BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap battle

Shady is true, what's going on in your head Rhyme chip? Short-circuited you dead 33% 'cause cowards forfeited If cakerman hadn't, he would have lost I forseen it I said I upped the stakes, wolf got the pigs I'll start the fire, you are the twigs Eminem wannabe, look who is talking, By the time I am done, I'll be the only one walking GPS is faulty, says computer precision F-bombs miss me all the time, hit Jim or Starbucks tough decision I may be training, but you sure ain't my master Your rhymes cause a tap, mine make a disaster You were a fool to accept, I'm highly radioactive uranium Got a friend named Sia, my sword is titanium You're stainless steel? Nah you're weaker You were already blind but your soul may get bleaker
The age of the earth is over 10,000 years old.

Fine, if pro isn't going to answer my arguments then this debate is over. Pro states in his final round that I am full of logical fallacies, without warranting his claim in any way whatsoever. I would warrant this claim, but the last two identical pro arguments that you can read if you just scroll up are warrant enough. He also claims once again that I am not using logic, this is simply contradiction, it is dismissive and abusive to the purpose of debate. Instead of deconstructing my arguments he just says nuh-uh. Why are you even on this site if you don't want to debate against arguments you disagree with? I find it hard to believe you won debates by just saying, you're wrong, you're wrong, no, nope, sorry, no, that's not true. But I guess this site isn't really judged fairly. I am sorry for any voter who has to read this, this was not an argument, it was a tantrum. Now, to finish this ridiculous waste of time, I will state that I took this resolution knowing full well that the majority of scientists support the notion that the earth is over 10,000 years old. Pro wants me to argue creationism and fundamental religious science against his science. That is loaded to the brim. I took this argument so that I might rectify the arrogance of Pro, as he was merely setting himself up to make fun of someones beliefs, not mine, as I am strictly agnostic, but whoever would have come along if I hadn't taken up Con. Unfortunately for him I used an argument he wasn't used to and didn't know how to answer, this is why his last two rounds were him stating that I don't use logic. My argument against this whiny fellow is that you cannot prove the existence of any year before your own objectively, that time is relative, and our tools of measurement inherently flawed. Because Pro ignores my argument, if you were a debate judge in a tournament, you would flow the argument across because Pro conceded by not answering. Vote con if you support creative and educational debates about any subject, exploration of alternative mindsets, skepticism, and wish to dissuade debate that is lazy, dismissive and frankly ignorant. Vote con because unlike pro I have answered every argument made. Vote con because I have proved that the resolution could be true, but that we as man are unable to discern the truth. Because the resolution makes a claim that states IS Pro must prove without a shadow of a doubt the age of the earth. He doesn't, and if not for my arguments, then because in round one Pro states that the half life of uranium is nearly 4.5 billion years, which is his evidence of IS. Because he is not sure of the age of the earth, because he cannot create a reliable number, and because he did not answer my argument, Pro has not proven the resolution to be true. He has proven that it is possibly true, which is what I have also proven. Meaning that absolute statement of the resolution has been not been proven. Making Con the winner of this debate.
The age of the earth is over 10,000 years old.

It appears my esteemed opponent has yet agian disregarded the first rule of our debate. Con has yet to make a valid logical scientific case why we should belive that the earth is less than 10,000 years i've provided evidence and observations. Con's excessivly long case is an entire tautology full logical fallacys and supported by no evidence at all. I will repeat i produced a case for the earth being over 10,000 years old that is backed by evidence ,observation and science. My arguments stand.
The age of the earth is over 10,000 years old.

It appears my esteemed opponent disregarded the first rule of our debate 1.Use logicNot a single of Con's arguments are backed up by evidence or observation,science or logic.Therefore we can simply dismiss Contention 1, A) ,i,ii,iii,B),ii,iii,C)i,D)i,ii,E)i,ii,iii,Contention 2 A) i,ii,iii,iv,and v.Con has yet to provide a logical scientific case for the earth being younger than 10,000 years i've provided evidence for the earth being over 10,000 years old backed by logical evidence and observation.
The age of the earth is over 10,000 years old.

Evidence has convinced scientists that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old (plus or minus about 1%) . This value is derived from several different lines of evidence however i do not have to prove that the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years old i simply must prove that the age of the earth is over 10,000 years old.P1. Radiometric age dating The oldest rocks which have been found date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago by several radiometric dating methods. Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia. These values alone do not excatly indicate an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age P2. The realiability of radiometric dating The atoms of radioactive isotopes are unstable have a fixed decay over time by dischargeing particles at a fixed rate, transforming the material into a stable substance. For example, half the mass of carbon-14,(the hardest substance known to mankind)Is an unstable isotope of carbon, and decays into nitrogen-14 over a fixed time period.The regularity of this decay allows scientists to determine the age of extremely old organic materials.With a high degree of precision. The decay of uranium-238, has a half-life of nearly 4.5 billion years, enabled geologists to determine the age of the Earth. Many scientists, including Marie and Pierre Curie, Ernest Rutherford and George de Hevesy, have tried to influence the rate of radioactive decay to try and test the true accuracy of dateing by radically changing the pressure, temperature, magnetic field, acceleration, or radiation environment of the source. No experiment to date has detected any change in rates of decay. Therefore we can all come to the conclusion that since P1 and P2 are valid and backed by evidence and science the age of the earth is over 10,000 years old.Sources. http://tinyurl.com.........http://tinyurl.com.........http://tinyurl.com.........http://en.wikipedia.org.........;
Christianity is violent and oppressive

It appears that my opponent has forfeited the final round.In conclusion I'd like to close the debate by stating the my opponent did nothing to support his opening arguments which fail to properly support his position in this debate . Aside from the fact that the position that Christianity as a whole is violent and oppressive is the perfect example of composition fallacy, I will briefly remind the audience not of how wrong the position itself is but rather the fact that my opponent has failed to defend it.1) My opponent has failed to support how quotes cherry-picked from a very large work of literature can possibly be used to characterize the entire work of literature let alone demonstrate that the work of literature itself has influenced violence and oppression amongst all or most of Christians who, as a whole, seem to have differing views on the content of the bible and also practice the religion differently. 2) My opponent argued that Christianity was responsible for the world's most atrocious acts of genocide and gave brutal dictators a way to seize power and did not support this point at all. Aside from the fact that he never estabilshed a causal link between the acts he did bring up and Christianity itself (which has also gone undefined) he has failed to acknowledge equally attricious acts in which Christianity played no part, failed to acknowledge the fact that modern Christians (and likely even Christians at the time) don't support those acts at all, and failed generally failed to demonstrate how the religion itself supports the few atrocious acts he named.3) My opponent also placed the blame of regressive attitudes in society on Christianity. Aside from various studies and musings out there that outline the fact that people generally support the status quo and are averse to change without regards to religion, experience alone will tell us that this assertion is flat out wrong as a large portion that one encounters are resistant to change in various areas of their lives, even areas they are unhappy with. Please remember that the burden is not on me to prove the religion is not violent or oppressive but rather on my opponent to adequately support that it is. I have pointed out the major flaws in my opponents opening arguments which they have failed to expand upon or defend past the first round. As my opponent has failed to support their arguments, which are not adequate enough to defend their position, please vote for Con. Thank you for your time.
Tesla is a better car company than Rolls Royce

Hey! I look forward to debating you! Why is Tesla a better car company than Rolls-Royce? Well for starters, Tesla is more innovative, unique, and genius bringing a much needed technology into the market, and therefor, will make huge profits and be one of the, if not THE for running brand in EV's. Rolls-Royce however makes finely tuned luxury vehicles. Of course, at face Rolls-Royce makes far superior cars, however their cars are not reachable for the general public, which makes it impossible to grow much outside of their current market. After all, the goal of a company is PROFIT. Of course, Tesla is hardly profiting at the moment, especially without government grants, however, long term after the Model 3 and future cheaper cars, Tesla will be far more profitable and prevalent than Rolls-Royce.
Catholicism is not Christian.

Binding Contract: I, God, do hereby swear by the blood of my Son, Jesus, to overlook all of your violations of my Holy Law (sin) and grant you full pardon and entrance into eternal life by the resurrection of my Son from the dead if you will agree to the following terms: 1) You must acknowledge that you are the one who deserved to die and my Son did not deserve to die. 2) You must believe that I love you so much that I died in your place in the form of Jesus Christ my Son, and you must believe that I raised Him from the dead and can do the same for you. 3) You must ask me to accept you on these terms, asking for my mercy to forgive you and believe that I am willing to forgive you. You must receive my Son, Jesus, as your Saviour by asking me in His name to save you. This contract is written by me in the blood of my Son whom I gave to be the satisfaction for payment for your sins against me. If you honestly agree to the terms and will receive my Son as your Saviour, Sign here-->
Catholicism is not Christian.

Catholic's and Christians have the same values, the same God. Catholic's are are a belif in God, Christianity is a belief in God. I do not understand why you think that Catholicism and Christianity are not the same thing. When I die, my sins are forgiven. My sins decide whether I go to Heaven or Hell. If I am a bad through out my entire life, I go to hell. If I was a somewhat good my life, I go to heaven. My sins are forgiven through Confession. It is bascially God forgiving you for what wrong you have done in your life. You should know this.
Catholicism is not Christian.

Uh huh, and Hare Krishna is also a branch of Christianity. The only problem is, the branch has been taken from a strange tree and the fruit it bears is not from God. Christian in Catholicism has a whole different meaning than Christian in the Bible. Are you going to put up an argument, or what? Are you leaving the statements in my Round 1 argument unchallenged? Are you going to challenge any of my statements with more than " I am a Christian. Why? Because Catholic is a branch of Christianity". If you die today, are you sure your sins are forgiven and you are going to heaven the moment your body expires? If you cannot answer yes to this question and explain how you now know your sins are forgiven and you are sure you are going to heaven, then you are not a Christian. You may be a practitioner of the Catholic religion, but not a Christian. Christians are forgiven and going to heaven, no thanks to the Catholic Church.
Catholicism is not Christian.

Catholicism is not Christian because it denies the Bible as God's Word. The main point I will use in this argument is that the Bible says we can know we have eternal life, while Catholicism dictates that it's followers are not allowed to be sure they are completely forgiven by God now........and they are not forgiven by God now, , therefore they are not Christian. Christians are forgiven by God. Catholics are trying to earn forgiveness. The only source for this debate will be the King James Bible. The Douay version, the Catholic Bible, includes the Apocrypha which was rejected by Christians as heretical and corrupt. Catholics added it to the Bible in order to support Catholic dogma which contradicts the Bible. Because the Apocrypha is contradictory to the Bible, it is excluded from this debate. The Apocrypha is not Christian, and the Catholic church is not Christian. This is clearly shown by the Bible.
Same-sex Marriage

Gay people are not born gay! People are not born gay! It is like saying I am born straight. I could choose to be gay at any time. This research proves my theory. (1) 1. http://www.pureintimacy.org... I would like to post instead of an argument a rebuttal. Here, you basically say homosexuals make great parents. However, I believe my sources are the most valid. CBS has been known for many years. It shows that it does have an effect on the children. I believe my source is the most valid, so I ask you to reconsider your argument. Also, you say it is a human right to marry, well, it is a human right to let your kids choose to be hetero or homo sexual. However, many gays and lesbians force their kids to become gay or lesbian. Isn't that against human rights? Also, I know what you are going to say. "what does this have to do with this debate" I will tell you. The main reason gays and lesbians want marriage, is to be like a normal heterosexual couple. That also includes children!
Same-sex Marriage

YEAH YOU THINK I AM CRAZY BUT THAT'S NOT FAIR! I am listening to eminem so I might get aggressive a little when arguing my point but I will not cut you down in anyway. Good luck! 1. Civil unions Here is what civil unions mean. "Civil union, also referred to as civil partnership or registered partnership, is a legally recognized form of partnership similar to marriage. Beginning with Denmark in 1989, civil unions under one name or another have been established by law in several mostly developed countries in order to provide legal recognition of relationships formed by unmarried same-sex couples and to afford them rights, benefits, and responsibilities similar (in some countries, identical) to those of legally married couples. In some jurisdictions of Brazil, New Zealand, Uruguay, Ecuador, France and the U.S. states of Colorado, Hawaii and Illinois, civil unions are also open to opposite-sex couples" (1) Again, similar to marriage, they are viewed as partners. Why would they need marriage? They got civil unions which is similar to marriage. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. No natural reproduction. They do not further the species in anyway. They choose to be gay or lesbian, but many want children. They want to feel like a normal, straight, red blooded American. So they decide to adopt or go into vitro. They then have a child in the home. 3. Having gay or lesbian parents are really bad for kids! Don't believe it? Here is the proof. (1) it says they are more likely to have depression, anxiety, and mental and social problems. They are also a lot more likely to rely on welfare. Another study says that kids raised by homosexual couples are 4 times more likely to have sex against their will! (2) children are also more likely to be homosexuals whether from influence or being forced to be homosexual! 1. http://www.cbsnews.com... 2. http://www.frc.org... 4. Marriage is sacred to straight people Straight people have been going through this ceremony for thousands of years. In fact, we gave them civil unions to keep them from interfering with marriage! Here's my next point! 5. What's next? This is not rhetorical. We are giving him the sacred ceremony of marriage! What is next? We all have to become homosexuals? Let me remind you they are only 1% of the population. Does that mean we are going to change everything for one percent of the world's population. I watched and the and played on, and I found out in the 90's all they wanted was acceptance that they are human. Now they want marriage! Overall, gays and lesbians should be happy with all the rights we give them now, and stop pushing the line! There are just some things homosexuals can not have!
Same-sex Marriage

Hello, Con. I specifically challenged you to such a debate, as I believe we can learn something from one another about this issue and come to an understanding. You can choose to be against gay marriage after if you want, however I feel I can represent the Pro side a bit better than zolly1988. I will ask my opponent to please accept. First round is for acceptance only. Second round is for arguments only. Third and fourth rounds are for rebuttals only. Meaning of gay: Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex. Meaning of marriage: The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other. I, Pro, will be arguing for gay marriage being legalized in all fifty states of the United States of America, while Con will be arguing against such a proposal. If you are going to comment saying this is overdone, or anything along those lines, save yourself the effort and don't comment at all. I need to get this irritation out of my system. Rules No religious arguments shall partake in any part of this debate. No personal insults or attacks. No sarcasm or rudeness. A calm, intelligent, thought-provoking debate. Forfeits shall result in a 7-point loss to the offender. Burden of proof is shared. Maximum character limit. Three days to respond. In advance I will thank Cooldudebro for what will hopefully be a well-done, intelligent debate. Sources: http://www.thefreedictionary.com... http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Unicorns exist.

the first type is the horse with a horn. to prove my point i wish to show a photo of a unicorn. http://rwridley.files.wordpress.com...... (my apologies, i am not yet sure how to post images)Not a unicorn The second is an actual unicorn, such as mutant horns and antlers on goats, antelops, and cows (https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com...... , https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com......)and narwhals.Nope Seeeing as I have photographic proof, I daresay my argument is hard to get around.I hanmk d the debate to you.
Unicorns exist.

In nature, there are oddities called unicorns. We shall define unicorns as a creature with one horn in the middle of the head. There are two different types. the first type is the horse with a horn. to prove my point i wish to show a photo of a unicorn. http://rwridley.files.wordpress.com... (my apologies, i am not yet sure how to post images) The second is an actual unicorn, such as mutant horns and antlers on goats, antelops, and cows (https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com... , https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com...) and narwhals. Seeeing as I have photographic proof, I daresay my argument is hard to get around. I hand the debate to you.
Abortion

So my opponent concedes his adoption argument and now turns to the argument that teens should be more educated about sex. First let me note that it isn't only teens that are getting abortions. Second, I assure you that public schools have programs that teach sexual education as early as elementary school, and even more in middle and high school. Teens know what contraptions are, they are merely reckless and irresponsible, just like many adults. http://en.wikipedia.org... Both of my opponent's arguments, "sexual education" and "adoption" fail to achieve an effective alternative to abortion. Especially since sexual education won't solve current unwanted pregnancy like in the case of adoption. Therefore I urge a Pro vote. I thank the audience and my opponent.
Abortion

My argument isn't the fact abortion should or shouldn't stay legal. My argument focuses around the fact that there are better ways of dealing with unwanted pregnancies. Argument: The most effective way of dealing with unwanted pregnancies is prevention all together. There are many different types of contraception oral and barrier methods. The oral methods include the pill, the patch or vaginal ring. The barrier methods include condoms, diaphragms and cervical caps. The best way of preventing unwanted pregnancies is sexual education. a chart showing the types in more detail is on the link below http://www.4parents.gov... A rise in teen pregnancy shows that our teens have chose to become less educated on the effects of using contraception. If our teens would have been more educated on those methods, abortion rates would be much lower and not on the rise. When teens find out that they are in fact pregnant, they look for a way to deal with it. Some may raise their baby, others may put it up for adoption or have an abortion. http://www.usatoday.com... http://abcnews.go.com... This shows that there are better ways of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy simply by education and contraception instead of killing or aborting the fetus. That is why I am representing as CON.