BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Lyrical Games #1

This is a rap competition series hosted by me. I ask that everyone respect the name and do not reuse it under your own profiles. Anyone who wants to participate, just message me and I’ll initiate a personal 1-on-1 debate.Rules:1. Battle Lyricsa. insults, put downs, censored profanity* *(limit 5 per verse as to not offend most readers)b. braggadocio, superiority vs. inferiorityc. original compositions2. 16 bars EACH ROUND ONLY (not including a lead in or out phrase or a 8 bar maximum hook)3. Con will pass last round by ONLY writing his name in the 4th Round, to avoid judgments against FF.4. Con begins R1 with his First Verse Judges select the Opponent of your choice.
On balance, coffee is more beneficial than tea.

It's time I denounce the crux of Earl Gray supporters and the general tea proponents.Debate Structure1st Round - Acceptance ONLY2nd Round - Presentation of arguments ONLY3rd Round - Presentation of rebuttals with/or additional arguments4th Round - Summary of proposition and opposition's case (NO new arguments)Debate FrameworkPro must argue that coffee is more beneficial than teaCon must argue that tea is more beneficial than coffeeIn this case, burden of proof is shared between us both. In the event where both tea and coffee are 50/50 , the debate should be tied as dictated by this framework.DefinitionsOn balance - "Taking everything into consideration; all in all."[http://www.thefreedictionary.com...]Beneficial - "Producing good or helpful results or effects." [http://www.merriam-webster.com...]The rest is pretty self explanatory.
Socialism

Hello. Once again I will congratulate you on the quality and presentation of your argument. I think it fair to say that we are in agreement really. We are both fully aware of the reality of the human condition and how humans tend to naturally function within social groupings. Nonetheless, Because of the manner in which the proposition was presented I felt confident that I could offer a reasonable argument in support of socialism, Based entirely on socialism being regarded as nothing other than a theoretical concept. In discussions such as this one, What we are actually presenting is an academic and therefore detached assessment of the human condition and how humans may or may not or perhaps more appropriately could or could not function in social groupings. In these circumstances it is very easy to apply different labels to alternative conceptual constructs, But of course in reality everything will always stay the same. That is to say, Dominance and subjugation are intrinsic to all societies no matter how liberally or rigidly authority is applied. I therefore maintain my assertion that if we compare socialism and capitalism academically and therefore only as theoretical possibilities, It is very easy to conclude that socialism would undeniably by the preferable but alas unworkable option.
Socialism

Greetings, The idea that Capitalism is inherently or by nature 'bad' (I disagree and would debate you about this) does not mean that Socialism is inherently good. I would like to thank you and express my appreciation for your intellectual honesty. Many people argue that socialism is a good solution even though it has been tried and has failed a multitude of times, But I am not just arguing that it is a bad idea in practice. The idea of forced equality is an idea that should be regarded as far from good or just. Socialism not only functions on the premise that everyone should be regarded as a collective; it also maintains that people should be forced to be equal regardless of your background. I am merely arguing that Socialism is a poor concept in practice AND in theory. There be no moral train of thought that regards the idea of equality of opportunity as even a question; however, Socialism considers equal opportunity wrong and takes it a step further touting the equality of outcome. Morality functions on the basis of righteousness, And how is it righteous to hold someone back from their definition of success? Who are you to mandate that one can not earn his or her wage allotted by the curves of supply and demand? If one goes to college for 8 years to become a doctor, They do not deserve to have most of their wages taken away by some higher authority for the purposes of 'fairness' so that it can be given to the one who does not even graduate high school because of a lack of effort. Socialist ideology functions on the idea that any form of inequality is inherently bad even if it is ordained by the individual themselves. That said, Is it moral to pickpocket $5000 from some guy on the street just because I am going to college and do not have that much money? If you are a true believer in Socialism the answer would be yes. It does not matter if he already went to college, Worked hard, Got a nice job, And worked overtime in order to afford a vacation for his family. When it comes down to it, He has more money than I do, And that is not fair. Let us remind ourselves, Socialism is the idea that the collective should always be put over the individual, The idea that nobody should own anything, The idea that inequality (even if it is a result of someone's work ethic) is intrinsically evil, The idea that individuals should not have the opportunity to get what they want out of their lives. I do not know about you, But I want to mean something as an individual, I want to have to control over my life's directions, I want to get what I deserve, Not what is 'fair'; I want the freedom to fail, And I want the freedom to succeed; but most importantly, I do not want, I earn because personal responsibility trumps any degree of desire no matter the severity of inequality. I rest my case. Good luck, My friend.
Socialism

Hello again and well done. Good argument and well presented. From the outset this was always going to be a difficult one. Simply because any attempt at socialism always rapidly collapses into authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is authoritarianism no matter how brutal the governing regime or how open to subjugation a populace may be. I therefore rest on the assertion that true socialism only exists in theory as human nature does not allow socialism to work in practice. Of course capitalism works in practice for the very same reason. That is to say we are all aware of the limits of our qualities and abilities. Ultimately and basically all we need is to be allowed to survive in a respectable level of comfort, The excessive trappings of a capitalist society are in reality unnecessary when all is said and done. Nonetheless capitalist systems still rely on a certain level of authority and therefore subjugation in order to function successfully and as I think we have already agreed capitalism also necessitates an unequal distribution of wealth and resources in order to maintain it's hierarchical structure or as a consequence it's hierarchical structure. In this respect capitalism is without doubt inherently and unavoidably unfair. I therefore hold that if we regard both systems as theoretical propositions. Socialism would appear to be far better than capitalism.
Socialism

Hello. Let's establish the definition of Socialism via Merriam-Webster [Source 1] before going any further. 1. Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2. A: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3. A stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done Yes I did focus on the Capitalist argument, But that had a purpose because I was addressing the third prong of the definition "unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done". Usually people argue that Socialism is moral by highlighting the wealth inequality that lies within Capitalism which is what I assumed you were doing when you said that Capitalism was "an inherently unfair system particularly with regard to the distribution of wealth and resources". I was just dismissing the notion that Socialism is moral. Socialism does lead to Economic collapse; just look at Venezuela, The richest country in South America turned poorest country. As far as the authoritarian dictatorships, It was not socialism directly, Yes; however, It was the result of Socialism, Which makes Socialism responsible. Vladimir Lenin once said: "The goal of Socialism is Communism" [Source 2] The earth is a society of 7. 5 billion individual human beings. This does not make me intrinsically anti-social or against society in any fashion; it makes me individualistic. If we were just one collectivist society, One thing is for sure. You, Sonofcharl, Are pretty much useless. I, Jsgraz, Am pretty much useless. Everybody is, In their own, Useless. Let us also not forget that not only are we putting the collective over the individual, But we are also putting the abstract, Collective over the concrete. The moment where we put some concept over the individual is the moment where ideas become a sort of tyranny, And the most notable example of this is the idea of putting the government above all else which is essentially communism. Even Vladimir Lenin admits the purpose of this ideology when he said: "The goal of Socialism is Communism" [Source 2]. It is also notable that many of the world's greatest inventions would have never been invented because entrepreneurs are by nature individualistic Source 1: https://www. Merriam-webster. Com/dictionary/socialism Source 2: https://www. Brainyquote. Com/quotes/vladimir_lenin_136421
Socialism

Hi. Your proposition only stated that you were against socialism and nothing else. As I clearly stated. "Socialism is an excellent theory". The emphasis being on the word theory. That is to say, In thought socialism is almost a utopia, But in practice socialism does not work. The so called socialist regimes that you alluded to, Were socialist in name only, In reality they were nothing more than authoritarian dictatorships. Expanding this debate any further would be straying from the original premise. Nonetheless I find it very interesting that your appreciation of capitalism is based solely on money. This being the case, Which of the following statements would you say is correct. The Earth has a society of 7. 5 billion individual human beings. Or The Earth has one society of 7. 5 billion people. One final thought. If you are opposed to theoretical socialism, Does that make you intrinsically anti-social?
Socialism

How can socialism be good if it does not work anywhere? Every time it has been implemented it has either resulted in the deaths of millions of people or complete and utter economic collapse. Aside from that, I would like to challenge your view on capitalism because Capitalism is the most fair economic system ever came up with. I'm sure your convictions lie in the fact 99% of the country's wealth lies in the top 1% and more wealth inequality facts. The reason that fact is effective to people is that it is such a sharp difference that everyone says it is bad, But what is actually wrong with wealth inequality? Seriously, I don't know. From what I see, It is not like the 1% are stealing money from other people. Bill gates didn't force anyone to buy Microsoft to get rich, People chose to give them money. That is how it is with people who are very financially well off. They do not make their money by receiving someone else's rightfully owned money, They provide people services that they want. In the same respect, I believe that if you work hard and either become a successful entrepreneur, A highly trained doctor, Or a CEO somewhere, You deserve to make more than the trash guy, The janitor, Or the kindergarten teacher, And that is how capitalism works. Thank you for the opportunity to debate you
Searches From Google Home App Is Usually Measured As The Direct Traffic In Google"s Analytics

There is one powerful tool available on the internet called Google analytics that can be more accurate and effective for analyzing the traffic associated with your sites and there is no doubt that this particular tool having all the powerful abilities and can do clever things like tracking the actions, clients, purpose, etc. without the need of downloading anything at the client’s end but at the same time it has some issues with it. What does it explain us? A recent discovery shows us that a Google analytics (a tool used to analyse the traffic for your site) has the ability to read clicks coming from the Google home application of your mobile device and treating it as the direct traffic. Whenever you asked something or search something useful from the Google home device, it will throw you or respond you back with the related answer, and for doing this thing, it has to be involved in data to find the particular resource. Those type results usually come from information stored on the Google’s indexed web pages. When direct traffic is outsourced The entire relevant search performed by the user or recent visiting history of the user can bring the user to the original resource of this information. Google somehow considering this traffic organic because Google tends to discover the originality of this content as Google home app. However, a deep research shows that a Google is counting this as the direct traffic. Usually, a direct traffic is counted whenever someone either manually enters the URL into the address bar in their browser or when someone enters the unique query in URL. Google can adjust this thing in near future, but for now, we can say that the Google is treating this traffic of Google home app as the direct one. Giving explanation for the direct traffic to clients Whenever you see a direct traffic is rising on the websites, then you will come to know that there are many people out there in the world who may are typing the URL of your site to directly navigate to your home page. There can be many scenarios that could be resulted into the direct traffic for example emails, links from https websites, etc. Problems may occur only in case of miss-categorized results like untagged links from emails that can give a tight sign to your clients that you need to have proper tag links in order to track traffic correctly. Conclusion With the mobile friendly indexing of the web by Google now almost 60 to 70 percent of the searches are coming from the mobile devices so for this to be successful and free from any errors a perfect mobile-friendly approach to counting the direct traffic in the must. View this website for more information about an SEO Company in India.
SHOULD VICK HAVE WENT TO JAIL FOR FIGHTING DOG WE KILL ANIMALS EVERY DAY !!!!!!

Your argument still depends on the following assumptions: Killing animals in a lab setting for medical research purposes is morally equivalent to training dogs to fight and kill. Killing animals for food is morally equivalent to training dogs to fight and kill. I don't think either is true. Both have a redeeming purpose (advancing research and providing food,) and are not done with malicious intent or methods toward the animal. Dog fighting, however, is malicious. You also said that a dog's natural instinct is to fight, which I don't find to be true. Dogs as a species have been domesticated (evolutionarily over time from wolves) to be relatively docile, especially to their owners.
SHOULD VICK HAVE WENT TO JAIL FOR FIGHTING DOG WE KILL ANIMALS EVERY DAY !!!!!!

ok you have some good points you said you believe i need facts i have my science book right here ok scientists in labs they test and kill animals every day or can it be that it is a race issue and let me ask you this when have animals ever had a say so in society i mean just think adam and eve ok animals are here for food and other purposes we use every day it would be kinda stupid if you and your dog were the last things on earth and you would not kill it because he is man best Friend and dogs instincts are to fight in territorial reasons !!!!!!!!!!!!!
SHOULD VICK HAVE WENT TO JAIL FOR FIGHTING DOG WE KILL ANIMALS EVERY DAY !!!!!!

Your argument depends on the assumption that the lives of bugs are equivalent to the lives of dogs, and also that killing bugs in the way that Americans do every day is morally equivalent to training dogs to attach each other with the intention of killing. I believe both of those assumptions are false. Most people would accept a distinction between, for example, humans and bugs - you wouldn't make the argument that someone shouldn't go to jail for killing humans because we kill bugs (humans are in the animal kingdom too, after all.) So why is there no distinction between dogs and bugs? I'll leave the rest for later rounds!
SHOULD VICK HAVE WENT TO JAIL FOR FIGHTING DOG WE KILL ANIMALS EVERY DAY !!!!!!

LET VICK FREE THATS ALL I HAVE TO SAY IN MY CLASS WE LEANERD ABOUT KINGDOMS SEEMS TO ME BUGS ARE IN THE ANIMAL KINGDOM AHH SO SO WHY DOSENT HAVE OF AMERICA JUST PACK THERE BAGS FOR LIFE AMERICAN KILL BUGS 24/7 YOU THINK ABOUT IT !
I bet you I know more about Computers then you do.

The Second Round will be how much of the history do you know behind computers(You cannot ask your computer questions.) In 1669, a Greek Philosopher named Hannah Montana invented the first computer. At the time, electricity was not invented until the Beatles invented it in 1287, so Hannah learned that the only way to power a Computer was by singing. Unfortunately, better models were made and Hannah's career when down-hill. Computers were mostly used by the Russian Government to play CoD, but eventually the Americans under President Ash Ketchum learned this technology in 500 BC. 10 years later, the Germans wanted this super power to create the ultimate war machine, Iron man. World War IV started in 2011 when the Papal States sent a Vatican Task Force to retrieve the information from President Micheal Jordan, who was the current leader of United States. However during the transaction Kim Jong Un crashed from the ceiling during a Diving accident and squashed the Los Angeles Ring Leader. This led to a World War lasting from 1897-1453. In the end Haiti won, and the world became known as "The Haitian Empire", ruled by Pope Urban II who can live forever. During his 19,000 year reign, he begin working on something called the internet, which he was going to use to talk to God on Skype. However God had no signal, and he decided to sell his information to the people of Haiti. Using this information that the citizens had, they decided to spam the Pope on Twitter and finally a new War begin. In 1999, the Rebels won and seperated the world into 7 Billion different countries, all ruled by one person in the world. Using this new technology, a girl named Justin Bieber made the Computer famous by singing songs about it. His first hit, "I'm a baby" kept referencing his love for Computers. From then on, people have been using there computers to find there exes on Facebook, or to find out how long does it take for your growth spurt to happen.
infinite mercy is incompatible with perfect justice.

it is a shame that my opponent was not present for the last two rounds. I was looking forward to a more involved debate, none the less this is the last round. I still ask the audience to judge the debate on how convincing either side was. I ask that you grant me the point for conduct, but still grant the other points as you would if my opponent had participated in the debate the whole time. I am more interested in seeing how convincing my arguments were.to my opponent, I thank you for participating in this debate. it was short, but enjoyable.
infinite mercy is incompatible with perfect justice.

The offender’s ability to defend themselves is irrelevant to this debate. In instances of murder or rape it would be unjust to punish a scapegoat for the transgressions of the offender, as the scapegoat has committed no to be judged for. It would also be unjust to not punish the offender, as an absence of retribution would be an absence of the application of justice. If it is found that the most just punishment for a handicapped person is different than for someone without that handicap that is not a matter of mercy, rather it relates to how justice is measured per person. the idea of power correlating to responsibility. If the purpose of justice is to restore that which has been damaged or violated, than how does one restore a murder? How does one restore the damage to a person’s life and psyche that occurs because of rape or child molestation? Restorative justice may be relevant to crimes relating to theft or to damage of property, but it has no function with relation to crimes of a more personal nature, crimes where there is nothing the criminal could ever do to fix what was destroyed. Restorative justice has its place, but so does retributive justice. However, this debate is not about which justice system is preferable, or should be in place. My opponent will also notice that the definition for perfect justice and perfect mercy were defined referring to retribution not restoration. (and whilst restoration can be a retribution, it is not the only retribution) My opponent mentions a justice system, but the debate is not about institutionalized justice, it is about justice as an ethical concept, like morality and responsibility. Specifically, the debate is about whether or not perfect justice (as defined in my opening) is compatible with perfect mercy (as defined in my opening or as defined by my opponent). My job is to defend that contention and I have presented arguments doing so. My opponent has not yet addressed this point and my arguments.
infinite mercy is incompatible with perfect justice.

The goal of justice is to restore that which has been damaged or violated. Whether there is a "scapegoat" or not, as long as justice is served to restore order, it suffices. Bear in mind that the offender may also not be able to defend himself in this situation due to mental illness or inability to reason. If the scapegoat willing pays for the damages done, there would be no need to punish the offender severely. Pardons and forgiveness are permissible within the justice system under certain circumstances.