BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap music of the "gangsta" variety is degrading our society

2 Live Crew, N.W.A., the Getto Boys, and Too Short, etc., were all around 15 years ago. I don't think anyone has exceeded their vulgarity, so your assertion that gangsta rap is a "recent" development, or that rap today is more vulgar than rap in the past, is thus weakened. Gangsta rap peeked over a decade ago, and gang violence has been dropping for even longer. Kids who grew up on gangsta rap would be "gang-aged" now, and yet gang violence is down. So obviously, gangsta rap did not produce a whole generation of "gangstas." In fact, from 1996 to 2001, the percentage of violent crimes committed by gang members was cut in half. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov... Total crime is also way down from the early Crack Years. Gangsta rap is just a form of entertainment, no more damaging or harmful than gory horror films or pro wrestling. It has not degraded our society. It is reflective of urban blight, not the cause of it. The real causes -- the welfare state, single-parent households, drug use, etc. -- would exist without gangsta rap, and pre-date gangsta rap. And the bullies and thugs you encounter have always existed, and they would simply choose another form of music to adopt if not for gangsta rap.
Rap music of the "gangsta" variety is degrading our society

If you listen to the rap music of today, rap music of 10 years ago that of 20 years ago the progression is hard to miss. Clearly violence and sexism and other degrading elements overall have become more prominent. Maybe these elements were inherent in the gang culture all along. However, rap music, especially gangsta rap, is a newer phenomenon. Whereas gang culture used to be more of an ugly and isolated part of society, its spirit which gangsta rap embodies is gaining a lot more mainstream popularity today than it used to. That is exactly why it is threatening. This music with themes of sexism and violent intimidation is slowly but surely weaving itself into the fabric of American society. Actually, I would imagine it more like a stain in our fabric, but I digress. To sum it all up I am noting: 1) The emersion of degrading themes into rap culture, and 2) The mainstream popularity it has aquired and how together these two things are pushing our society downward.
Rap music of the "gangsta" variety is degrading our society

I will still continue the debate, because I do not believe that gangsta rap "degrades society" either. I will make the argument the 1980s and early 90s gangsta rap music served at least one positive purpose -- drawing the media's attention to the reality of gang violence and the problem it presented. The inner city was largely ignored by the middle-class establishment, until their children began playing NWA and Ice T, etc. It made them take notice. Secondly, I still disagree that gangsta rap begets gang violence. The inverse is true. Black gang culture predates gangsta rap. Gangsta rap was created from out of gang culture. I've yet to learn of anything that gangs have taken from gangsta rap -- it's always the other way around. See cornrows, baggy jeans, and even "Crip walking" for examples. Again, the car-stereo-blasting argument does not fly, because it is itself a separate crime. You should be free from intrusions in your home. Laws should be made and enforced against disturbing the peace. But if not gangsta rap, who's to say that another form of music wouldn't be blasting from these car stereos? Some people are obnoxious and rude. I don't think you can blame gangsta rap for that. Nor do I think you can blame gangsta rap for people who have initiated violence against you. Again, black gang culture predates gangsta rap. Gang culture, in general, dates back to before the Civil War. There were no Irish gangsta rappers depicted in Gangs of New York. Seriously, gangs hit their peak in the late 80s and early 90s, and apexed during the LA Riots of '91. Gangsta rap peaked a few years later. Kids who grew up on gangsta rap were thus less likely to join gangs than kids who grew up on 70s soul music. Maybe Marvin Gaye is more to blame than Dr. Dre. Still, you make no arguments against free speech. I appreciate that. But of course, that isn't the subject of the debate. The debate is whether gangsta rap is bad for society. You have made good points that it is, but it is my job to say that it is either good or indifferent. My belief is that its effects are some good, some bad, and a whole lot of indifferent. You have anecdotal evidence of people you ASSUME were influenced by gangsta rap, but you can't know. The empirical evidence says gangs are less prevalent than they once were. And furthermore, I listened to gangsta rap as a child, and my anecdotal evidence is that I grew up to be a radically anti-violence, anti-racism libertarian individualist. Therefore, using myself as a microcosm for society -- as you are using yourself -- I cannot say that gangsta rap has negative effects. Extrapolating further, I had many, many friends who listened to gangsta rap, too. None of them are in jail, and many of them are libertarian-leaning like me. Meanwhile, many gang members are the children of gang members who grew up before there was such a thing as gangsta rap. I think that has a greater effect.
Rap music of the "gangsta" variety is degrading our society

You bring up some very good and valid points, clsmooth. You pointed out my folly of not being clear enough which I will concede completely. I am by no means against rap music itself. I enjoy several groups; De la Soul and NERD being my favorites. My mistake was entitling my debate "gangsta" rap and then assuming you understood whenever I said "rap" I was refering to "gangsta" rap, which was, indeed, a folly. Now I am worried that you might not have entered this debate had I been more clear. I hope that is not the case. In any case I will continue with my arguments against gangsta rap. First of all, I never made the claim that gangsta rap music was responsible for the creation of gang culture. That's absolutely not true at all. But I do stand that gangsta rap music has given the gang culture a much more powerful voice and helped perpetuate a cycle of violence and moral degradation. Of course it's easy to say "if you don't like it, ignore it". But the music is intended to be provocative and morally reprehensible. Pushing society's tolleration limits is a very passive aggressive way of picking a fight. The dimention of tension it adds to society I find in itself degrading. When it is so in-your-face as being able to hear it from a car blasting it blocks away it becomes somewhat hard to ignore. Not only is the music provocative but so is the gang culture. That's why I say they go hand-in-hand. I've had ganstas threaten me when I was minding my own business. I could list examples. In summary, the tension that gangsta rap/culture imposes on society is something that cannot be ignored and it effects society in more negative ways than positive ways, to put it very lightly.
The moral argument for God is sound.

This is a reissue of the challenge www.debate.org/debates/The-moral-argument-for-God-is-sound.The argument is the following :1. If God does not exist, objective morality does not exist.2. Objective morality does exist.3. Therefore, God exists.subjective : to a high degree dependent on opinion- The voting is to be done by judges.- The character limited is 10.000.- The first round is for acceptance and additional definitions only.- The second round is for the presentation on one's case without rebuttals.- No new arguments may be presented in the last round.We (mostly my opponent) have found some judges. Maybe it will work this time.May the truth prevail.
A pink invisible unicorn is both pink and invisible.

I negate the resolution. Definitions: A - the indefinite article. Refers to one member of the noun it refers to. Example usage and explanation of meaning: "A man is robbing John's house" This does not mean that "robbing John's house" is a quality all men must have, it simply means that there exists one unspecified man who is currently "robbing John's house." Though "robbing John's house" is already functionally an adjective (it's a participle phrase, the adjective form of a verb phrase), I will use more common adjectives to avoid a point of contention. "A man is hungry and alone." Once again, this does not mean that all men are hungry and alone, it simply means that there exists one man who is hungry and alone, whether hungry and alone are essential qualities of being a man or not. This brings to my main point: while my opponent contends that one unspecified pink invisible unicorn is both pink and invisible, I contend that there are no pink invisible unicorns. "A" refers to a single entity within a set, but "invisible pink unicorns" is an empty set. For the resolution to be true, at least one member of that set must contain the attributes "pink" and "invisible," but that's impossible if there are not even any members in the set. Allow me to now show why I believe there are no members within that set. I have two reasons, and I believe you too will be convinced by these reasons. I. There is no evidence for pink invisible unicorns existing. II. The concept of a pink invisible unicorn is contradictory. To be pink, a thing must be visibly pink. To be invisible, a thing must not be visible at all. This is a contradiction in terms, which makes the existence of pink invisible unicorns impossible. 1. The resolution is true if and ONLY if there exists at least one pink invisible unicorn that is both pink and invisible. 2. There are no pink invisible unicorns. (see above reasons I and II) 3. The resolution must be false. (1, 2) Thank you.
A pink invisible unicorn is both pink and invisible.

I stand resolved that a pink invisible unicorn is both pink and invisible. Definitions: Pink - of the color pink [1], as seen here: http://www.spicybiscotti.com... Invisible - incapable by nature of being seen [2], as seen here: http://www.amcgltd.com... Unicorn - a mythical animal generally depicted with the body and head of a horse, the hind legs of a stag, the tail of a lion, and a single horn in the middle of the forehead [3], as seen here: http://www.merriam-webster.com... [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
War On Terror

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein "We make war that we may live in peace." - Aristotle "War is a game that is played with a smile. If you can't smile, grin. If you can't grin, keep out of the way till you can." -Winston Churchill "Never give in, never give in, never; never; never; never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense" - Winston Churchill These are just a few quotes that really show what war is really about, and what this war in general is meaning. To explain the first quote: We are in this war right now for a reason. Whether you like it or not, this is World War III. It hasn't technically been announced. We have a war with USA, Britain, Israel, and other ally's vs. Iran, Afghanistan (Al Qaeda), Iraq(Taliban), and we even have North Korea in Asia giving us a headache. We need to finish what we started by completing Project Iraqi Freedom, defeating the Taliban, exterminating Bin Laden and all of his Al Qaeda slaves. To me opponent: I understand you are of the Islamic religion and i have no problem with that. I highly doubt that your a radical. What people have tried to tell us over and over again is that Islam is a religion of peace, but what peace was being made on 9/11? What peace is made every week when an IED explodes and kills a soldier who's baby had just been born. What peace is being made when a car bomb in Time Square goes off and kills a couple hundred people (Thank God it was prevented)? You get my point. I have nothing against Muslims as i said, but i have a problem with Radical Muslims. They say they want all of this peace, but they are really just making things worse. We need to get the message across that the U.S. has came, and we aren't leaving until our job is done. So if all of the terrorists would just step aside, let out army handle the making of peace, and then we can all just go home, and live in a peaceful world for the time being. I enjoyed this debate and I look forward to my next one. Brendan Corwen 14 New York
War On Terror

I appreciated you responding to my argument... how much of an ongoing and never-ending topic it can be. You prove a good point there. The war does hurt out economy pretty badly. But for the safety and assurance of our country, sacrifice is eminent. Our country has made it through hard times before, the Great Depressions, Pearl Harbor, 9/11, etc. We will make it through these days as well. We cannot let the thought of a nuclear threat on our country be a possibility. It's almost like playing poker. You can't tell who is bluffing, or who has the royal flush. As I mentioned before about us overcoming catastrophes in our nation, if the economy is on hold for a while until we get back on our feet after this war is over, then let it be. People need to make smarter investments and choices financially. It's the little things that count. The economy is an important part of our country without a doubt, but whats even more important is the safety of our country. I think people would rather lose a few hundred dollars rather than have another larger war on our hands that could lead to something as horrifying as an invasion. Thank you for follow this argument and i look forward to round 3.
War On Terror

I accept my opponents proposed challenge and I look forward to hiring the differing points of view. The proposition on offer is that the War on Terror must continue until "Peace" is achieved, in the countries currently being fought in, because too much has been sacrificed as of now. If this is an unfair characterization of the argument; I ask my opponent to correct me. I plan to address the "unintended consequences" of the war on terror, the vague definition of the term "war on terror", how it is unconstitutional, the economic problems and the ever lasting effects it has on the region of the Middle East as well as the United States and its Allys. I look forward to the debate, and may the best view point win. I wish my opponent good luck. I await the first argument.
War On Terror

I would like to begin this argument by saying that I fully understand why people are against the war in the middle east. I agree that this war has been going on for far too long now and I'm am going to make this short but sweet. A lot of American's want Obama to pull out all of the troops overseas, but I don't think these people understand how far we have come since that horrible day in 2001. Bush may have made mistakes, but that's a whole other debate, but to be honest, this situation goes all the way back to Clinton, if not further. I am not a Bush fan, but I will say that he has had it rough, some he deserved, some he didn't. If I haven't made my point clear yet, let me make it more direct. We have lost way too many brave man, way too many resources, way too much many over these years that it would be a shame for it to go to waste. Obama says that "Project Iraqi Freedom" is accomplished and that troops will be being pulled out of Iraq within the next year, but we can't count on that. I think there should be no rush to pull the troops out. We need to finish what we started, and get what we came for: Peace. Once we sort out the civil and domestic situations in Iraq, we can send some of those troops to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban and then send them to Iran to put an end to their nuclear weapons movement. I hope you all agree with me on this debate, and God Bless America. Peace
Muslims being allowed to stay in France

CULTURAL DAMAGE . I As more and more mosques and other Muslim centers of culture are built in French cities, historical sites and cultures mix together taking away from centuries of rich French culture. . II As the Muslim population rises and takes up more and more space, the French government must accommodate this. For a group of recently immigrated foreigners who don't typically get college educations and force hardworking native Frenchmen and women to compete for their jobs and local business that them and their ancestors have held for decades. TERROISM I. Not only do Muslims stick together in tight communities they harass and sometimes attack native French populations. In response xenophobic acts are committed causing unnessarcy violence when they didn't belong in a western European country in the first place. I never hear of Catholic French men in Libya.
Muslims being allowed to stay in France

He didn't say muslims should be paid more attention to or that they should kept a close eye on, he is saying that the entire muslim population of France should leave the country. There are many problems with this idea my opponent has and I hope I can point out the many flaws in it. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Contention #1 Muslims make up a huge portion of the population in France and as such would cause economic repercussions if they were deported Population and statistics of muslims in France This is one major reason not to deport or remove the entire Muslim population of France. There are two main methods that the government employs in order to gather this information since there is a law in France that doesn't allow a census on religious beliefs. There are calculated predictions based on people who outwardly declare they are muslim and on geographical origins [1]. From these findings Muslims are 5-6 million of central France [1]. Muslims make up 5-10% of the religion in France [2]. Economic consequences As you may already know when a large portion of a population declines this has economic repercussions. As Robert P . Hagemann and Giuseppe Nicoletti write in their report on the correlation of the economy and population: “One of the most obvious channels through which population ageing will affect industrialized economies is via significant alterations to the size and structure of the working age population. In fact, the effect of population ageing on economic growth and, ultimately, on welfare, operates to a great extent through its consequences for the labour market. ” [3] Contention #2 Deporting an entire religion of people would be damaging to France's values The west (France) has some values that are inclusive and liberal and deporting all Muslims from France would be damaging to this. Pluralism is one of the values that the west often praises itself for. Freedom of religion, race and sexuality are values that are important to the west. What France stands for would become damaged as a result of this deportation and would make France and the west seem hypocritical. France has already banned the burqa which has absolutely no solid basis and simply violates human rights and furthers France's goal of secularization. To ban Muslims from France would put into question, Does France stand for human liberties and freedoms? Joanna Aniel Bidar writes in her article on the burqa ban (imagine if it was on deportation): “If the debate is on security and reasserting secularist values, then these should not trample on the liberties of dress codes. ” [4] Contention # 3 There are no solid reasons to deport specifically muslims from France+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Sources . http://plus.lefigaro.fr... [1] . https://www.cia.gov... [2] . http://www.oecd.org... [3] . http://english.pravda.ru... [4]
Muslims being allowed to stay in France

My opponent has not responded to my opening arguments so I extend them. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Rebuttals #1 Cultural Damage My opponent's first argument doesn't have much bearing on the case at hand. The reason is we are talking about Muslims who follow religion. Religion and culture are simply two different things. While it is completely true that Islam impacts culture, there is no such thing as one Islamic culture. Each Muslim country varies with regard to its culture. My opponent says that Muslim centers and mosques are being built in the place of historical sites which is hard to believe. I doubt that they would bring down places such as The Louvre, Eiffel tower, and Georges Pompidou centre for a mosque, my opponent needs to show some evidence for his claims. My opponent then says that Muslims are stealing native Frenchmen's jobs. My opponent presumes that native Frenchmen are more special or of a higher status then muslims which is completely false. Everybody is equal in France and whoever has better credentials and works harder gets the jobs plain and simple. These are some basic laws in the constitution of France so that argument is useless. #2 Terrorism My opponent would be suprised to hear that terrorism in the U.K is not predominantly performed by Muslims. Terroristic acts in the U.K are performed mostly by a radical terrorist organization called IRA, Irish Republican Army which is a catholic terrorist group.A huge double standard employed by the media is to never call the many terrorist acts they perform, Catholic terrorist or even terrorist acts. However, when one Muslim group performs a terrorist act it is propagated and blown to huge proportions. If you ask a Tony Blair (Man who hates Islam and Muslims) who is a bigger threat Muslim terrorists or other terrorists, he will tell you Muslims which is absurd if one looks at the numerous terrorist attacks they did. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Sources http://www.guardian.co.uk... [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk... [2] http://news.bbc.co.uk... [3] De Baróid, Ciarán (2000). Ballymurphy And The Irish War. Pluto Press. p. 325.ISBN 0-7453-1509-7 [4] http://news.bbc.co.uk... [5] http://www.flickr.com... [6] http://news.bbc.co.uk... [7]