BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
JFK Assassinated by Secret Service

So right before JFK was shot, Secret Service Agent Ribka was photographed walking away from the motorcade with ALL the Secret Service, walking AWAY from the motorcade. Agent Ribka was photographed shrugging his arms up in the air three times like, "What? What? What? Why exactly are we the Secret Service abandoning the President and walking away from the motorcade?" Just Google, "Agent Stand Down," and you'll see that the Secret Service actually ORDERED their own agents to WALK AWAY from the motorcade. Then JFK was shot. It's not a debate to me, they killed him. The Secret Service ORDERED the assassination of JFK. Why else would their own agent be caught on photograph with his hands in the air like, "WHY are we walking away from the President?" Just as I said, Google, Agent Stand Down JFK, and you'll see that the Secret Service ORDERED ALL Agents to walk AWAY from his motorcade, just moments before he was executed publicly. This isn't really a debate, because as far as I can see, the proof is in the pudding, but if you'd like to debate it, I'd love it. I don't however think it can be done. It's obvious that the Secret Service MURDERED JFK.
Two Rhyme Rap Battle

Ay Fonsi DY Oh Oh no, oh no Oh yeah Diridiri, dirididi Daddy Go S", sabes que ya llevo un rato mir"ndote Tengo que bailar contigo hoy (DY) Vi que tu mirada ya estaba llam"ndome Mu"strame el camino que yo voy (Oh) T", t" eres el im"n y yo soy el metal Me voy acercando y voy armando el plan Solo con pensarlo se acelera el pulso (Oh yeah) Ya, ya me est" gustando m"s de lo normal Todos mis sentidos van pidiendo m"s Esto hay que tomarlo sin ning"n apuro Despacito Quiero respirar tu cuello despacito Deja que te diga cosas al o"do Para que te acuerdes si no est"s conmigo Despacito Quiero desnudarte a besos despacito Firmo en las paredes de tu laberinto Y hacer de tu cuerpo todo un manuscrito (sube, sube, sube) (Sube, sube)
Two Rhyme Rap Battle

No pain, no gain, that's what they sayYet even just by looking at you, you're goin' insaneDon't even bother to pray, I won't be swayedEvery word I spit contaminates your brainI thought competition would be difficult to maintain,How mundane, you're just a trinket to adorn,Your body's mine to obtain, habeus corpus, if this was a trial we'd be already adjournedI'm a thunderstorm, you're hardly a drop in the rainYou're gonna wish you weren't born, even your parents think you're lameLike a bane, I make you torn, deliver you scornBite you off like a cob on a cornYour spirit I drain, you struggle in vain,This is my domain, I can't be contained,Kneel down fool, while I reign,Oh, poor baby, did that give you a sprain?
Two Rhyme Rap Battle

Rules: This rap battle consists of only one round due to constraints of difficult rules. Round one is acceptance. 2,000 max characters. 20 lines max. Both of us can only have two matching rhymes before the end of each setence. For example, you can have:A, A, AB, BA, A,B, Asuch as school, lose, boozeraft, taft,snoozeetc.But you cannot have:A, AB, B,C, Cgo, pro, no,run, bun,change, rangeWe are allowed to not rhyme our lines at all (adding lines that don't rhyme)If we violate these rules, the lines with extra rhyme(s) are simply ignored.
animal experimentation

Each year more than 115 million animals, Counting only vertebrates, Are subjected to experimentation with the supposed purpose of benefiting human beings. This includes practices such as forcing them to inhale toxic gases, Apply corrosive substances to skin and eyes, Infect them with HIV or remove part of their brains. Certainly, The number of nonhuman animals that suffer and die because of these practices is much less than that of those who are victims of the food industry, Or of individuals in the wild who suffer from natural events. Now, Since the basic interests of these animals in not suffering and not dying matter, It is nevertheless necessary to reflect on whether the experimentation with them is ethically justified. We often associate animal experimentation with efforts to increase the quality and duration of human lives. However, As will be seen, This is not the objective pursued in most cases. In addition, Regarding those in which it is, There are strong ethical reasons to reject the current practice of animal experimentation, If we consider that it would not be justified with human beings either. In the first place, The majority of experiments performed on non-human animals have no biomedical purpose, That is, They do not seek improvements in human health. In some cases it is about environmental impact tests of chemical products. In others it is about safety testing of cosmetic or household products. On other occasions, Non-human animals are used in military research. All these cases have in common that the benefit that human beings can receive thanks to these practices is irrelevant or non-existent. Despite this, A large number of non-human animals are subjected to serious damage. Now, Reasoning ethically requires rejecting all forms of discrimination based on the characteristics of individuals that have nothing to do with their ability to be harmed or benefited. Not taking into account the damage that animals suffer in these experiments, Or giving them a minor importance, Simply because they do not belong to the human species, Is a type of arbitrary discrimination, Speciesism. Just as not respecting someone for their skin color or gender is unjustified, So is not respecting him for his species. From an impartial point of view, The suffering and death of these animals outweighs the trivial benefit obtained by human beings. Experimentation with animals for environmental, Cosmetic or military purposes should, Therefore, Be rejected. Fortunately, Part of these practices are already being banned in some legal systems, As is the case of experimentation for cosmetic products in the European Union or India.
animal experimentation

Zareth, I gave you several arguments you responded to not at all. The only one you somewhat responded to in your R2 I expanded upon in my R2. Look at my R1 and you'll see my whole argument is not dependent on this point. However, Since you have now answered, If 1 human life is superior to 2+ deer lives and some research that will benefit all deer and humans in the future requires testing on live subjects, Then I condone it. It is not at all obvious that your answer would have been that you would not sacrifice a human life for 2 deer lives. Many people who are anti animal experimentation would say that every life is equal and that two deer would be the clear choice over one human. In the case where people think all lives are equal, It is consistent to say live animal experimentation should be stopped. The only question is replace it with what? You will contribute to human suffering. In the end, If you cannot get a global ban put in place your ban in your country will be nothing but a symbol. It will effect no real change. I examine my thoughts in all of the debates I do. I am my worst critic. Here, I can't help but think you are the one who needs to analyze their thoughts better. I suppose I will submit my efforts to the judges to decide. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht
animal experimentation

You're right I still have not told you what my answer is. It is obviously I would choose the human but this debate is not about that. It is going about experimenting with animals if you do not understand you have to search the Internet then my point is that you are trying to divert the current topic to let me choose between the choice of race is obvious that I would choose my race. But it is very discriminatory on your part to tell me to choose because human or animal is to take a life and I am not the one to choose, So if you are going to speak it then face the issue of front saying why do you think this is right this is the only thing that you wonder is not asked you to make me choose between giving life or removing it, Examine your thoughts better. From Zareth To thort
The United Methodist Church Should Recognize Gay Marriage

Thank you for the debate my friend, and I am sorry this took so long to post its been a rough weekend. Good luck to you and I promise to be kind, yet serious, always :) My opening point/rebuttals for this debate are as follows. Point 1/Refutation 1 My good friend is complete accurate in his point here. The United Methodist Church's interpretations of the Holy Bible would clearly define all that it stands for. I see no need to question my friend on this one. Refutation 2/Point 2 The fact that Jesus Christ himself condemned gay marriage should be the cornerstone of the United Methodist Church's manifesto on gay marriage. Refutation 3/Point 3 My worthy opponent and friend puts this statement in here very cleverly and it is a good statement. The UMC is yes of the mindset that "homosexuality is not compatible with Christian teaching. " This is true, and yet, with the UMC having more and more issues internally with gay marriage, one has to wonder if a vote will be held on recognition of gay marriage. I will point out that the Episcopal Church USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, United Church of Christ and the Presbyterian Church USA have all recognized gay marriage, and so naturally one would expect the other churches to follow suit. But keep in mind this, the Presbyterian Church USA is splitting a lot over gay marriage after they recognized it. Think carefully, do we want another church split, and in particular, in the second largest protestant denomination in the United States of America? I ask my friend to take these kind points into account.
The United Methodist Church Should Recognize Gay Marriage

Hello Kylar. I appreciate your question, and I gladly accept. I hope you enjoy having this debate. Lets begin. My argument will be rather simple in its approach: 1) The Untied Methodist Church upholds the doctrine of the classical scriptural cannon according to Damasine Council of Rome and third Council of Carthage. 2) Scripture clearly teaches that marriage is between a man and a women, and any other sexual relationship should not be allowed in the church. 3) Therefore, a gay "marriage" should not be recognized in the church, and the members of the United Methodist Church should not be in such a union. Point 1 On the United Methodist webpage they say "We believe that the Bible is God"s Word and is the primary authority for our faith and practice." So clearly Methodist theology will bend around the words of scripture. (* http://www.umc.org... ) Point 2 Now please note when I am arguing I am specifically arguing from the point of view of scripture. Also I am not arguing that people who are not members of the Christian faith have to uphold these commands, because Paul is rather clear that unbelievers in Christ should be expected to act exactly like people who do not have God. However Paul when writing to the believers in Corinth said "9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." -1 Corinthians 6: 9-11 So, clearly homosexuality is condemned that this sexual behavior is condemned, but also Jesus has a very specific idea of marriage. Jesus said: " 4 "Haven"t you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator "made them male and female, 5 and said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." Matthew 19 4-6 Jesus sees the union of a man and a women as the sacred bond which follows the old testament tradition. And any other sexual interaction, including gay marriage is considered a sin. Point 3- Now, since the United Methodist Church wants to uphold their scriptural beliefs, they do not want to allow a person fully celebrating a sinful life (according to scripture) to be a part of their church body, and will not support and say it is completely natural and fine. I will continue on with the implications and the legality in the rebuttal along with any significant claims made by my friend Kylar.
The United Methodist Church Should Recognize Gay Marriage

Hello guys this is my 49th debate :). I have been on hiatus due to my senior year of high school so I am sorry. I will be more active. It was hard to put this debate in religion as it could also be political too. Anyways... First round=acceptance and opening statements. I will be arguing that the United Methodist Church should not allow/recognize gay marriage. Good luck, let"s have a good debate together.
The United Methodist Church Should Recognize Gay Marriage

I would like to begin by apologizing to my friend Kylar for failing to post a response for round 2. I had some confusion in timing, but I still would like to say I deeply apologize. First off I am generally confused: It seems I have misread the original prompt and thus forfeit this debate by the fact I cannot think of any legal or religious reason against Mr. Kylar's position. I am extremely sorry for misunderstanding you and would like to kindly ask you attempt this debate again with someone against your position. Sincerely, Tanner Jones
Politicians should have a private life

With a private life,politicians have a higher risk of having more trouble to deal with. In singapore, Prime Minister Lee was having an argument among his siblings on who should inherit their father"s house. This was at first a private issue but was eventually taken fo facebook arguments and letting the public see what was happening. So if politicians have private lives, there is a risk for such events to occur. Source:https://www.channelnewsasia.com...
Buying AntiVirus Programs

goodness, fine, you've won this debate.... so yeah, i do have one... but its avg free, so im not contributing to the never ending cycle of virus and anti virus economy... the reason it's corrupt, in my opinion, is because it isn't going anywhere, and if hackers where just "so clever" they would instead find a job in networking instead of wasting their lives away making viruses... and a more valid solution to finding protection is by which sites you go to.. i personally only go to a handful, all which are 100% safe because they are official, non official sites are the ones with viruses, and i really dont have viruses problems, only when non safe sites are attended to. i think the "solution" to the problem would be to strict-en the internet... right now is as unorganized as it could be. government officials should be able to delete sites in which servers detect viruses and such.... yeah, i don't know much about the topic, but i just wanted to know the other side, thanks :)
Buying AntiVirus Programs

Here are my opponent's points: 1. If viruses on the computer are increasing, that means the precautions used aren't efficient. Wrong. Hackers find ways to try and beat the system all the time. That's what they do; they make a living out of it. Once they come up with something new, techies at the anti-virus places pick up on what happened and fix it. Then they stop it from happening to more people's computers. In other words, there isn't a way to stop what's happening EXCEPT to have this software in place. Inevitably they won't be able to pick up on EVERYTHING because new viruses come out all the time. What they do is detect it, fix it and prevent it from becoming an epidemic. 2. Anti-virus people need viruses for there to be jobs. Uh, sure? There are a lot of things techies can do, but there's a demand for them in the market which I don't think is their fault but the fault of the virus makers themselves. 3. Anti-virus programs don't provide a viable solution. I'd tend to agree with you. However, they are at least somewhat effective, which is better than nothing. People can choose to pay for them to obtain SOME protection, or choose to not pay and go without it. The reality is that there are sick people out there who get off on harming other people's computers; anti-virus programs are currently the best solution. Because of your position in this debate, you would have to provide a viable alternative or solution to the product. 4. The market and the economy of the protection is corrupt. You have to prove that this is the case.
Buying AntiVirus Programs

that was very enlightening.... and i agree with u, i didn't realize that, but, if viruses on the computer are increasing and not decreasing, that means the precautions used isn't as efficient, the anti virus companies themselves are multiplying, if so many people are depended in that marketing business in protecting people's computer against viruses, when is the trend going to stop? u have to admit, if viruses decrease and people stop buying their products, they are going to go out of business, so how can stopping viruses be their ultimate goal? im not trying to be a very negative person, as ur thinking, but im trying to be serious; all this anti virus stuff sounds like a endless circle that takes you no where...all you do is keep paying and paying and paying... and people who even pay for their anti virus, might get a virus! like it's ridiculous, i've known people who've bought their anti virus for 3 years, paying every month, and still got infected, im not saying anti viruses don't help, they totally do.. but im saying it seems too repetitive, and doesn't seem to have much of a solution... and it is very expensive.. im not even saying protection shouldn't be taken, it should, but i'm saying that the market and the economy of the protection is corrupted.. the process the anti-virus business is headed is more downhill and consists of false hope, and a losing battle....
Buying AntiVirus Programs

Con basically has 2 arguments: 1) Stop the virus makers 2) Anti-virus protection should be "free" on the internet First, obviously if people knew who were responsible for creating the viruses, they would be punished. At attempt to inhibit them includes incorporating penalties such as a sentencing for up to ten years in federal prison as well as paying a fine if they are caught [1]. Second, anti-virus programs work because there are employees (techies) at various companies who work to stay up to date with the latest internet trends and problems. These people are paid handsomely for their expertise. Since the internet is not nationalized, who do you suppose would pay for the techies who help keep our computers safe? You can't expect the owner of every single website or domain to be able to protect everyone. The system we have now allows people the freedom to choose whether or not they want to purchase protection or accept the risk of being affected. Products like McAfee, Norton, etc. compete for your business and pay their employees by us purchasing their products. I fail to see how a better system would work, and Pro hasn't explained how it would be feasible for the internet to be "automatically protected." So until then... Also, I'm pretty sure that my opponent's stance in this debate is not that people should opt NOT to buy protection. Obviously protection is important and I would advocate buying it even though we have to pay for it. If my opponent objects, I'll address it in the next round. For now I'll send the debate back their way -- good luck. [1] http://www.fmew.com...
Buying AntiVirus Programs

You spend so much money buying a computer, routers, and monthly internet usage. You would think that's all you have to spend it on, yet there's millions of hackers and viruses on the computer that might come to your computer without your permission and completely mess up for hard drive, it's bad enough you have to suffer that, but on top of it, buy an anti virus program to protect your computer. how fair is that? shouldn't the internet be automatically filtered for this stuff to protect users? instead of having their ultimate goal keeping users protected, their job and living expenses is counted on people getting viruses. f there were no more viruses, those companies would go out of business... so their aim is to keep viruses on the internet, right? really think about it; what loser just lives to make viruses and Trojan spy-ware? who is just that out of a life? the only person viruses benefit is the anti virus companies that "protect" users. if no one was being affected, why would anyone buy the programs? the internet should be remodeled in a safer and more organized way, but that's out of the question, what at least should be done is to stop the virus makers instead of focusing only on "protecting users" rebuttals are accepted :)
Happy Tree Friends is a good influence on children.

If my opponent insists, then I will comply: Audience, I'd like to make it clear that I AM NOT DEBATING THAT "HAPPY TREE FRIENDS" IS A GOOD SHOW. I'm debating that its influence on the world is, overall, good. Allow me to define "Happy Tree Friends": "A flash cartoon. .. [that is] not recommended for children under 10. Despite its childish appearance, the show is extremely violent, featuring blood, pain, and gruesome deaths. The portrayal of death in "Happy Tree Friends" is usually graphic and exaggerated, depicting bloodshed and dismemberment in a vivid manner [1]. " My points: 1) ECONOMY - Any book, television show, movie, business, company, etc. will generate revenue for its employees. Audience, right now we are in an economic crisis, and we need jobs and money to be put out there for those who need it [2]. You and I both know that "Happy Tree Friends" falls into those categories. Whether the episodes are good or not, "Happy Tree Friends" does its share to help the economy like every other product out there. 2) HEALTH - Laughter is often the best medicine. Whether it's because of good humor, funny lines, idiotic actions, or because the whole thing is just plain stupid, "Happy Tree Friends" is bound to generate laughter like any other television show, good or bad. Mocking laughter, light, airy laughter - laughter in general is healthy for the soul and mind [3]. 3) WHAT NOT TO DO - We learn from mistakes - but not just our mistakes [4]. Other people's mistakes, other groups' mistakes, parents' mistakes, businesses' mistakes, television shows' mistakes - see where I'm getting at? By subconsciously judging the video, you are also telling yourself: Don't do this, it's stupid, I don't like it, so no one else will. Yeah, I think we all agree it's better to let "Happy Tree Friends" make all the mistakes. Alternatively, you could be telling yourself: Hey, this is great, let's use it. So yeah, "Happy Tree Friends" first. Sources: 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com... 3. . http://helpguide.org... 4. . http://stress.about.com... Audience, "Happy Tree Friends" may not be a good show - but it does have a good impact on society. In other words, it defines "stupid" for the world.
Happy Tree Friends is a good influence on children.

By initiating this debate, I expect that he will bind himself by the general rules of conduct and that he have a good sense of humor and is not in any way offended by my words, unless they directly insult him (which would, by the way, also be a violation of the rules of conduct on my part). On my honor, I swear I will uphold these rules for this debate or else be dishonored. I begin by quoting the Christian Bible: "For ye are all the children of God. .. " - Galatians 3:26 [1]. "We are all children of the same universe" [2]. Therefore, I choose to interpret this motion as "Happy Tree Friends is a Good Influence on Everyone", because it is implied that "we" is humanity in general. I would appreciate if my opponent supplied sources and arguments in his next post. Sources: 1. . http://bible.cc... 2. www. themonastery. org/ I will begin my arguments after my opponent presents his.