BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Best Meaningful Rap Songs

This last round is a tough one for me. There are so many great ones out there. I was struggling between Outkast, Eminem, or Biggie for my last song.I picked this song because it is extremely raw and honest, and talks about one of the deepest issues someone can face- the struggles of self deprecation and suicide. The mix with Bob Marley's singing is extremely chlling. I urge the voters to vote not on who has most of their favorite artists, but on the quality of each song in the rounds. Notorious BIG ft. Bob Marley- Hold Ya HeadWoman hold her head and cry Cause her son had been shot down in the street and died Woman hold her head and cry Cause her son had been shot down in the street and died When I die, f*ck it I wanna go to hell Cause I'm a piece of sh*t, it ain't hard to f*ckin' tell It don't make sense, goin' to heaven wit' the goodie-goodies Dressed in white, I like black Tims and black hoodies God will probably have me on some real strict sh*t No sleepin' all day, no gettin my d*ck licked Hangin' with the goodie-goodies loungin' in paradise F*ck that sh*t, I wanna tote guns and shoot dice All my life I been considered as the worst Lyin' to my mother, even stealin' out her purse Crime after crime, from drugs to extortion I know my mother wished she got a f*ckin' abortionhttp://www.youtube.com...
Best Meaningful Rap Songs

. http://www.youtube.com...Here is a song by the Black Eyed Peas. About half of it consists of rapping while the other half is pop. It is a great fusion of pop + hip hop. The interesting thing here is that the video is just as good as the song combining elements of ancient and futuristic. Here is a sampling of the lyrics: Meet me halfway, right at the boarderlineThat's where i'm gonna wait, for youI'll be lookin out, night n'dayTook my heart to the limit, and this is where i'll stayI can't go any further then thisI want you so bad it's my only wishGirl,i travel round the world and even sail the seven seasAcross the universe I go to other galexiesJust tell me where you want, just tell me where you wanna to meetI navigate myself myself to take me where you beCause girl I want, i, i, I want you right nowI travel uptown (town) I travel downtownI wanna to have you around (round) like every single dayI love you alway. .way I await Lickdafoot's last song which I hope will also be the best! Mine sure will be.
Best Meaningful Rap Songs

F-16_Fighting_falcon, good counter with the Eminem song there. I was thinking about that song , but I have some others that I think can top it. This is a very chill yet articulate song about the evolution of hip hop music.Cunnin Linguists ft. Masta Ace - SeasonsAs the East vs. West winds blew, causing two Legends to Fall like maple leaves from escalated beef Assumed that the worst was over Til these cats started wearing shiny costumes like the 31st of October The weather's colder, but the word jacket/jack it Is what they did to people's styles, not what they covered they backs with Tactics of the skill impaired No Limit to what they'll do when the green is scarce Some be Thanksgiving for who they know, while others get jerked for loot Cause gettin signed ain't a turkey shoot No respect for the pilgrims who paved the way so you could rock that Just pop crap and Plymouth Rock-Rap Beyond gimmicks and fake plastic tits Outkast and Raekwon dropped fall classic discs Born to Roll, so I'm taking you back to school days of autumn Before the bottom dropped out in 2KBy the dawn of the new millennium we saw bright chains Winter brought along platinum causing the ice age No more Gold, no more YO! MTV RAPS Now we got R&B cats stealing classic rap tracks In winter it's snowed in like the temperature's below ten Citizens open up shows for more snowmen Scrawny boys rock bubblegooses to pose like grown men And you can catch freezer burn from women when they show skin Jolly, fat, white men get paid when rap hits the shelves And artists themselves get treated like Elves Matter of fact, Santa's gotten so greedy when a rapper sells You even need clearance to sample Jingle Bells What the hell! You need cells and 2 ways for chicks to bone ya? And so much ice on ya body that you can get pneumonia Even at the beaches of Daytona it's gotten colder But it's about time for the cycle to start over http://www.youtube.com...
Best Meaningful Rap Songs

http://www.youtube.com...I thank my opponent for the response. This song called "Beautiful" is by Eminem. He talks about Detroit. It is a wonderful song. Here is a sample of the lyrics: you'd have to walk a thousand milesIn my shoes, just to seeWhat it's like, to be meI'll be you, let's trade shoesJust to see what it'd be likeTo feel your pain, you feel mineGo inside each others' mindsJust to see what we'd findLook at sh*t through each others' eyesDon't let 'em say you ain't beautifulThey can all get f*cked, just stay true to youSo don't let 'em say you ain't beautifulThey can all get f*cked, just stay true to you
Llama would win against a coyote in a fight.

I will begin my argument with my opponent's point that lamas would trample a coyote. However, due to the power and ferocity of the mandibles and speed of a coyote a lama would lose. For example, say a lama was charged buy a coyote. As all animals do it has a fight or flight instinct. Assuming it would fight, (my argument would be pointless if he ran) it is true it would probably try to trample the coyote. However, if the coyote could bite or wound even one of the lama's skinny legs it would limp and would not be able to walk. Then the coyote could use it's powerful jaws to attack the underside of the lama and spill its intestines all over the ground. Back to my opponent.
Llama would win against a coyote in a fight.

OK, first of all thank you for debating on this subject with me. Now the rules go that there cannot be profanity, you need to have fun with it and good luck. (also you don't need research or anything just go from your perspective.) llamas would beat a coyote in a fight because they can kick and trample on the coyote. The coyote will be a goner. They have been using llamas for centuries to protect the sheep, goats, horses, and etc.
Llama would win against a coyote in a fight.

It's true that a kick to the head by a lama would surely knock it out, but by saying that you are assuming that lama's are naturally faster than coyotes. However according to the smartnessofme.com coyotes are faster than lamas and would be able to cripple the lama before he managed to kick the coyote. Therefore the coyote would win.
Capitalism is superior

Capitalism : “ an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.” (1) Following hurricane Katrina, private donations surpassed the $1 billion mark within one month. (2) These donations went to private aid organizations that immediately provided relief. FEMA however, handed out $6.3 billion in taxpayer money, with nearly a quarter of that going to scammers. FEMA gave cash to inmates, sent checks to people who said they lived in cemeteries or post office boxes, and “reimbursed” people for rent even though they were living in hotels that were already being paid for by FEMA. (3) FEMA also “lost” 381 debit cards that later were occasionally used for purchases that “did not appear to meet legitimate disaster needs.” (4) Bigger government is a socialist idea and the idea that we need the government to help us out of our problems is absurd, and not only in my opinion but evident by the actions of FEMA. Communist countries fail. Socialist countries fail. Countries that implement capitalist procedures, while they are not perfect, do have the greatest chance to succeed. The free market system gives the citizens the best chance to succeed. I’ll keep this short and close with this. 1964 – “War on Poverty” 1968 – 13% of Americans were poor 1968-1980 – Social welfare increased by 400% 1980 – 13% of Americans are still poor. Obviously the government is not the answer here. We need the least amount of government as possible, but still enough to enforce laws, foreign and domestic. The government needs to be out of the way of the free market and let it run its process. I’ll post a more in depth argument if my opponent posts something. (1)http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2)http://www.usatoday.com... (3)http://www.boston.com... (4)www.gao.gov/htext/d06844t.html (5)http://www.books.google.com...
Hijab in school

My opponent states, "There is nothing wrong with changing rules." This is true except when you are trying to change a state/national law based on religion. In the U.S constitution it clearly states that there must be a separation between church and state. There are also other options if students truly feel a need to wear the hijab. There are private schools, online schools, or even home school all available to students if public school does not work. "I used to wear it to middle school and got beaten up 4 times." I do not understand what point my opponent is trying to make here. How would letting students wear the hijab in school change this? This point is irrelevant with the topic at hand. "If it's seperation from church and state , then NO christian should wear crosses , bibles shouldn't be brought to school in fact it's like saying Forget you're religion and go to hell because of a stupid law. something doesn't seem right." There is no law in place saying students cannot express there religion. There are infact laws preventing students from wearing anything which covers their heads, hats, hoods etc. If students feel this strongly about wearing the hijab they should simply not attend public school where this is not allowed. "it affected me mostly in school. actually they even shut down school for a week because of this tragedy . i think if everyone was ok with hijab , problems wouldn't be made." Even if the hijab became allowed in school students would still bully other students that stand out. How would allowing students to wear the hijab change the way other students view them?
Hijab in school

There is nothing wrong with changing rules. i think that should be a big change, and yes its not the topic at hand Yet it never was brought up . no one thought "Oh they can wear crosses" because hijab is not the deal , Its the fact that people are against muslims. Yes , Law is Law. but there is too many people affected by this decision . im american , but muslim. originated from morocco actually, and i wear hijab ever since 6 . it affected me mostly in school. actually they even shut down school for a week because of this tragedy . i think if everyone was ok with hijab , problems wouldn't be made.
Hijab in school

First I would like to say that I personally have nothing against Muslims. I believe they have every right to express their religion outside of school. Now getting right into it. Students are not allowed to wear anything on their heads in school buildings. This is on a national level, not to be decided by schools. Allowing Muslims to wear the hijab in school is going against this rule. Due to separation of church and state we cannot allow the hijab in school just because it is a religious item. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state I also agree that Christians should not be allowed to wear crosses in school or bring bibles to school for religious practice, however, that's not the topic at hand.
Hijab in school

Why? why isn't it okay . i mean who is it affecting wearing a head scarf to cover their head, actually wearing Hijab is at their risk. I used to wear it to middle school and got beaten up 4 times. it's not affecting them its affecting us, Especially since the whole 9/11 tragedy . EVERY Muslim is a terrorist , bad , and deserves to die? . No, that's not fair to us at all , it's like saying You're christian so you can't wear a cross, i mean i know people who have brought bible's to school and sat there reading it . even teacher's talked about Christianity when she wasn't supposed to but us wearing Hijab and sitting there like any other normal person is bad? No. that's not fair , it's hypocritical . If it's seperation from church and state , then NO christian should wear crosses , bibles shouldn't be brought to school in fact it's like saying Forget you're religion and go to hell because of a stupid law. something doesn't seem right.
Political Correctness and Terrorism

IntroDarenskiy approached me and asked to debate. This was the topic we agreed on, and I think it is an interesting and highly relevant one. It should be an interesting and timely debate.Due to a recent experience of mine with receiving almost no votes on a high-quality debate, I have decided to make this a judge-only debate. Judges were selected based on their impartiality and on the fact that they were recently active in terms of voting. The judges are Hayd, Tej, Whiteflame, Lexus, Max, DK, Raisor, Peep, and Lannan13. If Pro objects to anyone on this list, or wishes to add names, Pro should contact me before accepting the challenge, and we can discuss the issue. Judges, if they accept, agree to adjudicate this debate impartially and without outside assistance; judges are, of course, free to decline their nominations.TopicOn balance, political correctness is harming the West's ability to combat terrorism.DefinitionsPolitical correctness - the avoidance of rhetoric or actions which insult socially disadvantage groups or which are likely to marginalize or exclude those groupsHarm - to cause damage to; to impede or hinderThe West - members of the EU, NATO, Switzerland, Australia, and New Zealand.Terrorism - the use of violence intended to induce fear in a population for political aimsRules1. No forfeits2. Citations should be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speeches4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate (unless otherwise specified in R1)9. The BOP is evenly shared10. Pro must provide arguments/their case in R1, and must waive in the final round11. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)12. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's Case/argumentsR2. Con's Case/arguments; Pro generic RebuttalR3. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic Rebuttal and CrystallizationR4. Con generic Rebuttal and Crystallization; Pro waivesThanks......to my opponent for the debate. I'm looking forward to an intriguing exploration of the subject.
ACCORDING to the HOLY BIBLE, CAIN DID NOT MARRY HIS SISTER

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt (in a BIG way), and agree to settle that a city is a minimum of 1,500 people...This city is a huge problem for you, even if we agree to define a city as few as 10 people. Are you claiming that a city is made up of just 3 people??? LOLOLOLOLOL!You ignored 2/3 of the definitions I presented which disagree that you need a specific population to make a city. You also ignored the fact I mentioned that declares the Hebrew does not necessarily mean city as we know it. Some say 1,500, some say 10,000, some say 50,000, some say 100,000, some say 1 Million, and some say 5 Million.So we now know there is no set definition of a city and it's simply whatever anyone wants to say it is. You've disproved your point.If you actually do not know what the history of the wedding ceremony is, then you are unqualified to speak on the subject of the history of the wedding ceremony.Well I actually said we don't know. This includes us both. Therefore this statement, and every other like it you've made, implies that neither of us are qualified to speak on this topic altogether. You've proven yourself wrong."A wedding is by no means required for marriage, even today."Yes it is.Please take the time to educate yourself. You're wrong.http://family.findlaw.com...It states that he met his wife after he left Eden.Nope, it says they had sex after he left Eden. Nothing more.How do you know they had no female seed until after Cain left?"Because that is what the Holy Bible states.Please show me where it says this." I can make baseless claimes with no proof...."That fact is abundantly clear from your posts!You omitted the word 'too' here. Because you didn't address this I'll take this as an agreement to my point.The Bible does not say that, actually. It says that Seth had sons and daughters...The Hebrew text proves this wrong." nor are they necessarily the only ones who lived before Seth."Yes they are: The Holy Bible also states that fact explicitly."Cain and Abel are not necessarily the first children,"Yes they are: The Holy Bible states that fact explicitly.Show me...the Holy Bible clearly states the fact that Cain's wife was native to the Land of Nod.Show me...Anyone can say the Bible says something. Show me. I've quoted and referenced plenty of scripture but you've done no such thing this entire debate.
ACCORDING to the HOLY BIBLE, CAIN DID NOT MARRY HIS SISTER

My opponent just copy and pasted his old, refuted, response towards me. Since he is using points I've already proved wrong and has made no response to my own there is no basis for his claim.I feel as thouigh I can accurately conclude, as a result of this debate, the most natural and fluid implication in scripture indicates that Cain married a sister or neice of his. Anything outside of this is needlessly complex as there it no real reason for this not to be true.To the spectators, thank you for your attention throughout this debate.
ACCORDING to the HOLY BIBLE, CAIN DID NOT MARRY HIS SISTER

Genesis 4:14-15 - As I've stated before we don't know how many children Adam had by this point in time, so this verse could very easily be referring to those kids. It could also be referring to the children yet to come. It could also be referring to his parents who were already alive. It is a leap to assume this means that there were other men that didn't come from Adam and Eve, which as I've demonstrated contradicts Scripture.Genesis 4:16-17 - Is never says when he was married here. I've already addressed all of your other assumptions.Genesis 4:18-19 - What about Adam's children or grand children? If I'm right before, this is a possibility. Also why couldn't it be Cain's wife or could Cain have had daughters? Daughters aren't usually recorded in the Bible.Genesis 4:26 - This says Adam had daughters. It never tells us he only had daughters after Seth.Genesis 5:4 - The Bible never said Seth was exclusively Adam's third son. Only the third recorded. You also never showed me where it says Cain and Abel were their first life you said you would either.Genesis 5:4 - This doesn't say Seth was the third or that daughters came exclusively after Seth. You're making assumptions and adding to scripture.My opponent cannot even pretend like these veres are evidence. I've already debunked his interpretation on all of them previously yet he cites them again as if they're just as valid. I encourage any spectator to take note of this. I look forward to your final rebuttal. Thank You
Resolved: Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction w

My arguments, since he's probably not going to show up:1. There's no reason we have to prioritize one over the other. There are plenty of environmentally friendly ways to extract usable resources from the Earth. This negates the resolution as a statement, since if I show that we shouldn't prioritize something over something, that negates the resolution. 2. Resource extraction is a requirement to even access environmental protection benefits. Most environmental protection projects are costly, meaning we need some form of capital to undertake them. The only way that developing countries will be able to afford such measures would be to extract resources to build up enough capital to be able to afford protecting the environment. That means that the NC precludes the AC, as the only way we can get access to AC benefits is through negating first.
Assisted Suicide can be morally justified in most cases.

I'm just going to go over the main points. 1. Killing is immoral. --> No matter how you justify it, may it be more suffering or permission, killing can never be MORAL. It can be justified, but it can never be morally justifiable. --> Warrants: Deontology, inherently immoral, and the Kant Card. 2. Assisted Suicide Vs. Suicide. --> Assisted suicide is not morally justifiable because you are asking for someone else to kill you. This creates a moral stain on the person committing egregious act. --> Suicide is different because it is yourself doing the killing. However, the debate is assisted sucide. From this you can infer that allowing someone to actually kill is immoral. For these reasons I urge a negation.
Assisted Suicide can be morally justified in most cases.

Ok, I'm just going to launch straight into the debate, and hope that you all vote in terms of the debates themselves, and not the debaters. Before I start my arguments, I just want to define the topic, just so that we are all clear about what we are debating. I'm going to define Assisted Suicide as a direct action taken to terminate someone's life at his or her request, usually by some painless means. Usually, the patient is unable to kill him/herself, so he/she asks someone else to do it for them. And the person killing the patient has the permission of the patient. Now to my arguments: 1. People have the right to control their lives. We, an outside force, do not. It would be wrong of us to tell someone they cannot do something to themselves. If for whatever reason that person doesn't want to live anymore, we do not have the moral right to stop them. We can pursuade them to think about it, and make sure they are sure about it, but we cannot say, "No, you cannot kill yourself, because I'm not going to let you." That is WRONG of us. When we help them kill themselves, all we are doing is helping them carry out their choices, because they themselves are unable to. It is not wrong of us to help someone we care about. 2. We are so willing to put animals to sleep, sometimes for not very good reasons, and we do not lose any sleep over it. Why is it that the moment we move into the range of humans, we suddenly become sacred and untouchable??? If we can kill animals to put them out of their misery, and we can take that step with animals, we can take that step with humans. 3. Is a life really worth living if it is a life filled with physical pain from seeing yourself die, emotional pain from watching your friends and family watch you die, and just being stuck in a hospital bed all day??? If the patient is unable to kill him/herself because she is handicapped, he should be allowed to ask someone to kill him/her. If I am paralyzed from the neck down, and I'm unable to move and I will be stuck in a wheelchair for the rest of my life, there is not very much reason to live. Also, if something was able to paralyze you from the neck down, you will suffer mental damage. Do you really want to go through life not being able to control your own body? Do you really want to watch as everyone around you gave you glances, because they all could tell that you are sick, paralyzed, terminally ill, or a combination of them??? All in all, that's my first speech. I'll elaborate on my points more later... For now, lets see the opposition...