BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Why Eminem Is Better Than Nicki Minaj

now as for all i have said about Nicki Minaj I still have some more interesting facts about her. 1 she served as a judge in American Idol 2 her hit song star ships hit the top ten in the Nation. 3 she was the first female artist to be included in M TV's annual hottest MC list 4 in 2013 she became the most charted female artist on Billboard Hot 100. 5 she has earned 7 BET awards, 4 American music awards, 2 M TV music awards, an M TV Europe music award and five billboard music awards, she played in ice age Continental Drift as a voice actor. these are only some of her accomplishments, and even though i don't particularly care for her music, i have to respect the time and effort she has put into her career. as far as weather or not Eminem is hotter? I don't think that makes him a better person, artist, or anything else. and for the comment on Miss Minaj being in it only for the money.... lets face it, Eminem is not in it for peanuts, he has well over 140 million in stocks, bonds, cash and record deals. making him one of the richest artist on the market. and yet he still wants more money, so maybe he is in it for the money? I would say so.
Why Eminem Is Better Than Nicki Minaj

Eminem is better than Nicki Minaj because he is hotter and he has gone thro a lot more. Eminem has a purpose for rapping and Nicki Minaj just wants the money. Even tho Nicki's dad set her house on fire and killed her mom, Eminem is still much better. Please support my argument! Please comment and vote on who is better. Agree or Disagree? On your comment, Please tell me why you like Eminem. Eminem actually has meaningful lyrics. Nicki Sings about partying and getting drunk. Eminem sings truthful.
Islam should be irradicated in the U.S

Islam is America's Trojan horse. Muslims are determined to assassinate anyone they know is not a muslim. So if the 1st amendment allows all religions, is it not making us vulnerable to the Trojan horse we call Islam? This is not to say hat I am not one for religious freedom. If we vote for Islam to be eradicated, and "yes" outweighs "no," and on Islam and no other religion, and the American government decides to ban other religions without giving the people any of the say, then they are the tyrants, not us. After all, were Muslims not responsible for the conspiracy against president George W. Bush? Muslims are living viruses, and anyone who is not a muslim is the bacterium or cell. Their objective is to kill people in order to spread their religion. Allow me to explain the rest of the connection. 1. Viruses don't kill other viruses. Muslims don't kill other Muslims of the same branch. 2. Viruses kill what SHOULD be in the body. If you try to kill somebody solely because they practice a different religion than you do, are you not violating their religious freedom? 3. Viruses can spread either quickly or in an unbeknownst manner. According to askville.amazon.com, the Islamic population of the United States jumped in 2001-2005 from %0.5 to %20.
Islam should be irradicated in the U.S

I disagree that Muslims and only Muslims want to kill people of other religions. According to the FBI, Christians and Jews are responsible for twice as many terrorist attacks on U.S. soil than Muslims. Does that mean we should eradicate Christians and Jews, also? They kill even more people of other religions than Muslims. I think you agree that the answer is no. Although the Quran does command Muslims to kill infidels, there are also parts of the Bible where the Israelites are commanded by God to kill people of other religions. Most Christians know that those commands aren't for them, and in the same way, most Muslims know that the Quran's violent commands don't apply to them. The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and kind people who deserve to practice whatever religion they choose, just like you.
Moving Drinking age back to 18

Unfortunately, my opponent has failed to provide any substantial arguments to support his belief that the drinking age should be moved back to 21. The drinking age was moved to 21 with serious considerations to safety. Moving it back to 18 would be making society less safe based on hard statistics. As my opponent failed to provide any real reason to move the drinking age back, the only foreseeable consequence of moving the drinking age back to 18 would be a negative. I thus negate the resolution.
God Exists!

Your asking me to prove that he doesn't exist? Why should I have to prove he doesn't why don't you prove to me that he does. First off I don't know your view or belief on what god is or how he acts so I cant make any reasons to why he doesn't exist so I believe you have some explaining to do pal! If you think god is so great and nice then how come kids are starving in Africa but who knows maybe you believe in a vengeful god how am I supposed to know? That's right I'm not! So explain to me your views on God in the next round so I can actually prove that he doesn't!
Should Izaiah And Devin get Back together

True Izaiah did like Devin very much. But according to Izaiah has said in the past he got board of Devin started cheating om her with a girl that played on his football team. He did this for two weeks without telling her. Whose to say he wont do this again after he gets tired with her and throw her away and get with another girl. there was also the scandle with him when Devin broke up with Izaiah for good. He got a new girlfriend named Kylie who he used to make Devin jealous and leave her boyfriend who she had at the time named Cayden. when his plan failed he stayed with Kylie willingly until a couple of weeks ago where he broke up with her because she was going to go with him which she never did.
Should Izaiah And Devin get Back together

Devin and Izaiah should get back together because before they broke up the two of them were together for 2 months. That is a pretty long time, they would always break up but then after they had there fights they would get back together. Devin's friends would always call Izaiah Idiot and they hatted Izaiah, But Izaiah Would not care because he liked her. Although Izaiah would spend most of his time with his friends because Izaiah likes to do things that his friends do this reason is why Devin and Izaiah always broke up.
These forums can and should be greatly improved upon

You say that the quick reply will allow trolls to make more useless posts, but wouldn't this also mean that productive members of the community can also make posts quicker? If activity is the goal, than the quick reply feature would be a benefit to the forums. The color scheme may be more of an opinion thing, rather than one color is better than another, but if this is the case, the forums should at least allow individual users to choose for themselves between multiple skins. This will make it easier for everyone to have the forum look the way they want it too. I agree that there shouldn't be editing in debates, but this doesn't mean there shouldn't be editing on posts. If someone wants to change what they posted, they should be able to. If someone quotes them before they edit their posts, then if they said something that others disagreed with then it will remain on the thread. I agree that the Currently online feature will cause server work, but I wouldn;t say it is unnecessary. A list of users at the bottom of the page allows users to easily add members to their friends list, and know who the more active members of the community are. If we want the forums improved, things that require more server work are going to have to be done. Although this make take time and slow down the servers, this will be best for the forums.
These forums can and should be greatly improved upon

You make a strong case, and I thank you for your ideas. I must agree that quick-reply would be a definite enhancement to high quality users, reducing the barriers to posting. However, this also make it less effort for trolls and more people are likely to add low quality posts that contribute nothing productive to the conversation. Someone with a valid, constructive point is usually not deterred by an extra button. A who quoted me feature would certainly be nice, and I have no objections to this. The color scheme is fine as is. A dark background with light text hinders long term readability for some users. See the post here: http://blog.tatham.oddie.com.au... If you use the computer late at night, consider installing F.lux (http://justgetflux.com...) to tint your screen. While editing works nicely on other forums, it could be used to change text that members disagreed with in later posts in attempt to discredit them. The posts should remain as posted to prevent confusion caused by members changing their stance after replies have been posted. The debates section does not allow you to edit your arguments because of this. The solution is multiple rounds, or multiple posts in the case of the forums. A list of currently online users serves no real purpose and causes unnecessary server work. Generating a list of users requires monitoring all activity in a list and refreshing it every time a page is loaded that contains the list.
These forums can and should be greatly improved upon

These forums can be vastly improved upon. The activity of these forums isn't that great, although I know this forum has a great deal of loyal users that view this site on a daily basis. Just knowing that the site has 4,000 + likes on Facebook is enough to know the amount of activity and fun to be had on these forums. In order to the full potential activity to be reached, these forums need to be updated. Next, I will list some updates that the forums could use and I will give a sentence or two about each update. I know some of these updates may be hard to do, but they are not impossible by any means, as long as someone is willing to put in the time to make these updates possible. - Reply Section at the bottom of a page on any given thread - "Who Quoted Me? " feature - "New Posts" feature - Better color scheme - Ability to edit and delete your own threads/posts - List of users currently online Reply Section at bottom of a page: This is useful because users will not have to click the "Add Post" button when they wish to reply to a thread. After they are finished reading the posts on a thread, they will most likely be at the bottom of the page. In this case, the Reply Section will be there waiting for them. Its basically just removing the inconvenience of having to click the new post button. Who Quoted Me Feature: This is useful for when someone "quotes" one of your posts. You should get an alert whenever someone quotes you so that you can immediately know that you should at least look at what this person posts and likely reply to this post. Very useful for keeping up with the threads you've posted on. New Posts Feature: This is basically a feature which is a link somewhere at the top of the website that allows a user to see all the posts that they have not viewed yet. When a user looks at one of these posts, it will be removed from their New Posts" link. This is another useful tool for keeping up with posts that you have not seen yet. Better Color Scheme: Simply make the white color theme of the forums darker. Easier on the eyes and more appealing to look at. Ability to Edit/Delete Your Posts/Threads: This is self explanatory. Very convenient in the case of making an error on a post or just not wishing to have that post be seen by anyone any longer. List of Current Users Online: Another simple thing that just makes things more enjoyable. Allows users to see who is online.
These forums can and should be greatly improved upon

I will be using this section to state what this debate will be about and ask my opponent whoever it may be simply accepts the debate in their first round. I am not sure if I will get any takers for this debate, but because this is my first debate, I wanted to debate about something rather laid back and easy to discuss in order for me to get a better idea of how this works. I don't care who my opponent is, although I've never debated before, this subject shouldn't be too difficult for me. I have been on different forums before and am aware of a lot of features that forums can have. I just ask that people bear with me as this is my first debate. I am for the fact that the forums can be greatly improved upon and the con is against this, either they like it the way it is or whatever they want to argue. I hope I covered everything, I expect this to be a fun rather than serious debate. The rounds should not be that long so I am making the time to do your round 24 hours rather than 2 or 3 days. I am hoping to get good feedback from this that I can use in future debates! Thanks.
Should god be taken out of the pledge of alligence

Ok I just want to say that anything I say in this is not meant to be racist/religious. Why change the Pledge when it has been that way for so many years? All because one person feels his religion is not respected. The pledge was written in 1892 by a socialist minister. God was added in there in 1954 by President Eisenhower. The pledge is meant for the united states to stand together. If you are christian then you would understand how taking God out would offend christians because they would feel they weren't respected anymore. So are you saying you are willing to offend a religion that is bigger than Hindu just because of your friend not feeling like his religion is respected?
Should god be taken out of the pledge of alligence

No argument back? ok, I will make this short and base it off of the comments. I am interested in knowing how his religion is being disrespected. Not only does this confuse me but it also confuses other people. Also you said that it is disrespecting nearly 2 million people. That isn't telling us anything. I have never heard someone say that because their religion isn't in the pledge it is being disrespected. Until now I guess. Anyway short and sweet and I hope voters take this into consideration that he isn't answering any questions about how it is offensive and he doesn't state any facts only things he thinks will help him win.
A Monotheistic God Probably Does Not Exist

As much as I hate to do it, I am forfeiting this debate. I am way over my head here. The CON by far is a more educated and skilled debater. So please vote CON, he has done a great job. I have scrabbled to learn things on the fly, but no matter what I learn at this point, I cannot articulate to the point of making sound arguments in response to Con's knowledge. The CON is correct that I cannot prove some of my points. To drag this out would only waste the CONS time and to insult his intelligence.
Children (13 and under) should be banned from seeing PG13 and R Rated movies

1) "What I dare him to do is find a system that is completely, utterly, and efficiently perfec" thats not the debate here...... however I can provide one that might work a bit better.... If a child is 13 years old or younger and is at the movies, then there is a good chance they were driven there or are accompanied by their parents or someone of age. Since the 13 year old children or younger are probably not paying for their tickets, that means that the adult or parent with them is. Therefore it is up to the parent to make the right choice of whether or not their children are mature enough to see the film. If they think they are and the children are mature enough, no harm done. If they are not but the parents still dont want them too, then still no harm done. If the parents think they are mature enough but it turns out the children are not, then blame the parents. As for the similarities, yes there are similarities between children of that age, Im not arguing they are as different as Venus and Neptune. What I am arguing is that there is enough a difference to show how girls may be a little more mature than guys are at that age. http://www.psychologytoday.com... ^ sort of my point (second paragraph) 2) " He, however, acts as if this is some sort of justification for children to be able to see ALL R-rated movies" Way to completely twist my words..... Im arguing that because the rating system is rather inefficient that some movies are far less harmful to children than other movies in the same category are. Im not saying that 13 year old's should see "The Exorcist" because yeah, that would mess them up, however I challenge the Con to find one report of a 13 year old child being psychologically crippled or damaged after watching the King's Speech... "we should not allow these films to be presented to these younger audiences because they can certainly negatively affect them" I assume the Con is referring to all R Rated and PG-13 movies, however some movies can be rather inspirational or uplifting to children who watch it. The King's Speech Iron Man Thor The Patriot Forrest Gump The Shawshank Redemption Schindlers List The Green Mile Titanic Avatar (the god one not that ungodly version of the last airbender by M Night Shalyama or however you spell his name) Lorenzo's oil It could be argued that these films would do overall some net good for children 13 and under but according to you these kids should not be able to see these movies. I am certainly not saying that ALL R rated movies should be seen by 13 year olds but i am saying that they should not be banned from seeing other R rated or PG13 rated movies and that if they do it is probably the fault of the parents that they were damaged by it since they most likely brought them to the movie theaters and paid for their tickets and are watching the movie with them.... contrary to what the Pro says....
Children (13 and under) should be banned from seeing PG13 and R Rated movies

In this part of the round, what I am going to do is provide an analysis of my opponent's case and provide counterexamples in order to uphold my own position. Rebuttal 1: My opponent argues that the current system of rating movies based on a system of age limits provides and imperfect representation of the maturity of audiences in question attending to the said films. What I dare him to do is find a system that is completely, utterly, and efficiently perfect. My opponent makes the assertion that girls mature faster than boys do when it comes to psychological development in order to provide this tangent that not all of the people within this age category are mentally identical, but: at the very basic mental level, however, people within this age range have similar characteristics: people within this age range are more adapt to act on impulse, have poorer analytical mental skills in order to solve problems, etc. Maybe in IQ and superficial maturity, they are different, but when it comes to how their brain fuctions to situations and stimuli, they are heavily the same. Thus, we have a rating system for films that classifies based on age. (All of my sources for everything said will be iterated in the final round of the debate or the next round. Whichever is more convinient)Rebuttal 2: What my opponent seems to be arguing here is more about criticizing the way that films are rated rather than why people 13 and under should be able to watch R rated and PG-13 films. He provides this tangent comparing The King's Speech to The Exorcist, and he talks about why it is so ludicrous that they are placed in the same category. He, however, acts as if this is some sort of justification for children to be able to see ALL R-rated movies. What if we DO have a film rightfully placed in an R-rated category? Well, children are able to see The King's Speech, which is also rated R, so they're going to be just fine watching The Exorcist right? Of course not. No one said that our system is perfect. No one said that our system makes the most reasonable decisions or standards 100% of the time, but the what the question then comes to is when these movies are placed in those categories for rightful reasons, are we still going to allow children to see it? After all, we are talking about PG-13 and R-rated films in general. With a film's possible exposure to violence, crude humor, sexuality, drug use, and any other elements that may be too strong for some audiences, the CON stands with a more reasonable stance: we should not allow these films to be presented to these younger audiences because they can certainly negatively affect them.
Children (13 and under) should be banned from seeing PG13 and R Rated movies

Saw this debate and thought it was interested but this is open to anyone and everyone who wants to accept it. I believe that children (ages 13 and under) Should not be banned from seeing PG13 and R Rated movies because I think the idea that children should not see these movies is because they may be harmed by its content. However such reasoning is based entirely on the maturity of the children, and the level of maturity is measured only according to their age, which isnt entirely reflective of a person's maturity... Ill hold off on my other arguments for now. The Pro will argue why children (as defined before as 13 and under) should in all cases be banned from seeing movies rated PG-13 or R.... Con may use the opening round for arguments or may just accept the debate, either is perfectly fine. I look forward to an informative debate, 4 rounds, 4000 characters....
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools.

# 1: Schools can balance out racially imbalanced schools by desegregating white and colored schools by migrating them together so you can have an equal racial mix. # 3: Judges can provide safer schools for colored students by having police in schools and by protecting the buses when they drop off the students from other neighborhoods. # 2: Courts can move some white teachers to the old colored schools and colored teachers to the old white schools to provide equal education for all students and to try and limit racism.
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools.

Assertion #1 In 1974, court-ordered busing was not the only strategy that could have desegregated Boston"s public schools. "The violence that came with it "The education was still unfair "Parents didn"t have a say in what happened Assertion #2 Students and society don"t benefit when more children are able to attend racially integrated schools. "6th graders that took surveys could have lied "Only focuses on Black and Latino students "Kids still have separated groups in diverse school Assertion #3 Race should not be used as a basis for school assignment. "Desegregation does not speak to dropout rates that hover near 50% for Blacks/Hispanics "70% of black students attend schools where nearly 2/3 of students are Black/Hispanic "Any policy based on race is a violation of every child"s 14th amendment right to be treated as an individual
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools.

Affirmative assertions 1: Courts can step in if school committees can not come up with a fair solution. Boston schools could not come up with a plan so it went to the courts. Affirmative assertions 2: School committees could not come properly desegregate the children. Courts had allowed children from other neighborhoods to go to different schools in other neighborhood. Affirmative assertions 3: Schools did not know how to transport kids from other neighborhoods to different schools in other neighborhoods. Courts ruled school committees had to have students bussed to their schools they went to.
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools.

Round #3 Answer to question 1: Let the parents choose where their kids go and if the schools don"t balance out than let it be. Answer to question 2: Why do judges need to make schools safer for blacks and Hispanics? Answer to question 3: The only way education would be unequal is if Hispanics and blacks were put into different classrooms. If they were placed in the same classrooms as white students then the education would be the same. Round #4 Courts should step in only if school committees take a long time to get the job done. Courts didn"t just allow black and Hispanic students to go to white schools; they forced them even if they didn"t want to. I don"t know how to rebuttal the last one.