BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ban Trade With China

1.China is a communist country with a poor human rights record. It has executed more people than any other country in the world and at a higher rate. Since we punish Cuba we should also punish China. If we do not then our policy looks like a joke, and singling out Cuba won't lead to other countries improving human rights or democracy since they will look at how we treat China and say "see it's all just politics".Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Republic_of_China2. China's trading practices are unfair.http://lezgetreal.com...They subsidize their industries above our own to gain a competitive advantage.China currently devalues US buying power by 30%.http://www.businessinsider.com...
RAp DEBATE!!!

Before i start I like to say that you shouldn't get angry because of what I said. Sorry if you do. Look what the cat dragged in, watch me beat u before we begin Slap the grin off your face as i spit these words out and win I murder in the third major degree, gonna add you to my killing spree You should just flee, cause my name is Nerdykiller maybe you heard of me I know what you think, this kid is gonna push me to the brink I am gonna beat you till your pink, man I already know your rap stink You should just surrender, you are not even a contender Dude your so ugly I don't even know your gender You think your good at rap, watch me give you a slap You just fell in the rap trap,I am gonna watch your mind snap I am Korean not a jap, I can beat you while taking a nap Thats gonna be a wrap, now let me give you a recap Bring it on, but I already won, you just got burn Just watch me make this home run and have some fun Your uglier than Genghis khan, i just shot you with my gun Even if you run, I know that your done, just be gone I hope you didn't take any of this too serious. Sorry if you did.
RAp DEBATE!!!

WHAT UP DDO!!! Well I didn't debate for a while, so why not start again with a fun one? :D This is a rap battle between me and whoever accepts this awesome challenge. You can write many rhymes because there are 4,000 characters! :D Write against me if you wish, but can u take what i dish? round 1 is for acceptance! *no counting the debate into the comments. Good Luck and Have Fun.
RAp DEBATE!!!

Sorry I quit I guess I am not fit I hate to forfeit Still, listen to my wit You think you know me? You don’t know me You think you know all you see So let me be Nerdykiller thinks he is so cool But soon he will have to go back to school I don’t mean to be cruel But he is such a tool You think you are intimidating All you do is hating Instead you best start appreciating No need to keep you waiting Now I am done debating This was fun But now I am done Let’s see who has won Thanks a ton
RAp DEBATE!!!

I shall give my last rap. Dude why did u quit so fast, I knew u couldn't last My rap skills are to vast, u are such an outcast Please there is no comeback, Just another smack My name is NERDKILLER and u just got hack, u wack Like i said be beware, cause I will beat u here to there U are worthless not even worth to repair, u are just a spare I am too good this isn't fair, u are a hare while i am grizzly bear I kill u with my deadly glare, kill u in midair, u lost take care I am the best, forget the rest, succeed every test Watch me give a jest, about u who is a man with breast U better go, cause u can't beat my rhyming flow I strike so low, I am the best even ur mom know I am evil to devil my soul to sell, I am gonna give u a free ride to hell My rhyme lock up in a cell, forever where u nightmare dwell Do I need to say more, raps just come out from me they pour I win every war, even the cold war, knock u down to the floor I am the last man standing, always commanding This isn't a misunderstanding, I am outstanding U have one more round, make it count if u want to be around I think u should just back down, and maybe lick ur wound Thank You for a good debate!!!
RAp DEBATE!!!

I shall begin! Who do u think u are, just watch me raise the bar I am stronger than the Tsar, I will shine like a star You can try to do what u can, Your nothing not even a man I ride a Ferrari while u cant afford a sedan I am too quick, when i am on the mic, my raps are too sick I am Nerdykiller I know what makes u tick, give a quick kick Beat u before u can even blink, dude u suck u are such a dick Wack u across the room so slick, stab u i the head with an ice pick This is the fight, one u wont live to see another night Everyday I reach new height, while u cant do anything right I am Coca-Cola while ur Sprite, this is me being polite When I say that ur face is (pale)white, u heading toward the light Ready or not, u just got shot, gonna leave u to rot I disappear into the night u just got caught You cant handle anything I brought Gonna break u and tie u into a knot U lost realize that bro, ur rhyme doesn't even have a flow I know I am such a pro, while i know u are so below
RAp DEBATE!!!

I’m BennyW and I’m sorry to trouble youbut allow me to introducea silly GooseHis name is Nerdy killerHe looks like Phyllis DillerI’m big bit he’s a bit li’lerHe says he’s Korean, a Kim Jong IllerHe must spend a lot of time on lineHe thinks he has this but it’s all mineHe thinks he’s got rhymsBut I tell you many timesHe likes to be ironic Look at his profile pic it’s almost bionicHe’s a plaque like BubonicBut my raps are the tonicHe’s a warrior for peaceThat’s what he thinks at leastHim and all the other geeseFly up into the treesHe’s a nerdy killerUp on his pillarWhen I’m done with him, he’ll be a bit stillerThis line is just a fillerYou think you’re mean?You’re only 14you're a has beenbefore you even beginI can take what you dishWhatever you wishWhy to me you’re just a fishLook at thisI got a biteWe're in for a fightThere’s gonna be a partay tonightAlright?
The Catholic Church is fully Biblical

The Catholic Church is fully biblical and teaches the fullness of the Truth. The Catholic Church is the compiler of Scripture and its guardian. All other churches are institutions of man and their teachings either contradict Scripture or are not found in Scripture. The authority of the Church however, is found explicitly in Scripture. My opponent would need to give evidence that his interpretation of Scripture is the correct one. A Protestant opponent is preferred. "But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect," - 1 Peter 3:15
If North Korea were to invade South Korea, South Korea with US support would win

The Con is arguing that sheer military power will always win wars regardless of military technology, but history has time and time again told a different story, Falklands War Argentina = 14,000 Britain = 10,000 Argentina surrendered after 2 months Vietnam War US = 1.83 million Vietnam = 460,000 US left after 10 years France vs Nazi Germany in WWII France = 5 million Germany = 4.2 million France fell after 2 weeks Israel - Arab in 1967 Israel = 100,000 Arab alliance = 240,000 Israel won after 6 days Britain vs Sudan during scramble for Africa Britain = 25,000 Sudan = 52,000 Sudan became a British territory after 7 years of resistance Anglo Zulu War in 1879 during the scramble for Africa Britain = 16,000 Zulu = 35,000 Zulu lost after 4 months and was divided into 13 kingdoms Russo-Japanese War Russia = 500,000 Japan = 300,000 Japan secured victory in less than 2 years China vs Japan during WWII China = 5.6 million Japan = 4 million Japan takes a majority of China's coast, capture the capital city, repelled only after heavy US intervention What about the greatest upset in history? The Revolutionary War Britain = 150,000 total US = 90,000 total US won in (glorious fashion) after 7 years http://www.onwar.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.historyofwar.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... So sheer military power does not guarantee victory. I reinforce my points about how technologically inferior North Korea's military is, the true potential of the military South Korea can field in response, the low morale of North Korea's soldiers, and the lack of resources North Korea already has to fund their army.
If North Korea were to invade South Korea, South Korea with US support would win

North Korea's military number is much higher than you have said. If a war started people would join up (because they want to, because they have to) but the number would then equal: 18 million men 704 ships 1600-1700 aircraft South Korea has this: 8 million men 170 ships 500 aircraft U.S support: 110,000 men 100 ships 1000 aircraft My reasons for US support is this: The US are in multiple countries already, Afghanistan and Iraq prime examples, and there army is very spread out around the world. They also have troops back home, troops in Canada, you name it. Morale: North Korea has morale. Kim-Jung II has forced people into the army with pay. That's pretty good, seeing how he is paying them. They know they are fighting the last war for their country, so they will fight to see that war done. The South Koreans are scared of the North Koreans.
If North Korea were to invade South Korea, South Korea with US support would win

To be fair I will only use the CURRENT number of US troops in South Korea and not assume that the US will deploy more troops..... North Korean troops are under supplied, underfed, and already have low morale compared to South Korean troops http://www.americanthinker.com... http://www.abc.net.au... http://www.g2mil.com... North Korea has very few resources, in fact at night they have to kill the power to the nation just to concern what little they have http://www.geni.org... http://www.gq.com... http://www.dailymail.co.uk... http://www.time.com... South Korea on the other hand has a current standing military of about 650,000 North Korea has a standing military of about 1,000,000 US troops in South Korea is about 28,500 http://www.state.gov... South Korea GDP = $1.014 Trillion = $1,362 Billion North Korea GDP = $40 Billion (34 times smaller) South Korea spending on military = $36.77 Billion North Korea spending on military = $10 Billion http://www.globalsecurity.org... So economics wise, South Korea during times of war has a far greater potential for military spending/funding than North Korea could ever match. So just to summarize 1) North Korea has a very underfunded, under supplied military 2) North Korea has little resources to supply their overblown military 3) North Korea's military is not very modern compared to South Korea's military 4) South Korea could provide much more funding into their military than North Korea if war were to break out 5) South Korea's economy is far stronger than North Korea's
God isn't needed for the existence of the universe.

Exactly. So, To re-state-- it has been observed that every object/creature/thing in the material universe can not create itself, Or bring itself into existence. An external cause is necessary. If one keeps asking this question of everything in the universe, One ultimately arrives at the question of "What about matter itself. How did matter come into existence. " It follows that in order for "matter" to come into existence, Something outside of "matter" (i. E. Not made of "matter") would be necessary to create "matter".
God isn't needed for the existence of the universe.

Before there was the universe, There was nothing" - Not so sure you can assert this statement as fact. What I would argue is that something existed, But it did not consist of matter. I think a better way to state this is "The material universe exists now. However, Before the material universe existed, It did not exist. It came to exist at some point". Would you agree as to a restate of the premise? Using logic, And observing the world around us, We can observe/deduce the following: 1. Everything that exists, Needed something else to make it exist-- some other "agents" to bring about it's existence. That rock on the road. That tree over there. The car I drive. The computer you use. The cell phone you use. Heck, Even me and you. We did not "pop into existence" -- some other agents were necessary to bring about their existence. None of these things came into existence on their own. We observe this with our senses and science pretty much confirms this. 2. One can pretty much observe this with pretty much everything in the Material universe. You can ask this question pretty much about everything and you arrive at the same conclusion : "______________ needed something else (perhaps multiple things) to bring about it's existence. " 3. If one asks this question repeatedly, One ultimately arrives at the question of "What about matter itself? What brought matter into existence? " (reminds me of Rocky and Bullwinkle-- Wassamatta U. ). 4. Having observed things do not bring themselves into existence (see #1 and #2 above), It stands to reason that "Matter could not have brought itself into existence". Matter could not cause itself to exist-- it would need something that is "not" matter to bring about it's existence. Or, Put another way, Something "outside the material universe" would have been necessary to bring about the existence of Matter. Or put another way, Something "Immaterial" would be necessary to bring about the existence of matter. So while I agree, "matter" could come from nothing. I would argue, SOMETHING is necessary to bring matter into existence, Since matter could not have come into existence of it's own accord. If it could, This would fly in the face of everything we observe in the material universe, Both with our senses and/or scientifically. This something would have to be immaterial (i. E. Not composed of matter itself).
Climate change is real and caused by humans

Since pro didn't clearly define climate change, I assume he means "Global Warming" . I as Con will be arguing that Global Warming is not real. The BoP is on Pro. Lets define global warming: "An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change" Here are my reason as to why Global Warming is not real, 1) There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man"s activity. 2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history. 3) Warmer periods of the Earth"s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels. 4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940. 5) Throughout the Earth"s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher " more than ten times as high. 6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. 7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends. 8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favorable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited. 9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists " in a scandal known as "Climate-gate" " suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming 10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years. Try and prove me otherwise. Source: https://dictionary.search.yahoo.com...
Climate change is real and caused by humans

I'm sorry but I just don't see any point in debating someone who clearly doesn't understand the science I'm talking about. I made lot's of points that you could try and rebut, but apparently you either just don't think you can, or you're just being stubborn. I encourage you to research some of the stuff I was talking about to better understand the science behind this, but I just don't feel like turning this into a teaching session. You made absolutely no scientific claims in your last argument, and therefore I can't respond. I've realized this is a waste of my time. I would also point out how I mentioned the explanation of why humans clearly are the problem in the fourth paragraph of my argument. I encourage you to look it over. Thank you for debating!
Animal Testing

Nazi Germany drug testing on human subjects is not analogous to the general application of drug testing on humans. Human testing is done during FDA clinical trials and at the whim of the other national regulatory agencies. The difference between tests done in Nazi Germany and modern clinical trials is the use of voluntary participants. The usage of animals, who are most typically unable to consent to such tests, is immoral simply due to their inability to consent. I do not disagree that tests done in Nazi Germany on Human subjects without there consent or without the subject being given a reasonable explanation of the risks associated with the trial are immoral, but similarly like conditions applied to animals are also immoral. Tests done on animals may provide a rough description regarding the drugs negative and positive consequences, but when extrapolated to humans the data can often be unreliable. The drug's affects may not manifest in humans, and the drug may be found to be entirely inert, ineffective, or more dangerous than expected thus, the reason for usage of human subjects in clinical trials. Animal drug testing is a redundant measure that only minimally reduces risk to human subjects and likewise provides minimal proof of efficacy, and is done as required by FDA regulations. If such tests were capable of providing accurate information regarding the safety and efficacy of the drug, then more than 8% of drugs would make it past clinical trials (http://www.fdareview.org...). Today, many of the side effects, and physical danger of drugs can be extrapolated from closely related compounds, thus, many drugs are no longer simply cases of guess-work and luck making many drugs less dangerous for human subjects to willingly test than could previously possible Tests can also be done in vitro with a variety of human cells maintained in a vile. For instance, in your example of penicillin the test could be in a petri dish where a bacteria is grown and penicillin is applied. Testing is possible without the usage of animals, and such test can be done ethically without harm to non consenting beings. Tests done on animals is cruel due to their lack of consent and the experiments lack the ability to provide reasonable data that can be applied to humans. This combined with the fact that these drugs will be tested on humans anyway make the tests superfluous and unreasonable.
God doesnt exist

I am an atheist because as I am an enrolled college student currently, I have had many personal experiences and taken many science, math, and philosophy classes that have made me discover much by challenging myself to many tasks, working/studying very hard, and literally sitting there thinking for hours about hundreds of topics that when i was able to answer, I came to the opinion that there is no god in the universe. I hope my opponent has some good reasoning and that he or she can make a good claim. This first round will only be to state a thesis on later arguments for this debate, so the debate will technically begin at the 2nd round. Do you accept these terms and choose to challenge me in this debate?
Violent video games should be banned because they lead to violent teens

Violant Video game should not be banned. 1.) There is no direct evidence of violent video games leading to antisocial behavior, like using guns A ten million dollar research project requested by president Obama showed no hard evidence that violent video games lead to antisocial behavior like using guns 2) Playing what type of video games we want is a common right that people use DAILY that the proposition is saying does harm Wouldn"t we then have to ban all other things that some do daily that supposedly cause harm. (We"re not saying it does, but say it does harm.)Wouldn"t we have to ban: Smoking; kills 443,600 per year, according to livestrong.com Dinner over 650 calories; livestrong.com says you should have 450- 625; at least 30,000 people die of obesity every year Showers over 25 minutes; wasting water is a huge problem All social networking sites; according to bullyingstatistics.com, over half of teens have been affected by cyberbullying. This is just naming a few... think of all the regulations we could have! 10? 20? 50? The gov. is basically saying if they pass this law that they can pass laws that infringe on everyday activities. 3) In a 2007 study, it was proven that violent video games helped kids to get their anger out. This helps kids express their angry thoughts in a game. 4) The video game industry is a huge industry. Call Of Duty sold more copies in its first day out than any film that year. If we bank them, people will lose jobs and money. Our economy would suffer a huge blow
The ecological crisis should be more focused on than the economic crisis.

First, I agree that there is some uncertainty in which methods will be effective, however, it is certain that the economy will eventually recover. It may be fast or slow but it will happen and so I disagree with Pro saying that when there is uncertainty in something then you should not do it. Next, Pro suggests that I said that the ecological crisis is not here yet. That is not true, I said that the full effects of the ecological crisis are not yet here. Also, the reason I did not rebut Pro's first arguments was because they were not false. I clearly stated that I do not disagree that Climate change is coming and those arguments were proving that it was. Why would I rebut a statement that I agree with? Finally, Pro never rebutted my argument that it is unwise to solve a problem that is already here as opposed to one that will not be fully felt for another half century or so. Millions of people are directly affected right now by the economic crisis and if we work to fix this problem now, we will be able to effectively combat the ecological crisis once the current suffering has been alleviated. Throughout this debate, I have consistently proven why it is not a good idea to focus on the ecological crisis over the economic crisis and I hope that voters see this. Thank you.