BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
should kids be able to rap at school

I agree, sort of. But you are allowed to sing at school and be a poetic genius with lyrical madness expressed through vocal skills. But you can't advocate drugs, violence, sex and idiocy and radicalism. You can't promote woman use and abandonment, or agents of social injustice like 3 sums and slutts. you can't promote hate crimes, or arrogant/insolent propaganda directed at groups or individuals. you aren't allowed to support the cartel by encouraging drug use. you can't suggest idiots are smart and expect not to be told to be quite. you can't make irrational assertions or promote infedility (religious or not). That would all be criminal insanity, and a case of clinical delusion - not affluenza.
A persons past doesnt determine their future

I Do not think using an indvidual example is a good way to build evidence for a generic statemeny as this debate.Abused children are likely tohave poor mental health they ar 2.5x times likely to have mental issuesthey are 4x times more likely to be unhappythey generally have poor physical healthSexualy abused children are likely to havemedical diseasesrelationship issuesisoloation/social deviancemajor behavioral issueshttp://www.asca.org.au...Divorce does have a very serious impact on childrens mental stability, and relationships in the futureIts a huge stressor for kids.http://www.mckendree.edu... Living poor has an affect on youpeople in the ghetto are less likely to compelte school, more likely to be involved in crimehttp://www.psmag.com...if your dad is in prison you have i think its a 50% chance you will be in prison later on.In conclusion of the round,.. Your past experiences is what makes you who you are tody. You can try to deny your past, but each event that impacts you, alters you, shapes you. it makes you who you are.
A persons past doesnt determine their future

As an example Id like to use Dylan Roof ( church shooting) I recently read an article talking about how he had a "hard childhood" and it seemed to focus primarily on the happenings in his early life insinuating that's why he turned bad. . . The hard childhood consisted of his parents getting a divorce and his dad remarrying and then later divorcing once again . The article said he never had lasting or close relationships with anyone due to this fact. Now, let me ask the readers this . . how many of your parents, or the parents of someone you know, have gotten a divorce and y'all ended up just fine? How many of you, or someone you know, have gone through much worse and didn't turn to cold hearted killers or commit other heinous crimes? My point is that sometimes people are just bad . . Everyone goes through their own trials through out life . . If bad experiences in life break people . . then it was bound to happen anyway.
A persons past doesnt determine their future

In this debate I will be using generalizations. The use of an individual experience is an outlier and thus not useful in this sort of opinion. When you are a child, you are being molded. Your life experiences good or bad will greatly form your opinion of the world. From the role models, and peer experiences, you devolop into an adult. As you complete your childhood and become a man you are now very likely to contiune in your beleifs and stances on life. While there are cases of people changing. Generally the way you are is set. There are going to be limits on what you can and cannot achieve based on your devolped temperments and personalites given to you from your past. I will elaborate throughout the debate on these points.
A persons past doesnt determine their future

I guess race can definatly have to do with cultural upbrining and thus you are likely to fit sterotypes.My statement is based on generalization and statistics. How you grow up will strongly affect the person you become, good or bad. It is psychologically proven. When you are born you can be anything in the world. but as you experience life you create a perspective. Depending on the experiences you have will define that perspective. And in the end that perspective will have a major impact on who you become. That is why your past will play a major role and who you are today. And it will determine the possibilites for the future.There will always be exceptions, but in general this is the truth. What happeneed in your past that made you the way you are today?
A persons past doesnt determine their future

Life is not all rainbows and butterflies . . Again, everyone goes through their own trials in life. "According to studies Hispanics have a higher crime rates than Whites." ( http://en.metapedia.org...) So, if a Hispanic guy commits a crime do they add in to the report that it was likely due to his race? No, because it is irrelevant. . And so is blaming happenings in a persons life when someone commits a heinous crime. If struggles in life cause someone to commit heinous crimes . . then it is something that was harbored inside of them and revealed due to circumstantial happenings. Some people are just evil. I don't have an unlimited amount of statistics seeing as this is my apparently unpopular opinion which has made this debate difficult. . . nevertheless, I hope the point I was able to portray has been made.
Resolved: Females ought to be required to sign up for draft, the same as males.

With that, I'll introduce my case, which will be centered around a kritik which is not against the rules, as none were set up. The Draft Should not be Mandated for Either GenderThe idea of any form of compulsory service mandated by the government is immoral and unjustified. I. Compulsory service is unconstitutional. The thirteenth amendment to the Constitution makes it obvious that "involuntary servitude" is not permitted. [1] The draft is exactly that, involuntary servitude to the federal government. The draft is unconstitutional. II. The draft promotes perpetual war. By being able to draft individuals at free will, the government has a near endless supply of soldiers, making it easy to continue wars against popular opinion to further the military industrial complex. [1] It allows the country to stay at war even when the public demands the opposite. This simple kritik of my opponent's argument proves that women should not be forced into the draft, nor should men. [1] . http://tenthamendmentcenter.com...
All Humans Are Homo.

Homo is any of any of a genus (Homo) of hominids that includes modern humans (H. sapiens) and several extinct related species (as H. erectus and H. habilis)Any- one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind.Homo sapiens (humans)- primates of the family Hominidae, and the only living species of the genus Homo.Given that homo sapiens are one of the species which is synonomous to any, which is quantitive to the definition of homo, we can conclude that all humans are homo.Humans- Scientific classification Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Synapsida Class: Mammalia Order: Primates Family: Hominidae Tribe: Hominini Genus: Homo Species: H. sapiens Under scientific classification all humans are:AnimalsChordatesSynapsidsMammalsPrimatesHominidsHominins And................ Homo
All Humans Are Homo.

Let me describe this visually because maybe literally is difficult to understand what I am saying (not that you are stupid at all, just it can be hard).Take all humans and they are indeed a type of Hominid, they are homosapien. So let's draw a Venn diagram circle of 'hominid' and stick all humans in there.But your definition of Homo was ANY OF A GENUS of hominids that includes humans and several extinct related species. Humans are not any of a genus of hominids, and they certainly do not include several extinct related species within their category.So although all human fall into section of 'hominids' they cannot possibly be applied to your definition of Homo.Thus it is undeniably conclusive that not all humans are homo.
All Humans Are Homo.

Homo sapiens = Humans. Any = One, or some, indiscriminately, of whatever kind.Thus:Homo = One, or some, of a genus hominidae and several extinct related species.Thus, your new resolution is as follows:All Homo sapiens are one, or some, of a genus Hominidae and several extinct related species.The reason this is wrong is as follows according to your definitions:1) Homo Sapiens are A Homo.2) Thus, they are not Homo, clearly being used in the verbal sense.
All Humans Are Homo.

Any- one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind. Homo- any of a genus (Homo) of hominids that includes modern humans (H. sapiens) and several extinct related species (as H. erectus and H. habilis) Humans- (Homo sapiens) primates of the family Hominidae, and the only living species of the genus Homo. Humans (Homo sapiens) are any of a genus hominids because they are one indiscriminately of whatever kind (the kind being the genus homo) I'd like to thank my opponent for proving me right. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
All Humans Are Homo.

Your first rule is no semantics but if I use YOUR definitions ot highlight something then I think it's not semantics but merely useing your own words to explain your resolution.Your reslution reads as follows 'All Humans Are Homo.'It neither reads 'All Humans Are One Form of Homo.' nor does it read 'Some Homos are Human.'I shall now highlight why the second two are correct and the first is incorrect: I am not breaking the semantics rule, I am using your own definitions to highlight why you are wrong.Homo is any of a genus (Homo) of hominids that includes modern humans (H. sapiens) and several extinct related species (as H. erectus and H. habilis).Humans are not any genus of hominids. They are one type of homonid, namely homospaien. To state that "all humans are homo." is to state that "all humans are any type of homonid"
All Humans Are Homo.

Today's debate is about whether or not all humans are homo. 1. Acceptance 2. Presentation of Main Argument 3 & 4. Rebuttals 5. Resolution/Closing Argument Rules- No semantics No trolling No profanity No vulgarity Violating any of the rules results in immediate termination of the debate. Homo- any of a genus (Homo) of hominids that includes modern humans (H. sapiens) and several extinct related species (as H. erectus and H. habilis) Humans- (Homo sapiens) primates of the family Hominidae, and the only living species of the genus Homo.
Continue the sentence II: Britney Spears and the invisible fighting seshorses

Which resulted in Frank Sinatra doing a somersault to pin Justin Bieber down and threatened to beat him up if he didn't stop making songs, and Bieber agreed, therefore Sinatra saved the world as we know it, and became best friends with the Epic Sax Guy where the made people explode from their awesomeness and they disarmed the grenades, however in the end they forgot that their true enemy was Fran Drescher and her annoying voice made all their heads explode making her supreme leader of the world, when Chuck Norris fought her and was severely injured from her shriek of death but ultimately won by deflecting her voice back and making her head explode, therefore Chuck Norris saved the world, while Morgan Freeman narrated the whole thing to create a best selling blockbuster.
Continue the sentence II: Britney Spears and the invisible fighting seshorses

Let the epic sax guy use a tamborine while hula dancing to the Monkees, but instead he chose plan C which was to choose plan B which was eating 3 massive holy grenades from Newfoundland, so the world was instead doomed and Beiber laughed his head off to the point where his head came off which resulted in Frank Sinatra doing a...
Continue the sentence II: Britney Spears and the invisible fighting seshorses

Exploded only for the fat man's body to get pieced back together, where Rainbow Dash and Goku were the only survivors and combined their many superpowers to transform into a transformer and claw their way out, only to find that the burp was so intense it caused a massive earthquake that destroyed the whole world and the only way for mankind to survive was either to stop Justin Bieber from singing any more songs or to...
Life on earth will not end in our lifetime......Biatch!!!!!!!

Before my argument I must first take the liberty of defining 'lifetime'.According to Merriam Webster lifetime is defined as: "the duration of the existence of a living being (such as a person or an animal) or a thing (such as a star or a subatomic particle)"Note in particular the word duration which the Cambridge Dictionary defines as "the length of time that something lasts."Now what does this have to do with the world ending within our lifetime? Well when we consider the definitions presented it becomes clear that lifetime can be defined as the amount of time that we live, instead of the time we are alive. The average human lifespan is slightly over 80 years. Thus I must prove that the world will end within ~80 years.However! There is a problem. According to General Relativity and extensive experimentation, time passes differently depending on the reference frame. So before this debate can proceed a reference frame must be specified when referring to the ~80 years that I previously defined as our lifetime. Since the Pro did not specify the reference frame I will take liberty to define the reference frame we are measuring a lifetime in as the reference frame inside the event horizon of a Black Hole.Thanks to the extreme gravity within a black hole, by the time that 80 year life time is up, on Earth billions of years will have passed resulting in the earth having been swallowed by the sun when it expands into the Red Giant stage. At that point all life on earth will be completely destroyed and not even the planet will be left, all within a lifetime as measured in the reference of the event horizon of a blackhole. I am very interested in seeing how my opponent will prove life on earth will not end within our lifetime given the way I have defined the reference frame in which we are measuring a lifetime.https://www.merriam-webster.com...https://dictionary.cambridge.org...http://www.physlink.com...
Life on earth will not end in our lifetime......Biatch!!!!!!!

Many people in our society are convinced that we are on the cusp of a global apocalypse. Whether their assumptions are based on scripture or just plain conspiracy theory, they cannot help but find the "clues" everywhere they look, but are they correct about their feelings, or are they giving into irrational fears. Supposedly there's a rougue planet (niribu/planet x) barreling toward earth and NASA is purposely hiding the evidence of it's existence, but if you look at the history of this theory, you may find it odd that it's seems the impact date keeps getting dragged on as every scheduled cataclysm passes without incident. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that it is an unfounded fear. Just one of many irrational fears that drives this additude of impending doom. I am curious to see how my opponent will prove that we are all about to wittness the apocalypse. So without further delay, I will hand it over to my opponent!!!!
Disability checks and welfare checks go against the concept of natural selection.

To start with, some definitions: disability check - a welfare check sent to the parents of a child who is born with a disability welfare - aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need . http://www.merriam-webster.com... natural selection - a natural process that results in the survival and reproductive success of individuals or groups best adjusted to their environment and that leads to the perpetuation of genetic qualities best suited to that particular environment . http://www.merriam-webster.com... My contention is that for natural selection to work, those who are better-suited to their environment have a higher chance of succeeding than those who don't. With disability checks, the chance of anyone being born with a disability surviving increases, when natural selection requires them to have a lower chance of survival. Welfare checks are sent out to those who are failing in their environment (the economy) out of the pockets of those who are succeeding, and are thus more fit for their environment.
America should reduce the Age Of Consent (of sexual acts) to 16 and above.

The problem with lowering the age of consent is how one distributes the resulting responsibilities. For instance, if I am required to give my 16 year old child food, shelter, and care - does that extend to treating STDs and providing for any babies? In fact, the question becomes a matter of whether or not a person should be considered a legal adult if they are able to consent to things like sex. Making this situation worse is what is currently going in the realms of hysteria-backed madness across college campuses. Young men between the ages of 18 and 23 are finding themselves at risk of expulsion or arrest or slander or defame if they have sex with any female student for any reason at any time without at least two forms of evidence that it was consensual on her part (not his) throughout the entire session. So then the question becomes how lowering the age effects issues of consent, issues of rape (what counts as rape), issues of conduct in regards to professionals and older adults , issues regarding any resulting children, and so forth. And considering how poorly similar discussions are going with much older people (with the President himself being a complete disappoint in his handling of the situation)... yeah no. Besides which it sets a very poor precedent - because children as young as nine are having frequent intercourse. The world's youngest father conceived his child at the age of nine with a 14 year old. The youngest mother gave birth at age 6. You can't just say - "well kids will be kids" and adjust consent to that level. Not least because the law isn't there to keep children from touching each other - it's to keep perverted adults from touching the kids. And what of law enforcement? Sometimes the only way to put a child molester/rapist away is by catching him out on something "minor" like statutory rape. I mean... yeah. Most states have laws that allow an 18 year old to be with a 17 year old, and generally speaking most people don't call the cops on their kid's older partner. That said even in the cases where some poor kid gets caught in the cross-hairs don't make a case for changing the law of consent to 16. Teenagers are capricious little idiots who aren't mature enough to handle safe sex or the consequences of unprotected sex. At least if they're 18 they're legal adults with the options available to them of a legal adult. At 16... yeah no.
America should reduce the Age Of Consent (of sexual acts) to 16 and above.

The Age of Consent is a very ambiguous area of law, depending on the state and scenario. In some states, the Age Of Consent is 18 and above; any age below can be considered rape. However, that is very flawed as the average male teen loses his virginity at 16.9 and the average female at 17.4.(Sources: Kinsey Institute; California State University) Reducing the Age of Consent to 16 lets teens enjoy sex when they prefer to (around age 17) while preventing any clueless kids from being taken advantage of.(PS: This is my very first Debate here. Hope to have a lot of fun!)
The moon landing hoax was really a holocaust.

The sentence "the moon landing hoax was really a holocaust" is very odd, and without explaining what you meant it was confusing.I meant "we" As in the human race. "Space People" Soooo.... you believe there are aliens on the moon?1. To keep themselves protected from the sun they had to where a gold-layered helmet. You can't see into it, and the sun's ways can't get in either.2. Yep, you actually believe in moon aliens. The moon is not perfect for life, if anything, the only thing that can live there is micro-organisms.I) Being near something that can support life, doesn't mean it can support life. II) It has a ok temperature, but not climate. It doesn't have an apmosphere, so it doesn't even have a climate.III) It's not that big, and this doesn't really have to do with supporting life.IV) When I read this, I began to consider that your a troll.V) Um, ok?VI) Again, what does this have to do with supporting life? (And btw, it isn't zero gravity on the moon. Just less gravity than earth)VII) Hmm... we're getting into troll territory.VIII) You're a definate troll.IX) That's a 404 page.3. Or, humans put it there. I looked at your sources, half of them are just memes, some have nothing to do with your post, some are 404 errors and [7] actually goes against your own post. Why did I spend so much time replying to a troll?
The moon landing hoax was really a holocaust.

Hmm I don't think con has answered my arguments adequately [1]. Unbiased Loyal KingDebater voters, what do you think?REBUTTALCON'S FIRST POINT"yet you don't explain what you meant"Then why did you accept the debate, dingus?Isn't it obvious anyway, though [2]?Holocaust = loads of percent/number of people/space people getting dead [3].Haha, checkmate!CON'S SECOND POINTWhat do you mean, "we"?MOON LANDING HOAX = THE MOON LANDINGS NEVER HAPPENED [4]It was the space people who we were really seeing, not Bus Alldrilling and Kneel MyArmsAreStrong. Here is proof:1) "They" never showed their faces on the moon [5]. Coincidence? I think NOT.2) Because otherwise, who or what lives on the moon? Its conditions are perfect for life:i) It is near earth, whose conditions are perfect for life [6].ii) It has the correct climate, due to the balance between the sun and the distance from the sun [7].iii) It is very big [8] (space for friends).iv) It is night time all the time there [9] (young people are always very lively at the night time, going to clubs etcetera).v) You can see the stars.vi) Zero gravity [10] (you don't need to learn to walk, you can just fly).vii) No water (most normal people prefer a cup of tea [11]).viii) Lots of rocks [12] (never run out of dinner + dinner ideas).ix) http://cdn.yourepeat.com...;[13]3) A USA flag was on the moon [14]. Nobody on earth has ever been to the moon, so obviously moon people do exist otherwise it would not be there.Thank you.Sources[1] http://goo.gl...[2] http://goo.gl...[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...[4] http://dictionary.reference.com...[5] http://latimesblogs.latimes.com...[6] http://goo.gl...[7] http://www.bobthealien.co.uk...[8] http://wallpapersus.com...[9] ibid[10] http://image.shutterstock.com...[11] http://goo.gl...[12] See: the ninth source.[13] http://cdn.yourepeat.com...[14] http://www.collectspace.com...;
The moon landing hoax was really a holocaust.

I'm glad to join the dabate, good luck.1. You say that the moon landing hoax was a holocaust, yet you don't explain what you meant, nor do you elaborate on this.2. The reason we haven't gone back to the moon is because there would be no point to it. We only went up there because of the space race, going back would be pointless since the U.S. won. Both the U.S. and Russia realized that low-orbit missions would be much more useful. You probably have more evidence towards it being a hoax, but this specific piece of evidence has very little traction.
The moon landing hoax was really a holocaust.

Some people say that the holocaust was a hoax. Well, they sure are backward, because according to me, they've got it the wrong way round. The hoax was a holocaust."What hoax, exactly?", I hear you scratching your head viciously pondering. Well, I'm going with the most notable hoax of them all, the moon landings.It all makes sense if you think about it. Look at these statistics.Number of Moon people on the moon on 20th July 1969: 2 [1]Number of Moon people on the moon a week later: 0 [2]That is over 99.999% of moon people! Talk about a travesty!Thank you.Sources[1] http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk...[2] http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net...