BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Trayvon Martin would still have died if White.

Defense:None needed.Summary:George Zimmerman beat himself bloody using Trayvon Martin's fists. Trayvon actually was white when he was murdered, but was framed of being black post mortem (since killing a black person would make Zimmerman an honorary white). This being an evil plot set up by the Koch brothers...As stupid as all this is, it may be more sensical than some of the conspiracy theories people (on both sides) actually believe about this case.Oh and the new black panthers are ridiculously easy to mock, but a well deserved target of it.
Trayvon Martin would still have died if White.

As I have nothing to respond to, this round I shall mostly expand a side case that Trayvon was actually White. As we know he died, if he was White at his time of death such would further support the resolution.Argument Continued:7. Martin was almost certainly white, as evidenced by whites being cowards. First as a minor point to prove that the theory is credible, consider that Con isn't merely White, but down downright Aryan; yet he missed last round.On to Trayvon; expert testimony was rendered prior to the start of this debate, "If he was white, he would have ran from the scary hispanic Zimmerman rather than confronted him" [4]. As he did run, and certainly did not wait to ambush Zimmerman somewhere, this strongly suggests how White he was. Sadly for him the adrenaline rush slowed him down, allowing the shorter heavier decade older man to overtake him. See point 3 above for what happened after Zimmerman caught up to him.8. A further indicator that Trayvon was white, is this all happened in a gated community. Abraham Lincoln freed black people from living in those, I mean wasn't that was the civil war was about? Freeing black people from the tyranny of gated communities? 9. As a setup for his eventual murder, the credibility of Trayvon was under attack well in advance. In 2011 his school attempted to frame him of spraying graffiti, even claiming he did it on video tape in a 'secure area.' They suspended him from school for this obvious character assassination. Worse is they claim to have found a dozen pieces of women's jewellery, a watch, and even a screwdriver on him [5]... 10. The Koch Brothers. A basic websearch of the word 'Koch' brings up links to the Zimmerman trail. Obviously Zimmerman did not act without firm orders, and who else would want poor Trayvon dead so badly as them? Without any logical connection to be made, I'll just claim it's because they're evil. Consider the women's jewellery mentioned above in point 9, who else but them could afford to plant so much expensive evidence on the boy and then not even report it stolen? Plus they paid Zimmerman's legal frees; while websites like Snopes.com claims this is an urban myth [6], their defense of the Koch brothers only proves that they're been bought off. Unlike a respectable news outlet like, MSNBC who never misrepresent anything for ratings.11. Bullets to the heart generally kill white people. The bullet need not be made of silver; or kryptonite; or any other special substance. My research has not indicated such about black people, further hinting that Trayvon was White at the time of death. Sources:[4] Comment Section, Ore-Ele's first post (currently page 1 of 3).[5] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[6] http://www.snopes.com...
Trayvon Martin would still have died if White.

Full Resolution:Troll Debate: Assuming the absolute guilt of George Zimmerman, and the absolute innocence of Trayvon Martin; with the same precipitating chain of events (both still present etc.) Martin would still be dead even if Caucasian. Structure: R1 is acceptance (a brief introduction is fine, just not an argument with warrants). No new argument lines past R3, R4 is to refute R3 (quotes are suggested, doubly so if something in R3 opened the door to a past round or new argument line). R5 is for a final defense of arguments and summaries. Definitions (please request any changes or additions, before we begin): From Merriam-Webster.com Caucasian is "of or relating to the white race of humankind as classified according to physical features."Dead is "deprived of life : no longer alive." Guidelines: Wikipedia is great for finding sources, but should rarely be a source itself. No attempts should be made to bypass character limits. A picture with a few words is fine, yet blocks of text are not. Sources are worth almost as much as argument, and should take from the argument character limit; thus TinyURL (and others like it) should not be used. Sources should also be within argument rounds (and ideally consecutively numbered). Voters: If in doubt, please read the DDO article How To Vote for a very basic outline: http://www.debate.org...; (in essence each area should be voted on separately, someone can win argument but lose sources etcetera: merely liking one side only relates to "Who did you agree with before/after the debate?") Successfully refuted sources should be discounted (at some cost to argument), turned sources should be very much in favor of whomever flipped them around. The comment section is at most for side discussions (including between the debators), and should have no barring on votes. A votebomb is a 7point vote, biased or weak votes with less points may still be in need of counters. However counter someone or don't, never fluff up an otherwise valid vote claiming it's 'voting and countering.' Fluffing is for professionals, and should be left in their capable hands.
Jake Paul

I recently scrolled through Jake Paul's youtube channel, and let me say, I'm not pleased. All the videos are clickbait and flat out dumb. I ended up watching a video titled "Erika is with another man..." to see them break up from a fake relationship. The "man" ended up being her brother. I watch certain videos to prove all 13,924, 177 that he is a piece of dirt. Btw vlogging is not art.
Jake Paul

Jake Paul is successful because he creates beautiful clips that elicit strong emotion from the viewers. To quote a great author, "Art is about emotion... that a thing is hated is not proof that it's great art, but the lack of hatred is certainly proof that it is not." The fact that you have viewed his content and felt so deeply about it goes to show that Jake Paul is generating truly moving youtube videos. Of course, hatred along does not prove it is great art, so moving on to those who appreciate Jake. He has 13,924,177 subscribers. This is concrete proof of success. BTW the dab isn't dead till I say it's dead #longlivethedab
Jake Paul

Jake Paul is only successful because 12-year-old girls love him for some reason. Kids these days should be more interested in school than some blonde-haired attention wanter. You say he is intelligent, but if he was so "intelligent" would he really throw a burning bed into an empty pool? Would he do stupid stunts for attention? No. Which proves that he is NOT intelligent. And plus, you are the uneducated one. Have you seen the videos of his neighbors who were pissed at him? Have you? Or are you just trying to cover it up with "Dab on em haters" or whatever? Also, he can't sing or rap for the life of him. His songs are trashy, his content is cringy, and he cares about nobody. Btw the dab is dead.
Jake Paul

FIRST, I don"t think anyone is a waste of life (except anyone who doesn"t like my boi Jakey). Next, how is Jake so successful if he is, in your words, "dumb and retarded". The answer is: he wouldn"t be! His success implies intelligence and supremacy. Maybe your argument would carry more weight if you had more followers. Think about it. I bet his neighbors are honored to live next to such a legend. Honestly, I feel bad for you because you are clearly unenlightened. Please go watch some Jake Paul videos packed with wisdom and come back with a real argument. Quotes from the god himself: "Dab on 'Em Haters!" "It's Everyday Bro!" Paul nation foreva
Gun rights

Rebuttals: Con’s entire statement is unreferenced, which makes Con’s arguments all bare assertions.[8] Con states, “If you look at statistics more guns kill people each year than than cars or the Grand Canyon.” Now note where this argument is coming from. I was affirming the belief that just because something is known to kill, it should not necessarily be banned. Statistics really have nothing to do with this. Also, Con gives an appeal to ‘statistics’. But how do we know if these statistics are true? I could easily pull up websites that say doctors kill people, and then say that doctors should be banned because of statistics.[9] “Your second argument is that moving bullets kill people however Guns are the weapon that launches bullets.” By that same logic, fingers should be banned because fingers pull the trigger. Also, you do not need to have bullets to have a gun. “Your third argument first is invalid because it if a kid makes ONE mistake they can end up dead or seriously injured.” Yes, and kids can end up dead on the Grand Canyon or in cars. Also, I’m not sure what Con is calling ‘invalid’ because I’ve put numbers before all my arguments. Con does not seem to be following this structure. Also, by this same logic, welding should be banned. In fact, anything potentially dangerous should be banned. This is just silly. I’m wondering if Con holds that we should ban everything? “For your third argument you claim that guns can be used for sports however, if someone stand behind the sign,can, or any other target they can get extremely injured or even killed.” Yes, and if someone stands in the middle of a football field, they can get tackled. But using necessary safety precautions does not equal banning. “And for your fourth argument is easily disproved by the fact that inanimate objects can not ever feel any emotion.” I would call people in comas inanimate. But they can feel emotions when they wake up. In fact, before we’re born, we’re basically inanimate objects (at the beginning). So why can’t inanimate objects feel any emotion? Con has not addressed my belief that guns should have rights. Therefore, this contention goes to Pro and the resolution is affirmed. Sources: [8]https://logfall.wordpress.com... [9] http://articles.mercola.com...
Gun rights

Thank you for responding pro. In your argument you stated that many other thing s can kill people, however if you look at statistics more guns kill people each year than than cars or the Grand Canyon. Your second argument is that moving bullets kill people however Guns are the weapon that launches bullets. Your third argument first is invalid because it if a kid makes ONE mistake they can end up dead or seriously injured. For your third argument you claim that guns can be used for sports however, if someone stand behind the sign,can, or any other target they can get extremely injured or even killed. And for your fourth argument is easily disproved by the fact that inanimate objects can not ever feel any emotion.
Gun rights

Thank you, Con, for instigating this debate.I would first like to address Con’s point before setting up my arguments.“Guns kill people and should be banned.”Con’s argument is that things that kill people should be banned. But should cars be banned because they kill people?[1] Should the Grand Canyon be banned because people die on the Grand Canyon?[2]Rather. I believe there is a way to appreciate the beauty of cars and the Grand Canyon while being mature and responsible.[3]Therefore, this argument is invalid.My second point is that guns don’t kill people. Moving bullets kill people. Therefore, this argument is unsound.Argument 1: Guns are educational.Just like kids enjoy working with Knex and Legos, I think we can learn a lot from understanding the structure and mechanics of a gun. I’ve included a three minute video that shows the internal structure of an M-16 and its power.[4] While I think it may be inappropriate to show this material to kids who are prone to violence, mature students can learn a lot from this information. Guns are mechanical engines, and the technology they employ may be applied to other devices for different means.Argument 2: Guns for entertainmentWhile I do not necessarily appreciate target practice, I realize that some people do.[5] This, for some people, is just as fun as any other sport. People can show off their virtuosity by hitting bullseyes quickly.I believe that this is actually less violent than football. In football, people are constantly trying to knock other people down. In fact, one player is known to have a tremendous amount of power.[6] This could be lethal to someone who hasn’t prepared enough.In target practice, all you hit are signs. Signs are not sentient and cannot feel pain. This, to me, seems far less violent.Argument 3: Guns should have rights.I believe guns should have rights. For instance, I believe guns should not be prosecuted for crimes they did not commit. We do not know for certain, but it might be possible to hurt a gun’s feelings, based on literature and philosophical speculation published in that field.[7]Sources:[1] http://www.iihs.org...[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[3] http://www.nps.gov...[4] [5] [6] https://youtu.be...[7] http://tvtropes.org...
Rap Battle 2

Boo hoo! I'm so sad! I am wasting 5 minutes of my life right now! I am crying, of laughter! You'll be burnt dust after. After what? Annihilation. Just look at that rap! Reads like cr**! Intellectual doesn't work. Go back and fa*. Cry yourself to a nap. This is too easy. Hot knife through butter. While you sit there trying to flutter. Rap isn't pretty, it's hardcore. Get out of the kitch before i throw you out the door. Don't rap like a nerd. It comes out like a tur*. I'll sweep your noob herd. As specially easy when you only have 12 bars. You don't know cr** so get your a** back to mars. Come back when you can rap like one of ours. You're no match for anyone but yourself. Your head is on my shelf. You already lost, go play Pok"mon with your Azelf.
Rap Battle 2

Boy, don't be a fool. I'm gonna throw your az back in school. You need to be taught. When i am done turning you into dust you will be forgot. Here i come as a great, big BOOM! My words are bullets and they zoom. Imma sniper boy, can't hide from my raze. You attacking me? doesn't even phase. You are a cricket. I just wanna flick it. I crush giants, you're a bug. You ain't no thug.
Superman is far better then Batman

I've been at the NC Senate Page program and am going to Prom tonight so I don't have much time to write, but here it goes.Let me point out that Pro has the Burden of Proof. Yet he stopped giving his own contentions and has pretty much just decided to attack my contentions. This means that he has failed in the BoP. After all, I don't have it.Second, Relatability:Batman is human. Not a cannibal, so my opponent's rebuttal is invalid.Superman is an alien that can be affected by rocks. One rock can make him gay! (Supergirl #79) Also, his entire planet frickin' blew up. Can't relate there. Again, he is a bulletproof alien from another planet who can defy gravity. Sacrifice:In the comics, Superman gets his power from the sun. There is a lot of controversy there, but in both the new Superman movie (which is much more awesome looking, hence truer) and the comics, Superman gets his powers from the sun. This makes him a lot more invincible.Citizenship:So... Superman doesn't want to be a US citizen, but then becomes a "UN citizen"... right. A UN citizen... technically making him a citizen of countries such as Iran, China, and Cambodia, where human rights abuses happen daily. So Superman would rather be connected to Communist, totalitarian states than the US... And this makes him better?Batman's One Rule:Really... CollegeHumor? Really? Anyways... if you look at the beginning of the video, it clearly states that this guy is "Badman," not Batman. Hence, this video is invalid as evidence.He's Batman:He's Batman! 'Nuff said.Let me again say that my opponent failed in the Burden of Proof. Keep that in mind when voting.
Superman is far better then Batman

1. More Relatable Okay simply being human does not make him more relatable, say you have a cannibal but he's human, but you have an alien who has all the emotions and thoughts as a human. But under your definition the cannibal is more relatable just because he's human. Simply being human does not make you more relatable. So now lets compare the two: Superman: Sure he has super powers, but at least he isn't worried about people knowing his secret identity, and lets not forget he doesn't creep around at night and attack random clowns. Batman: Billionaire playboy who creeps around in the dark, sure he wont kill people but really whats more human? Beating someone to near death, and crippling them for the rest of their life, or just ending it there, personally i'd rather be killed on the stop rather then endure the pain. 2. Sacrifice I'd like to note that pro said "he will usually live" you see while superman really is powerless, like batman superman relies on his suit for most of his power. I'd like to note the move Superman I in which superman is just a mortal human. He only has his super powers when he has the super suit on. and you contest me by saying "he's immune to bullets" batman is to his suit allows him to withstand a missile strike, where as without his suit superman would be blown to bits. 3. Citizenship: In your picture he says "It's not enough" because he's ready to handle the global scale, unlike batman who is to much of a wimp to even leave Gothem. Besides the dude live in the ARCTIC 4. Batmans one rule. Okay it took me a while but I found him breaking his rule. . http://www.youtube.com... I prove my point Batman is a danger to the world he kills without even thinking. like a machine. 5. Because he's batman Do you even read my arguments? I already conceded this point because all it proves is that batmans a pompous loser.
Superman is far better then Batman

I'll admit that Superman has some cool powers, but he is still not better than Batman. Someone being better doesn't necessarily mean what their abilities are, but who they are.Batman is just better than Superman on the inside. After all, it isn't what you are on the inside, but what you do than defines you.Back to my contentions:1. More relatableLet's compare Superman and Batman:Superman:Bullet-proof alien from another solar system that can defy gravity and hold buildings in his left hand.Batman:Human with cool gadgets and money.Batman is certainly more relatable, he's human.2. Sacrifice.Superman is invincible. Batman is human, when Superman sacrifices himself, he will usually live. Batman can die much easier, making his sacrifices more.3. Superman renounces citizenship!Superman is a traitor to his own country. He was all for "truth, justice, and the American way" until it got hard and he just checked out like a wimp. Traitor! 4. Batman's one rule. Superman's powers are meant to kill. Laser vision. Freezing breath. Strength to crush rocks. Superman kills pretty much everyone he touches. Even with his smallest punch, he could probably shatter skulls. Batman just cripples his opponents but lets them live. Tough to do. See video.http://www.youtube.com...5. Because he's Batman.See second video. http://www.youtube.com...
Superman is far better then Batman

I'm disappointed that my opponent never refuted any of my arguments, but eh that's life. :( 1. "He's more relatable." If you find a guy who cant show his face and creeps around at night relatable the that's your problem, atleast Superman is social enough to show his face. And Superman lost his parents also except they died in a nuclear explosion when krypton was destroyed. He also has lady problems, example Lois Lane. 2. "He Sacrifices himself for others again and again." So does superman, every time he stops Lex Luther he is sacrificing himself because we all know that Lex Luthor is the only one who posses kryptonite on earth. And Superman also protects the whole world, he overall does more good then Batman will do in his life. 3. "Superman renounced his US citizen ship!" Well considering Superman lives in the arctic i'm surprised he was ever a US citizen. 4. "His one rule." I don't know what comics you grew up reading but superman has the same moral code, and if he does harm an innocent human he will use the fortress of solitude to reverse time and redo his mistakes. 5. "Because he's Batman!" Irrelevant. conceded. Sorry for the weak argument i'm wicked tired...:(
Superman is far better then Batman

Batman is better than Superman for five main reasons:1. He is more relatable.2. He sacrifices himself for others again and again.3. Superman renounced his US citizenship!4. His one rule.5. Because he's Batman!Let's start with number one.Batman is more relatable to the average Joe. He is not a bullet-proof alien from another planet who can defy gravity. He has had tough times in his life just like you and me. His parents die, he has problems with women, and his friendships constantly are changing status. Yes, I understand that he is a millionare-playboy, but still. He's human.Secondly,Batman has sacrificed so much for others. No matter what, he has the sacrificed his money, his friends, his relationships, heck, he got his back broken! He always has the safety of Gothan in mind and will sacrifice anything to keep it safe.Third: Enough said.4th. Superman kills. Heat ray, freeze-breath, strength that can lift building? Odds are he will kill people, often. Batman is much more moral than Superman and never kills. he sacrifices a lot to keep this rule.5. He's Batman. See the video. 'Nuff said.http://www.youtube.com...