BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Griffin v. Love

Now, Blake Griffin is good. Blake Griffin is good, I am not denying this. But, is he better than Love? No he is not. Let us start with arguments for the present before we move to arguments for the past. All Star voters are debating on whether Griffin or Love or both or on why neither of them should join the All-Star team for the West. Voters are bringing up irrelevant statistics such as which team has the better record. The All-Star voting is based on individual stats not team stats such as wins. In the NBA, this season, Blake Griffin averages 37.4mpg, 22.6ppg, and 12.8rpg, with a 51.9fg%. To Kevin Love's 36.9mpg, 21.3ppg, 15.5rpg, 46.6fg%, and 43.7 3pt%. Both of their defensive statistics match up even. Griffin does not make the most points on his team while Love does make the most. Love has 15.5rpg which leads the NBA this season. Love can shoot the 3pt shot and is effective at opening up the floor for his teammates. Griffin is more of an athletic forward. He has amazing athleticism for his size and he lives above the rim. However, athleticism does not make a player better. Now to the past. In high school, when both Love and Griffin were seniors in high school. Love was named Men's Basketball Gatorade National Player of the Year before playing for UCLA. He was the top player and top power forward in the nation, while Griffin was the third best power forward to Love's best player in the nation. As a freshman in college, Love had to compete with Westbrook and Luc Richard Mbah a Moute (who both play in the NBA) while winning the PAC-10 player of the Year award, PAC-10 freshman of the Year, and first-team All-American award as well. As a freshman, Griffin never came close to putting up the numbers that Love did, while Love led his team in points and rebounds, Blake Griffin only had one player on his team who plays in the NBA. Has anyone heard of Taylor Griffin? Nobody has heard of Taylor Griffin. If Love played his sophomore season without Westbrook or Mbah a Moute he would have scored more points than he had scored the previous year by far. His numbers would have rivaled that of Blake Griffin's second season. Blake's second season was dominating. But, Love was not there to contest Griffin because Love was picked up in the NBA. In high school, Griffin was second best. In college Griffin was second best. In the NBA, Griffin is second best.
Rap Battle

Your rhymes don't rhyme stop wasting my time after all I could buy you for a nickel and dime come on man just go and take a bite of the lime cause you said you want to get drunk well maybe next time cause your insults don't do sh*it in my propaganda your black and your white just like a panda Im just kidding put your feet down and relax now I want you to know a few simple facts if you want to get laid get ya head out ya a*ss cause I'm rocking my style its smooth like syrup If you keep looking you'll be sent to europe Ill kill ya smack your face while your dead and Ill go get my crew to laugh at your head cause it got deformed after this encounter you work and serve McDonalds on greasy old counter I win son you need to quit trying Cause everyone here knows that your lying about what you may ask well don't worry ill tell your lying that you won this now go to hell.
Rap Battle

First off, Con, you need to just watch your mouth. You know, Your teeth need to be knocked out. Now don't let your big ego make ur gums flap. Ego's get shrunk and self-confidence gets scraped. I'll deflate it & mold it & hand it back gift wrapped. You fueled it, now I spew it, right at ya mouth. Spit it so slow so you know who is talking to ya. Before I give it back to ya, Im gonna sock it to ya. Have ya bobbin on a drug ya know I've got into ya. I come through like a drug, Im the spark plug to ya. Every single person who reads will be rockin to it. Never in ya life will ya be able to do it like I can do it. Do not try or you will be ashamed so do not do it. If I was you I would just forget it and not persue it. Mess with me you will lose it and will have blew it. By your rap-style it looks like this is not your music. Next time dont let intrigue be your sole influence. My smooth oil slick flow will make up slip up into it. Omit unfit remarks ya made now you better go do it. Punk in the truck taking it in the butt with that ya blew it. Next time watch how ya use ya mouth or I'll abuse it. Next time bring it hard and not like a lil' cream-puff. Now how is that pill? Does it make you feel drunk? Your flow is as smooth as sandpaper, it's kinda rough. After that episode in the truck I may just call you scruff. You may just need to wear a diaper after that stuff. You know after ya got introduced to serial raper, Fluff. Your problem is you have sit on Fluff's lap just to much. Try not to make a fuss when I see fit I'll end this snuff. I've called ya bluff, no more pretending that your tough. You've been left in the dust by a modified monster truck. I ran over your bumps and left'em slumped in my dust. So round 3 for me is a blowout key end it with cheese. Con good luck and congrats you battled the #1 King.
Rap Battle

You aint say sh*it about me in that freaking round so allow me to progress i'll slow down you say your flow goes slick like an oil spill but you aint say s*hit go swallow a pill I kill, anyone who gets in my path and by the way you stink just go take a bath cause my flows smooth, like your girlfriends hair and at the end of the day I just won't care becuase while you fu*ck butts in the back of a truck il light up a joint and not give a fu*ck thats rights all my sluts think I fu*ck them so tight while your calling for you mom to help you through the night son sit down on my lap and i tell you a story don't fu*ck with the program be smarter then dory thats right while you look and girls and say gigty gigity the only women you've been inside of is the state of liberty
Rap Battle

I lead this all the way from the go. I dictate how this will show will go. I will be the pimp and your the hoe. Full-speed ahead, you can't stop Pro. Con needs to kneel down low & blow. Holding Con's confidence down low. Low, real low, as low as it can go. I have to much pull on my rope-tow. Cons chin chained closed on skid row. He's got no chance or hope, mind blow. It's a slippery slope on my lyrical dose. My overdose will leave you in comatose. No stopping this flow, Con dont choke. I'll make this flow go around the globe. DON'T BATTLE ME, ordinary schmo, lay low. Start it slow & leave you froze, then I pose. I speak & reach the sheep, ears are breached. All competitors futures are looking bleak. Sneak the tweak and the outcome is beast. Flow is unique like antiques, no critique. Flaunt it, Con doesn't want it? I Bet not. He's getting dropped, I got mines cocked. He is shaking in his socks, it ain't no shock. Exspire him by words like automatic gunfire. The trigger is high strung its held by a wire. Oh' I have spit fire on Con, we need a dryer. He aint no Baggins and this is not the Shire. Mordor has rule over here in this empire. These lyrics puts any others inside coffins. And I am the one who is dropping them. Con's coffin, sobbin, miserable & scoffin. Yall ready for'em? Rock'em its Con's problem. Cons under pressure, I do this for pleasure. I run this rap around here, you have no future. Slow down around here, my mouths a ruger. Strap up and tucked you get snuffed, u done. I act like a villan, killin, pillaging, just for fun. Been a gangsta since I graduated into one. This blow is part of my obligation to fulfill. You are now in violation, you may get killed. My shoes, my shoes are just too hard to fill. For real, no danger or any need for a shield. See what my opponent has to offer for real. Until his next round, we will pop a chill pill.
Rap Battle

Hello and thanks for tuning in...We will attempt to drop 2 rounds worth of rhymes. The first round is just for acceptance.Rounds 2 & 3 are for full on rap battle mode.We have a 4,000 character limit.We have 48 hours to post each round.Bop is upon both and whoever makes the best rap, wins, by voter discretion.Any and all language is acceptable and is up to the voters for their discretion.I wish anyone who accepts luck and C-ya in round 2.
A Dalek would win in a fight

Con stated that a Cyberman will defeat a Dalek. I will proceed to present my case. Argument:In the Dr. Who season 2 finale "Doomsday," the Cybermen actually declare war on the Daleks. [1] The four Daleks then proceed to destroy several cybermen. The Cybermen's weapons, laser guns, were virtually useless against the Daleks. Check out this clip from the very episode:There are many more Cybermen than Daleks. Therefore, if it was one on one, a Dalek would surely win. Sources:[1]: . http://tardis.wikia.com...(TV_story)
A Dalek would win in a fight

I will be arguing that if in a fight, a dalek would beat any other monster from Dr. Who.First round is for acceptance and to pick your monster that you believe would beat a Dalek in a fight.Circumstances:In order to debate this, we need to set up the background. The dalek and the monster my opponent chooses will be placed at opposite sides facing each other in an arena. The arena is 100 feet long, 50 feet wide, and 50 feet tall. The walls, ground and ceiling are indestructible. Also, everything is assumed to be fully functioning, and has only their standard weapons.Rules:- You need to be familiar with the TV show.- The monster you choose must be from Dr. Who.- Your monster cannot be human or time lord.- No cheap loop-holes please.Definitions: Monster- enemy of the DoctorBeat- defeat, exterminateBy accepting the debate you agree to all the above definitions, rules and circumstances.I wish my opponent luck. Allons-y!
Skepticism Leads to Atheism

Pro gave some great thoughts and asked some great questions. These would make a great debate or opinion question in their own right. The statement we agreed to debate was It is my position that an application of skepticism necessarily leads to atheism. Con's position will be that an application of skepticism need not lead to atheism. I have given several examples where a skeptical mindset led in precisely the opposite direction. Pascal was skeptical in all areas of life. He asked the big questions. When he sought out the evidence he had what you might discribe as a supernatural experience. Still, it was his skeptic mindset that led him to seek out evidence for God. C.S. Lewis claims he "was dragged kicking and screaming into the kingdom." He was both a skeptic, opposed to all things religious, and an atheist. As he explored what he would later call "the facts of Christianity" he felt he had no choice but to put his fath in Jesus. Nucky Gumbel, who is now an ordained Anglican priest, wrote that Christianity must be false. Then as he explored the faith with his lawyer mindset he was compelled by the evidence. Lee strobel tells his story of looking at the bible in his efforts to dismantle and disprove the Christian claims about Jesus. He was not only skeptical, but a hostile witness. He examined the scriptures and was convinced of his need to seek Jesus. Here are several examples of skeptical and hiostile people who examined the evidence and found it compelling. Skeptical examination of the scriptures often leads to a strong Christian faith. Only one example was needed. Here are a few of the countless examples of skeptics who love Jesus.
Skepticism Leads to Atheism

I thank CON for his reply. CON stated, "Many skeptics examine the evidence for God and become theists." I do not question this, but in the context of this debate, what is of importance is why they became theists. Specifically, if they applied their skepticism to the god claims the eventually embraced. For instance, many atheists that are skeptical of god claims are not skeptical of UFO or Bigfoot sightings. They may have been skeptics in one area of their lives, but they didn"t apply it universally. Blaise Pascal converted after a personal "religious experience." [1][2] This type of experience is neither repeatable, nor verifiable and is not accepted as evidence in any scientific discourse. Clearly Pascal"s scientific rigor and skepticism were not applied to his "religious experience." As an interesting side note regarding Pascal, the argument for God that he developed (Pascal"s Wager) after his conversion doesn"t deal with evidence, but upon hedging your bets upon a particular type of god that is simply assumed [3]. Lewis wrote about "supernatural forces" playing a part in his conversion, which are, by definition, beyond evidence. [4] Strobel is interesting as he will talk about vast amounts of evidence that led to his conversion, but he doesn't talk about what that evidence is. [5] Also, in his own book, when he is allegedly investigating the evidence for the existence of God, he doesn"t investigate evidence; he talks with others who have allegedly investigated evidence. [6] This isn't skepticism. Muggeridge, Rice, Tipler and Gumbel were/are not skeptics; their accounts are irrelevant. Pascal"s case is an excellent example of a skeptic who fails to use his skepticism. Another example is Francis Collins, well known scientist and ex-atheist whose book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, does not provide evidence for of a god, but does explain that Collins converted because he saw a frozen waterfall. [7] Skepticism requires doubt. There are only two ways to overcome this; providing evidence and shutting off one"s skepticism. CON has provided at least one example of the latter, and I have provided another. The former does not happen, or we would have skeptics converting right and left. Of course, one could claim that the skeptics are refusing to accept evidence, but then they would not be skeptics, they would be cynics. I would like to thank CON for this debate. He has been patient with me during my first debate and has helped me understand both the mechanics of debating in general and of this website. I would like to wish CON the best of luck in his future debates. Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.ccel.org... [3] http://plato.stanford.edu... [4] http://thenarniaacademy.org... [5] http://www.youtube.com... [6] The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel [7] The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Francis Collins
Skepticism Leads to Atheism

I look forward to reading your thoughts. Pro states a clear position “It is my position that an application of skepticism necessarily leads to atheism. ”My position is this1. Everyone starts off as a natural atheist. Infants do not acknowledge any God.2. Many skeptics examine the evidence for God and become theists. Let me start with a quote from one of my favorite scientists. “Few men speak humbly of humility, chastely of chastity, skeptically of skepticism. ” - Blaise Pascal Because PRO states that “skepticism necessarily leads to atheism” I need give only one example of a skeptic becoming a theist to refute his point. I will give several examples that skeptics often become theists Blaise Pascal - Heavyweight scientist who holds skepticism in high value as a Christian. C. S. Lewis - Atheistic Oxford professor who became a great apologist for Christianity. Lee Strobel - Atheistic journalist searched history to disprove Christianity - became Christian Malcolm Muggeridge - Agnostic journalist, author, soldier, and spy - becomes Christian Anne Rice - Atheist writer of gothic novels - now Christian Frank Tipler - Atheist scientist who became a Christian Nicky Gumbel - Atheist lawyer - now Christian. For more examples look here . http://www.awakeandamazed.com...Here is example #1 Blaise Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist, and inventor . . . Pascal's earliest work was in the natural and applied sciences where he made important contributions to the study of fluids, and clarified the concepts of pressure and vacuum by generalizing the work of Evangelista Torricelli. Pascal also wrote in defense of the scientific method. Pascal is such an icon of science and so influential in promoting the scientific method that the European Academy of Sciences give many medals in His name to great scientists. . http://www.eurasc.org...I will stop round one with this example. This one example proves that PRO is wrong in his claim “skepticism necessarily leads to atheism. ”I am looking forward to where PRO wants to go with this.
Skepticism Leads to Atheism

I hope it will be informative and entertaining, both for the two of us, and also for anyone else who may follow it. Since we are using the definition of atheism as "without belief," we can say two things: 1) atheism is the starting point, because every infant lacks belief at least until they are aware of the concept of a god. Also, 2) the burden of proof lies with the theist who is making the positive claim that a god exists. An application of skepticism requires this claim to be doubted until sufficient evidence is presented. There are numerous arguments for the existence of a god, all of which boil down to an Argument from Ignorance or some other fallacy. In the absence of evidence, there is no reason to move past the doubt of skepticism. Therefore, the doubt of skepticism results in one remaining an atheist. In a way, Con said this in his opening statement when he said, "skepticism does not necessarily lead anywhere. " Since a lack of belief is the starting point of every thinking mind, applying skepticism takes us nowhere, leaving us where we started, atheism. Definitions: Burden of Proof: the requirement that the one making a claim provide sufficient evidence for that claim [1] [2] Argument from Ignorance Fallacy: A logical fallacy that assumes the lack of evidence for competing ideas validates one's own ideas. Often in the form of, "I have no explanation for X, therefore, it must have been God. " [3] [4] Sources: [1] . http://www.britannica.com... [2] . http://wiki.ironchariots.org... [3] . http://wiki.ironchariots.org... [4] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Skepticism Leads to Atheism

First of all, this is my first debate here. I have never been a fan of any formal debating format, but I'll do my best. It is my position that an application of skepticism necessarily leads to atheism. Con's position will be that an application of skepticism need not lead to atheism. Definitions: Skepticism: A position of doubt; a claim that the truth of a claim is uncertain [1] [2] Atheism: The lack of belief in a God or gods [3] [4] Sources: [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://oxforddictionaries.com... [3] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [4] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
There should NOT be a border fence between Mexico and the U.S.

I say that there should be a border fence between the U.S. and Mexico. The first round will be for definitions questions and rules. There will be NO SELF VOTING in this debate. If me or my opponent self vote the conduct vote should be given to the other debater. I wish to who ever takes this good luck and I hope to have a fun debate!! Border Fence- a fence on the border of two countries
There should NOT be a border fence between Mexico and the U.S.

I suppose I'll just follow the precedent of my challenger for this post. I'll have fleshed out arguments in my rebuttal. I'll discuss the arguments and then the impact they'll have on voting in the round. The three main things we need to say about a border fence are: 1. It's ineffective and inefficient 2. It's a waste of money in a down economy. 3. Closing ourselves off from our neighbors hurts us diplomatically abroad. 4. The fence has unacceptable environmental impacts. My opponent talks about three main points. 1. Crime. 2. Illegal Immigration 3. Security. If I can prove that the border fence is ineffective or at least inefficient, I win all of these points. Crime and illegal immigration still happen if the border fence isn't a huge deterrent. Since I'm assuming that the challenger is using these as his basis for saying it's a threat to national security, if I win the point about inefficacy, then I should win. My other three points can mainly be viewed as disadvantages in the round. My third point also applies to his contention about security. If I can win enough of these arguments, then I would argue that the disadvantages outweigh any positive impacts. I look forward to seeing where these points go in the next round.
There should NOT be a border fence between Mexico and the U.S.

My argument is that the U. S. and Mexico would be better off with a border fence on the shared border. I have three main points that I am going to argue for CON. 1. Crime 2. Illegal Immigration 3. Security I will explain these points in the next round and also rebuttal any arguments that my opponent will set forth. I hope that my opponent has a great debate! ! !
Death Penalty

No, thank you. I will rebuttel all of your previous points listed... "If someone killed your dad or mom wouldn't you like to get back at them and kill them to make it justified and know that they can't do anything else wrong" Having justice isn't an eye for an eye. Justice is doing the right thing, after previous doings. Taking revenge and commiting the almost equal foul act as the commiter isn't right. Revenge is having someone sit in prison for the remainder of their life, thinking, reminissing about what they did and even trying to collect some sort of pence for their act.
Death Penalty

Thank you Having the death penalty to me would just make the world a safer place you would have to have eye witnesses and undoubtable proof before you did anything. If someone killed your dad or mom wouldn't you like to get back at them and kill them to make it justified and know that they can't do anything else wrong. If you just put them in prison they could get out and could maybe even do more harm to your family and i know i wouldnt want that and having the death penalty would prevent this from happening.
Death Penalty

First and foremost I would like to thank you for participating with me on the debate of death penalty. My view on death penalty is that it is morally and unethically wrong, in all cases. Having a death penatly is barbaric and it violates the Bill of Rights as the form of "cruel and unusual punishment". Also having a death penatly sends the wrong message to what America is founded upon, it sends the message that killing another human being is equal justified.
Death Penalty

Please, no, thank you... Being that our whole premisis of our debate lies in the death penalty. I am quite aware that you view is "an eye for an eye", so please spare the sake of your time of listing your most evident view point. " having that hope to get out, would drive me crazy and if you just killed them everything would be better because you wouldn't have to worry about it" Understandably, I would be quite upset, having the misfortunes of an incident of that caliber happening in my family or my friends. Killing is not the answer. If there is any hesitations on whether the confindment of the killer is in any questions or uncertainty, you have the right to request to the courts that they are put in the prision of your choice. This would bring less stress to families who are nervous about the inmates keeping. "You cant just let someone go for killing a person" Being in prision is not letting someone go. Having a prisioner thinking and feeling terrible about there actions, never seeing sunlight again, not being able to see loved ones is not letting someone go. Thats why all the doctors you do especially late term abortions should be put on death row! That is a whole another case in itself. But if you feel breaking the law and killing someone else to enstol your beliefs is justified, than I'm sincerely sorry.
Death Penalty

NO, THANK YOU! In my eye it should be an eye for an eye! Knowing that the person that killed my relatives are just sitting in prison and having that hope to get out, would drive me crazy and if you just killed them everything would be better because you wouldn't have to worry about it. You cant just let someone go for killing a person. Thats why all the doctors you do especially late term abortions should be put on death row!