hold a tablet, and it is very likely that they will drop it, and break it. It's literally impossible, and only bad effects, so we should not let them. Children can barely hold a fork or spoon. And average spoon is around 25 grams [2]. And tablets weight 800 grams [3]. This is 32 times the weight of a spoon, so obviously, a child can't hold it, it is not possible, and we shouldn't do it. Some children might crack the tablet when doing it. It's not only weight, either. The children can barely read, 4 colors and 3 shapes as the source says. How do you think they will know what it says in the tablet? They will not know what a setting means, message, and might know home. They can't even know what it means, so it is useless for them to have tablets, when they doon't even understand what it is. Argument 2: ResponsiblityMy second argument is about responsibilty. Children who are 4-6 have almost now responsbility. This is very logical. The average cost of a tablet is 386$ [4]. This is a lot of money, and children who are 4-6 don't have much responsibilty, and will play around with it, and possibly break it. Because the kids don't have a sense of responsibilty, we should not let them have tabletsPro's caseRebuttal 1: "Yes. Kids 4-6 should have tablets. It could help them with the future. Most people who didn't grow up with electronics weren't very good with them in the future. Most jobs have technology in them. "That is Pro's argument. Yes, it helps them in the future, but then, it is too early. My opponent says that most people who don't work with eletronics won't be good in their future. But this isn't the right time, they are to unresponsible, and they might break it, and after they are older and responsible, the parents still might not give them eletronics, because of what happened when you were 4-6. Therefore, this is a bad time, and Pro's arguments fail. Vote Con. ConclusionThe outcome is pretty clear. This will be almost impossible for a child 4-6 to hold a tablet, and for it to read what the tablet says. The children are not responsible enough, so clearly, they should not have tablets. Sources[1] . http://www.webmd.com...[2] . https://en.wikiversity.org...[3] . http://www.ict-pulse.com...[4] . http://www.pcworld.com...As a result, vote Con. Vale
Rape culture is too widely associated in day-to-day life

Rape culture does exist. I would to state though, that it's not for the reasons feminists (who are dumb) state. Rape culture doesn't exist because of "hatred of women" (which is just a stupid slogan feminists make). Rape culture exists because of sexual immorality. Sexual immorality can turn any decent man into a creep. In cultures where sexual immorality is rampant (Denmark, Israel, India), rape culture is present. It's because perverts and creeps are not punished and are protected. Sexual immorality causes these. Rape culture does indeed exist. It's just not for the reasons feminists say it is.
Rape culture is too widely associated in day-to-day life

The rules are as followsRound One: AcceptanceRound Two: Express your point, you may not give a rebuttal at this stageRound Three: RebuttalsRound Four: Conclusion and rebuttals.RulesBreaking any of the above will instantly forfeit your conduct vote72 Hours maximum between postsDo not push this to be offensive. This is an interesting and fun debate - Nothing moreThis is not a debate on whether sex-equality is right or wrong, or the actions therein. It is specific to rape culture only.
Murder is wrong and an evil act

Con affirms the resolution; I’m assuming Pro negates the resolution.“Murder is a wrong and an evil act” suggests an absolutist position, that murder could never be justified. Merriam-Webster defines “murder” as “the crime of deliberately killing a person.” I will argue that murder can sometimes be justified, as in the case where a person intends deliberately and maliciously maim or kill someone else or a group of people, i.e. a terrorist. Killing a criminal who is an immediate and credible threat should not violate our sense of decency or morality. Murder can sometimes be justified. The resolution is incorrect because “murder is SOMETIMES a wrong and an evil act.”
Murder is wrong and an evil act

Murder is a horrendous and evil act and no-one should unlawfully take someone's life just like this. So many families have been split apart and so many people have had their lives cut short and died is horrific ways because of people who do these foul deeds. Murder is one of the worst things a person can do and is rightly illegal across the world. No-one should support murder and we should do all we can to protest against it.
To kill all the gays would make the world a better place.

"The list of atrocities you have mentioned have all been done for centuries- it is not just homosexuals who rape or sexually assault people- heterosexuals have been doing so as well since the dawn of man. Even if we were to kill all homosexuals, these abhorent acts would not cease to exist."Here you claim the list of atrocities have been done for centuries. Yet for centuries the way people resoled such issues have been mass stoning, burnings and lynching that dynamically reduce the amount of Homosexually going on at the time. whenever there was ever a large rise in Homosexual behavior was always followed by the death of the civilization. examples Sodom, Rome and many others. proving examples how exactly death has caused them to cease to exist. The verse you have cited from the Bible is from the Old Testament- which Christians do not follow today. We are under a New Covenant which God gave to us and in the New Covenant, we are no longer required to kill homosexuals, but rather show them love and compassion. As a result, your source is invalid. The Source is to show the effectiveness of mass annihilation to solve the problem of a group of sodomites wanting to rape people. The part of the Bible it comes from is irrelevant. "To love the people who rape you" does nothing to make the world a better place, I guess for the rapist. but not for the people being raped. Other examples can be posted about the effectiveness of death to gays but there no need has the source is valid. In short, as much as I don't agree with homosexuality, no one is entitled to commit mass genocide on an entire people just because we feel they're inferior or predatory. Sure there are some bad gays out there, but at the same time, there are good gays and we should love the sinner, hate the sin- not hate and murder them.I also agree with Con as I don't agree with Homosexuality my self. but that is irrelevant to the debate. Despite the fact the Bible/Quran provide many situations where killing gays is justified. Loving sin is not what the bible is about or what this debate is about.So the question I have to ask is again is"Would the Military/Prison be better if you did not get raped in it?""Would schools be safer places for kids if Pedofiles was publiy hunted like the purge? "Would the world me a better place if all the gays was killed?So in short killing sodomites will put a stop rape. Killing heterosexual rapist will also stop rape just the same.
To kill all the gays would make the world a better place.

First off I will state my case: I'm quite conservative on my views of the LGBT connunity- I'm NOT an ally but when it comes to people demanding their death, I will stand up for them. "To make my side of the argument simple in the year 2017 there is more Homosexually then ever before leading the degradation of society. increased gay rape of children, (http://www.miamiherald.com......)" gay rape in prisons and in the military (https://www.gq.com......) all increased with in the last 50 years of pro-homosexual propaganda on TV and in schools." The list of atrocities you have mentioned have all been done for centuries- it is not just homosexuals who rape or sexually assault people- heterosexuals have been doing so as well since the dawn of man. Even if we were to kill all homosexuals, these abhorent acts would not cease to exist. The verse you have cited from the Bible is from the Old Testament- which Christians do not follow today. We are under a New Covenant which God gave to us and in the New Covenant, we are no longer required to kill homosexuals, but rather show them love and compassion. As a result, your source is invalid. In short, as much as I don't agree with homosexuality, no one is entitled to commit mass genocide on an entire people just because we feel they're inferior or predatory. Sure there are some bad gays out there, but at the same time, there are good gays and we should love the sinner, hate the sin- not hate and murder them.
To kill all the gays would make the world a better place.

it will not be easy to defend. To make my side of the argument simple in the year 2017 there is more Homosexually then ever before leading the degradation of society. increased gay rape of children, (. http://www.miamiherald.com...) " gay rape in prisons and in the military (. https://www.gq.com...) all increased with in the last 50 years of pro-homosexual propaganda on TV and in schools. The best way to combat this would be with assault weapons and drone strikes on known Homosexuals to set a quick example. both is deterrence and defence against gays. taking examples from both the Bible and Quran as a way to deal with this. Examples "27 Early the next morning Abraham got up and returned to the place where he had stood before the Lord. 28 He looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, toward all the land of the plain, and he saw dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace. " -bible "Mohammed"s first successor Abu Bakr reportedly had a homosexual burned at the stake. The fourth caliph, Mohammed"s son-in-law Ali, ordered a sodomite thrown from the minaret of a mosque. Others he ordered to be stoned. One of the earliest and most authoritative commentators on the Koran, Ibn "Abbas (died 687) blended both approaches into a two-step execution in which "the sodomite should be thrown from the highest building in the town and then stoned. (source)" More examples on request.
Mitt Romney should win the election

1) Obama has ruined the US over his 4 years. The stock market is up higher than before, business profits are at an all time high, and unemployment is down [1]. 30+ million more people are expected to have health insurance than before [2]. 2 facts that indicate no such claim by my opponent.2) Romney's plan is to boost the economy by strengthening the middle class. To refute this point, I'd simply like to point out that it is also Obama's plan & therefore is not unique to the support of Romney[3]. 3) Romney is a businessman, therefore he is what we need. Bush was also a businessman. He failed at national security & started a financial collapse [4]. Romney is not the traditional businessman, he creates no product or job. He ran a business that bought out other businesses, made cuts (usually consisting of employees, etc. ), and then sent the businesses and jobs overseas.
Do the new search procedures at airports violate the 4th amendment

I stand to argue that the TSA does violate the 4th Amendment on the grounds that searching private citizens on the suspicion they might be a terrorist is unreasonable. It doesn't matter what the intentions of the TSA are, or what they might be, they are not the nannies of American Citizens and they should not attempt to take a nanny role. furthermore the TSA has been wholly incompetent in doing their job of protecting the American Public anyway, instead of fulfilling their designated role they've promoted racial profiling and helped to create a culture of fear among the American public. While we must never forget the tragedies of 9/11 we must also not allow that tragedy to prevent us from progressing and maintaining or rights. The very presence of the TSA does this and it is an unreasonable violation of the mental sanctity of American Citizens. Finally my opponent speaks on the TSA's body scanners; this is an utterly unjust violation of personal privacy and is the perfect example of an unreasonable search. Who can forget the incident a few years back where the TSA actually leaked hundreds of pictures of naked body scans[1]? Despite the fact that my opponent claims the TSA *should* delete scans after the fact, the fact is that they do not delete these photos. And arguing that they should delete them is not adequate advocacy for my opponent. [1] . http://gizmodo.com...
Do the new search procedures at airports violate the 4th amendment

I think no they do not because the TSA was created by the government and so was the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures and the search procedures are not unreasonable. Those searches are to protect us. Though according to some sources the TSA are feeling private parts so they could go a bit easier on people. But all they do is to protect you. Also they should delete the scan pictures after
The death penalty

If it is torture to know you are going to die then wouldn't that make others not want to go through the process? If they can't be with family when they die it is relevant because they will knowingly wait for death without at first seeing the people they love. The executions may not be public, but just knowing the loneliness involved in the process will create a second thought. The executions don't have to be public just announcing the journey involved will be enough to make people not want to suffer through the process.
The death penalty

The cruel and unusual punishment is not the way or how painless the person dies, it is that they know they are going to die. To know that they are going to die is torture and if the persons are dead there is no lesson to be learned so them thinking of never seeing their families is irrelevant. Also there executions are not public so no lesson will be learned by other possible murderers. In some cases innocent people are sentenced to death and it is latter discovered because of newly discovered evidence. An example is the Todd Wilingham case. In some places the death penalty can be abused and used to discriminate. One in every ten people sentenced to death are mentally ill.