BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Titanic sank because it hit an iceberg.

First, I shall make a few rebuttals and then I will write a conclusion:Rebuttals Your first theory should not even have been listed at all. It is a fact that everyone with a basic knowledge of science is familiar with. When I started the debate, I did not want a theory that is fact. I wanted a theory that could be considered fact once the sufficient evidence is found. I wanted a theory that corresponds with the physical evidence and witness testimonies. You said that the ship sank due to it weighing more than the water it displaced. Yes, that is fact. However, you did not say what caused this. My stance is supported by this fact. Also, I don't think you understood the debate's intention when you accepted it. I wanted to hear a theory such as "a U-Boot was under the Titanic and rammed it" or "the Titanic collided with pack ice." The displacement of water is not a theory. It is fact. I wanted to hear a theory explaining why the ship had such exponential damage to its hull. Of course, when the water came into the ship, the ship weighed more than the water it displaced. Your "theory" makes it sound as if the Titanic randomly started sinking. That is not how it happened. There are witness testimonies that clearly state that the Titanic was half in the water, half in the air, in a diagonal angle. The ship broke into two pieces! Your theory does not state how this could occur. You just said "Something happened to make the Titanic weigh more than the water it displaced." True, that is the science aspect of the event, but not the physical aspect. I acknowledge the truth of your first "theory", but I was not looking for that when I started the debate. Conclusion I have not provided sufficient evidence. I understand. I should have listed more sources. I will try to remedy this issue at the end of this argument by listing sources to witness testimonies. However, if I lose the sources points in the votes, I understand. Furthermore, I believe I have still won this debate. But I still look forward to the outcome of the votes. If I lose, I lose. If my opponent wins, my opponent wins. http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org...http://www.caperace.com...http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org...
The Titanic sank because it hit an iceberg.

***I stand corrected! You have not provided a single source to back up your claims of the Titanic having hit an iceberg. You did not provide one source. The closest thing you provided to a source was a link to Dictionary.com explaining the definition of an iceberg, which does not count as a source because it does not support your theory.Therefore you have still broken your own rule!-I on the other hand, provided 3 sources plus a video explaining my first theory._________________________________________________________________________________________-I have given you time to reclaim your evidence as valid, yet you put that time to waste by trying to justify your violation of your own rule. And the one who is dissapointed is YOU?_________________________________________________________________________________________Due to Pro's lack of rebuttals, it is implied that he concedes to my argument.-Pro presented an image that depicted the ships' damage and claimed that this supports his theory that the Titanic hit an iceberg. I am certain that an iceberg is not the only possible thing that could have done this to the ship. For an example, Pro has shown another image in which it depicted some sort of creature with an unusual crystallic back. The image clearly shows how something else like a giant underwater creature can cause the exact same kind of damage to the Titanic as an iceberg. -This shows that Pro's theory is not the only possiblility. However, regardless of what caused these damages to the ship, my first theory would still be a valid explanation for how the Titanic sunk, therefore, my first theory is more likely. In fact, my second theory would also be possible in this case because Jack Sparrow's nails were so sharp and long that it could hav caused this much damage._________________________________________________________________________________Conclusion:-Pro has broken 1 of his rules.-Pro's argument is not supported by any credible source, rendering his claims invalid.-Pro has conceded to my argument.-My 1st thoery has been established to be more likely than his. __________________________________________________________________*Pro was allowed to reclaim his arguments as valid in the previous round by providing sources. He has not done this. He should not be allowed to provide sources in the last round because it is the round in which we wrap up the debate and it would not leave enough room for debate. *I will wrap up the debate in the next round.
The Titanic sank because it hit an iceberg.

You misinterpreted what I wrote. At first glance, what you wrote makes complete sence. But when you really think about it, it is absolutely terrible. I did not break my rules. I wrote:"1. Sources must be cited," not "1. Sources must be cited in every single argument." I also wrote, "2. Pictures must be used," not "2. Pictures must be used in every single argument." You disappoint me.
The Titanic sank because it hit an iceberg.

I would like to begin with a rebuttal of your rebuttal. I posted an image of the Titanic's hull being damaged and you wrote:"This is not an accurate piece of evidence. In fact, this is not evidence at all. During the sinking of Titanic, no one was taking a picture of the bottom of the ship, and if there were people who did this, they would likely have died before the picture can reach civilization."My friend, I must say, that is completely invalid. Of course nobody would have taken a picture of the Titanic's hull while it was sinking. But you see, the discoverers of the the wreck - most notably Robert Ballard - have taken pictures of the wreck and analyzed the damage. They have found plenty of evidence supporting the iceberg theory (it is not a theory. It is fact supported by witness accounts as well as physical evidence). I would now like to make a rebuttal about your first theory:That is not a theory. It is fact. Of course this is what enabled the Titanic to sink, but you did not specify what enabled this issue to occur. You wrote:"Something happened to make the Titanic weigh more than the water it displaced." That sentence actually supports my argument. The iceberg caused damage to the ship's hull, thus resulting in water flow into the ship and the increase of the ship's weight. I understand science very well, in fact. I do not need a science lesson from you. I understand displacement and weight. I believe you wrote your argument way to fast and that you didn't take your time. You weren't thinking. Now, my rebuttal of your second theory: You made a highly uneducated vindication. That, I am sorry to say, will cause you to lose this argument. When beginning this, I intended on having a mature, rational debate with someone who does not think the Titanic hit an iceberg. You have disappointed me. You have made a childish, illogical, unreasonable argument. You have failed to fulfill your duties. As I have written in the first round as the third rule, "arguments must be sophisticated." Until you can present a theory that is logical and that corresponds with the physical evidence, this debate is over and I have won. However, if you do indeed have another theory, I am eager to hear it. ConclusionI have not presented as much evidence as I could have, I understand, but my points are more valid than yours. Your second theory is complete bulls**t. I am sorry if my conduct is a little weak, but I must say, that is what it is. Currently, I do not need more evidence. I just need to make rebuttals about your points. However, if you can come up with new theories that correspond with the evidence, I would be eager to find out what could have maybe happened to the RMS Titanic. You do realize what the Titanic's legacy is, right? Many people lost their lives that night. It was a gigantic tragedy. Please do not disrespect the victims' memories again.
The Titanic sank because it hit an iceberg.

Before we begin, I would like to define "iceberg":1. a large floating mass of ice, detached from a glacier and carried out to sea.2.Informal. an emotionally cold person.3.Australian Informal. a person who swims or surfs regularly in winter.Idioms4.tip of the iceberg, the first hint or revelation of something larger or more complex: The new evidence in the case is just the tip of the iceberg. [1] We will be using definition one. Now, let's begin. Critical Evidence Analysis The idea of the Titanic sinking because it hit an iceberg should not be treated as a theory. It should be treated as fact. First of all, there is plenty of evidence to suggest an iceberg. There are pictures of the iceberg believed to be the iceberg to have sunk the Titanic and there are witness accounts as well supporting an iceberg. The pictures are the following: You can also find evidence by analyzing a map. The Titanic's voyage was concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere, thus being susceptible to icebergs and pack ice. The Titanic was believed to be "unsinkable", but both you and I know that that is not true. The Titanic had multiple safety measures installed, but they did not work. The ship could have floated with a few compartments filled with water. However, too many were fillled and the weight of the water pulled the ship down. I do not see what could have caused such exponential damage to the ship. I am aware there are theories involving Unterwasserboots, but that theory can be eliminated due to a lack of evidence. The damage can be seen in an illustration below: Now, you must admit, the image below does not work at all: I have eliminated that theory. I will eliminate further ones in the coming rounds. Now, I await your response. References[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
The Titanic sank because it hit an iceberg.

I accept. I would like to begin by defining the term "sink" so that we establish common ground.__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________sink (noun): to displace part of the volume of a supporting substance or object and become totally or partiallysubmerged or enveloped; fall or descend into or below the surface or to the bottom http://dictionary.reference.com...*I will be presenting two different theories concerning how the Titanic sank. If just one of my theories is proven more likely and more possible than Pro's theory, then I obviously win the argument. I wish good luck to Pro in presenting his case in the next round.
The Titanic sank because it hit an iceberg.

There are many conspiracy theories about the sinking of the Royal Mail Ship Titanic. I, however, remain convinced that the story of the ship hitting and iceberg and sinking because of that is the truth. I look forward to debating anyone that disagrees with the traditional iceberg story. Before we begin, I would like to implement a few crucial views:1. Sources must be cited.2. Pictures must be used.3. Arguments must be sophisticated.4. Proper spelling and grammar must be used.5. Proper conduct must be used.
Rap battle

I find it adorable that you use big text to make a stand Acclaiming I'm a thief for the lines you apparently ciphered How cute of you taking the time to see what lines apparently deciphered. Looking through your lines, I don't think I copied on bit Next time you call me a bitter, know how to first spit. Look at your set up and your use of words? I hear better rap battle lines than this from kids stuck at home living in their NJ Suburbs. Take for example my cousin, who is a stay-at-home boy, His mom treats him out for steaks and Japanese Koi, A promise he makes to his mom is to not end up like me, Last time I checked (which was now), he spit better lines than you through a 200+ bar soliloquy. Let's make this even better; I'll use Shakesphere to get by: To, be or not to be that is the question? Was this battle between me and you simply a challenge or just a suggestion? Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer, Acclaiming me, KEBENZIS as the guy whose "rap-capable" instead a bluffer? The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against the sea of troubles The waves you cast at me young rapper is at ease, I can even sit by a boat and casually blow bubbles. And by opposing end them, to die to sleep-no more. No more is correct, and that's personally for you. And my absences is the cause of my rap lines being somewhat overdo? Because of the day I took off to refresh my mind, You must be blind, go get your eyes checked. The idea of rap battling me, it should've been neglected The VERY IDEA of you rapping should have been rejected. Don't think you're so sick because the lines you spit are so slick Fast-written with four-five words like a Tae Kwon Do kick I thought YODA here would throw some dope lines and be a force to be reckoned with I have won this battle though, I am the Dark Nemesis, I am the rap-battling-Sith.
Rap battle

Up on the stage curtains open, I have you out spoken, Check the New York Times, They say you’re stilling my rhymes, This, bliss, beat, feet, are you a thief? That’s right I’m the rap chief. You said you can write; boy! You can’t rap with me. You know I’m right; where’d he go? He’s an absentee, put up a fight; did you get scared and wee wee? I hope I gave enough bite, vote pro, and have a cup of tea. You think people will forget Yoda, No one can forget a king cobra. You say I’m wasting your time, Yoda878 is in her prime. Pro’s a better choice, Then I may rejoice. You said you can write; boy! You can’t rap with me. You know I’m right; where’d he go? He’s an absentee, put up a fight; did you get scared and wee wee?
Rap battle

Yoda using force-ful methods as she raps on the beat, pulling a quick one, thinking on her feet throwing me off guard which is no problem at all, but as a heads up; challenging me was bad call. I mean, let's be real here; what was your purpose to call me out? wondering on what am I truly about? Wanting to beat me in a fell swoop; happily to shout it out? Blasting me with quick hits, fast blasting like Tae Kwon Do kicks, spittin' words at 360 speed like kickflips, (Drake Pause...) No.. no, okay let's try this. Realling that you're victory is going to be pure bliss Like a cross-chair, a beginning militant sniper; your first shot at victory is a miss. I'm going to make people forget your name like Rihanna forget hers as you believe victory is yours Seeing your short quick hits its simply an eye-sore. Ths isn't your show because the curtian already closed, trying to match the beat with your lines, the worst set of bars you ever composed. - Sorry, I had to be mean there but it must be done. LOL.
Rap battle

http://www.youtube.com... I do have great rhymes, Yes they are right on time, So you think your superior, Nah, you’re just inferior, I set you up with a beat, You may now kiss my feet, You like your rap slow, Well that is a real blow, My raps are a blast, Cause, I sing mine fast, So many rap styles bunny, For you to not know is funny, You could vote for con, Probably makes you yawn, Or you could vote Pro, I’m giving you a real show, Con, let me talk the talk, you can walk the walk. This is my show, Bro, There are many different styles my first one was aa,bb,cc,dd this one was aa,bb,cc. I like the repeated twice no middle man it really doesn’t matter as long as there is a flow and keeps up with the beat, but thanks anyway just write your rap and I’ll write mine. Also my short lines are just fine, many raps are like this. http://flocabulary.com...
Rap battle

1.Putting rhymes with four words will give you no score, 2.The rhymes that you set up are putting people into a bore. 3.Like literally 4-words into a rhyming line, 4.All those collections of bars is making me waste my time. 5.Come now, let's thing this nice and slow 6.Perhaps pointing out the mistakes will teach you some flow, 7.However this battle will go; I already know the outcome 8.I predict I will be number one 9.You will be second to none. -Advice: If you know the rhyme scheme ABB in poetry it'll somewhat make the transition longer and also, feel free to extend your lines and not maintaining the 4-Word rhyme scheme.
Rap battle

Well I see you think your tough, But really your marshmallow fluff, Just like your Rabbit tail, I’m sorry to say you will fail, You might have hip hop, But that won’t put you on top, You’re just a poor bunny, You know that was funny, You gotta have funk, But you’re just a punk. I’ve got style and class, You should have said pass, You see I will win, It feels just like a sin, Read my word and weep, Your words are so cheap. Yoda here and ready, Keeping this game steady, Why choose Bunny boy? All hes here to annoy, The best choose here is Yada, Choose me I’m sweet like soda. Vote Vote Vote Pro, Tie me up in a bow!!!!! J
Rap battle

I'm glad to accept this battle and I'll do this in a creative fashion. May the best lyricist win: 1.I thank for this battle and I will gladly accept 2.My bars will dwindle down like a splurge going into debt. 3.I'm a writer yes and thanks for pointing that out 4.Now I shall show you what I am about. 5.I'm no special VIP who thinks he's the best 6.But unlike a lot of "common rappers" I differ from the rest. 7.My use of metaphors, ties, and such; 8.Will give you the impression to have your hand in a clutch 9.In anguish you think "Oh dang it what I'm thinking?" 10.I'm suffocating from his bars as if I'm ocean quickly sinking 11.Bars-after-bars swung like Muhammad Ali 12.Words like art similar to Salvador Dali 13.Creatively written and neatly spittin' 14.Words easily said like a drunken guy cup flippin' 15.Thanks for the challenge and I shall give you a battle 16.Time to set up your bars, align them together nicely like a game of Word-Scrabble.
gun control/ assault weapons ban

I believe that we should not ban assault rifles and we should not ban any type of gun (s). The shootings that have taken place in these past years are terrible events. However i do not think banning assault weapons or making it harder for a law abiding citizen to own a gun will solve anything. In fact i think if they ban assault weapons it will not do anything. we banned assault weapons from 1994-2004 and guess what? That ban did not do anything at all. Gun control will not do anything but make law abiding citizens less safe. In the L.A street riots in the 90's korean merchants defended themselves and their stores. Unarmed people just up the same street were badly injured or killed. funny how that works
gun control/ assault weapons ban

Okay sir clearly i do not want innocent people/ criminals to die because of the right that we have to bare arms, but that is not our problem, i will tell you what is. OUr problem is that criminals CAN GET guns on the black market or can steal them from people that have registered guns. The only people that kill innocents are crazies and criminals both can easily get a gun illegally. Banning guns is not restricting criminals/ crazies from getting guns but its restricting the law abiding citizen who may need to protect themselves or their family from THESE criminals/ crazies who can get guns illegally.
gun control/ assault weapons ban

first off that comment just shows how uneducated you are on the topic of guns. And "idiots" usually do not own guns. "Idiots" probably go on debate websites and screw around talking about my mom. Most of the people who have guns are law abiding citizens and for you to even bring up the topic of murder once again shows that you know nothing about the topic of guns. Criminals use guns that they buy on the black market or guns that they steal. Coming back to your comment about "idiots", "idiots" do not cause crimes mental people shoot innocent people like what we have seen in these past years. If we take away assault weapons mental people can buy the same gun on the black market or for that matter use a hunting rife and lay down the same amount of led as they could with an assault rifle. You will be disarming law abiding citizens if we take away assault rifles.
Evolution is a THEORY not a Fact

Basically what I am arguing is if Evolution is only a THEORY, then why is it being taught in schools as fact? Im looking for a very logical debate, and I would like to use evidence, however if my opponent can make logical arguments without evidence I will refute. So for my plan: In schools, before being taught about evolution, schools should point out the FACT that evolution is a THEORY, and that it is not the only means for creation. Round 1- Questioning Round 2- Attacking eachothers case Round 3- Same Round 4- Defending cases and rebuilding cases Round 5- Conclusion, why we should vote for pro or con So basically what I am arguing that science is based on given fact, however in teaching evolution, science is contradicting the importance of evidence. Yes, there is plenty of evidence that evolution could have happened, however, there is also plenty of evidence that evolution is false, and it is not all religious. So I am arguing that when taught in schools, evolution should be taught as theory not as fact in the means of creation.
Courst have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Affirmative assertion #1: Court-ordered busing in 1974 "Neighborhoods were segregated by race and kids went to neighborhood schools. "Boston built schools but they were still segregated. "Boston got worst after law passed by desegregation. Affirmative assertion #2: Benefit more when children attend racially integrated schools "Students feel safer when attending diverse schools. "Students show improvement academically when being positively social and psychological experiences. "Students will have higher self worth. Affermative assertion #3: judge should be able to tell parents "If students go to schools closer to home, the schools might re-segregate. "The judge"s plan was to create schools that included kids from several neighborhoods. "The new plan would make kids go to schoolsd in their neighborhoods.
Courst have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

- By sending kids to school in other cities it was a bad thing because younger kids and people could have got into problems with kids from other races - Although the students could have benifited from going to racially integrated schools it did more harm to them because they were not able to concentrate due to riots and chaos being caused by the community. It was actually keeping the students from learning. -The judges really shouldn't have been able to tell parents that schools should be segregated. They could've gave their opinions but the parent should have the right to say where their child goes because thats their child and the parent is responsible for the childs saftey.
Courst have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

-Because a riot was caused, it was bad for the community. Riots were being caused by the courts decision and this did more harm than good. -Courts were sort of powerless because they were really trying to make everything alright but the community was rebelling and it scared some people. -The no child left behind was a tool that helped teachers teach every race but black kids were actually being left in overcrowded schools.
Courst have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Negative assertion #1 Court ordered desegregation plans do more harm than good. This is because they caused a riot, white students refused to go to school and a white mob attacked the federal building in Boston. Negative assertion #2 Courts are powerless to combat prejudice. The courts are powerless because they weren't really able to do much and the mayor just told them that it would be okay, they were trying to get Washington to pass a law for it but that wasn't really working and the white people were still scared overall. Negative assertion #3 Race should not be used as a basis or school assignment. They should not be used because parents wanted better neighborhood schools for their children, it left black kids in overcrowded schools and because no child left behind was a tool to help teachers to teach better to students of every race.