BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gangster Rap should be banned

"1) Gangster Rap shouldn't be banned because of freedom of speech." It is certainly their freedom of speech, but I am stating that Gangster Rap should be banned due to its strong influence in corrupting the behaviors of teenagers. Those that watch Gangster Rap Videos for approximately minimally 14 hours a week tend to have more destructive behaviors and odds of violence, and sexual behavior become more likely such as hitting a teacher becomes 3 times more likely, getting arrested becomes 2 and half more times likely, and they would be 2 times more likely to have multiple sex partners. Should there be Gangster Rap on children's television networks to promote the artist's freedom of speech? A mother would certainly not allow such profanity to get to their children's minds but unfortunately it has spread like an infection and seeped into the streets in forms of gangs, murders, gang and drug transactions. "2) Sure it promote sex and violence but so do a lot of movies, video games, and other forms of music. How far does one must go to get rid of sex, drugs, and violence themes?" Sex, drugs, and violence themes have been here for a long while and will most likely be around longer than you are I. As Gangster rappers sing they express how hardcore they are as they deal drugs, kill others, and rob another. This tends to send a message to one's mind that it is alright to do those things because their idol sings about such things. I am not saying that I want to eliminate sex, drugs, and violence themes which of course will be an impossible feat. But I would like to eliminate gangs from causing terror and fear into the hearts of caring parents that do not want to be devastated by the fact that their son or daughter had been shot by a gang member who just chose to end their life. The same gang member whom shot the other would most certainly have listened to one of 50 Cent's songs, and possibly have an album of his. "3) Sex, drugs, and violence are realities. Music relies on themes of human reality." I do know they are realities, but wouldn't you want to eliminate any realities that are harmful to society. As the teenagers buy a Gangster Rap album and their younger sibling sees them and hears them chanting the lyrics they would of course would try and get into the genre of music due to it being violent and of course little kids love violence because they do not truly comprehend what it is like to actually kill or harm someone. So as they do this, they really get involved in the genre of music and as their mind develops in actually thinking this is okay because they are becoming feared, by which they turn out to think that being feared equals dominance and respect. They listen to the lyrics and later they act out what he/she listens to, acting out "reality" getting involved in a gang.
Gangster Rap should be banned

This is my first time starting and as well as being in a debate at this or any website. My topic is Gangster Rap should be banned. There are many gangster rappers that sing about sex, drugs and violence in a harsh language.. As many teenagers listen to the genre of music, they are being influenced in aggressive behavior as possibly joining gangs and committing acts of vandalism through marking one's nickname or gang name on another's property. Gangster Rap, indirectly promotes these acts through their lyrics.
The movie step up 2.

Seeing as my opponent has failed to respond twice, or add anything to the one line he gave in his opening statement, I have not too much to say in response. Step Up 2 is a flawed movie, with good dancing, but poor acting, screenwriting & directing. Some critics go as far as to call it racist. It has received low scores ever since its release, and in any case, cannot be considered a good dancing movie. On the other hand, I have given example of three, out of tens of movies that could be considered "Good Dancing Movies." These movies were The Red Shoes (1948), Shall We Dance (1996) & Saturday Night Fever (1977). These movies had all received relatively high ratings when they were released, and continue to receive favorable reviews by movie critics worldwide. These three movies combine a good movie with excellent dancing, creating three combinations that can easily be called "Good Dancing Movies." In conclusion, I have first shown that Step Up 2 cannot in any way be considered a Good Dancing Movie and secondly I have revealed three movies that are instead qualified to be called Good Dancing Movies. We have, in response, not seen any sort of counteraction or rebuttal from my opponent. Feedback is GREATLY appreciated. Thank you for reading my argument.
The movie step up 2.

Unfortunately, jay134679 forfeited his round, so I will keep my argument short. Here are a few examples of other dancing movies that can be considered "good" dancing movies: The Red Shoes (1948) is a classic movie depicting a folktale by Hans Christian Andersen. The movie was, and is currently considered a masterpiece with comments by critics such as, "The three principal dancers, Moira Shearer, Leonide Massine and Robert Helpmann, are beyond criticism." (1) and that, "The film is voluptuous in its beauty and passionate in its storytelling. You don't watch it, you bathe in it." This is an example of a movie that did not have anywhere near the effects and cinema technology of the present and still received a 100% on rottentomatoes.com (3). Critics worldwide agree that The Red Shoes is good dancing movie. Shall We Dance (1996) is a Japanese movie that won 14 awards in the Japanese Academy Awards (4). The New York Times had this to say about this movie, "Though its proficient style can be slickly uplifting, Mr. Suo's film also offers gentle thoughts about feeling responsible to one's partner and enjoying the exultation of dance. 'Dance is more than just the steps,' says the school's kindly senior teacher. 'Feel the music and dance for sheer joy.'" (5) As we see through Janet Maslin's review, the movie does a good job in portraying the emotion and feeling of dance. It also received a 93% rating on rottentomatoes.com. (6) This is another good example of a dancing movie. The last movie that I will present is the classic Saturday Night Fever. Roger Ebert said this about Saturday Night Fever, "The movie's musical and dancing sequences are dazzling. Travolta and Miss Gorney are great together, and Travolta does one solo (in an unbroken shot) that the audiences cheered for. The movie was directed by John Badham... and his camera occupies the dance floor so well that we really do understand the lure of the disco world" (8) The review is self explanatory and we can see that Ebert approves of this movie. rottentomatoes.com gave this movie 97% (7). It is pretty obvious that in a world full of good dancing movies, Step Up 2 is not one of them. As a matter of fact, Step Up 2 was panned by critics nationwide for its blatant racism and the poor screen writing and directing of the film. I now await the rebuttal of jay134679. It is your turn. Sources: (1) http://www.variety.com... (2) http://rogerebert.suntimes.com... (3) http://www.rottentomatoes.com... (4) http://www.imdb.com... (5) http://movies.nytimes.com... (6) http://www.rottentomatoes.com... (7) http://www.rottentomatoes.com... (8) http://rogerebert.suntimes.com...
The movie step up 2.

First of all, good luck! I am nervous about this debate, since I had lost the last debate that I had entered. I am also a bit tired, so I will make my opening statement short. Dancing movies combine all the aspects of a movie and turn the focus to dancing as the subject of the movie. A good dancing movie will therefore include: good acting, good directing, good dancing and a good story. My argument will be as follows - while Step Up 2: The Streets has good dancing, all of the other aspects are flawed. During the course of this argument, I will show firstly that Step Up 2 is a bad movie using the reviews of experienced movie critics and secondly, I will present examples of good dancing movies as well. If you take the dancing out of the context of the movie and say, "Step Up 2 has the best dancing of any dancing movie" or even, "Step Up 2 includes very good dancing" I can see how that might be true. Saying that, "The movie step up 2 is one of the best dancing movies known to man!" (1) shows that you wish to judge the dancing movie as a whole, not only focusing on one single aspect of the movie. From the argument that you presented in the opening round, it seems that you wish to say that, not only does Step Up 2 have good dancing, it is also a good movie. Step Up 2 is a very poor movie. Claudia Puig in USA Today, comments that, "The plot feels forced and familiar, largely cribbed from such movies as Fame and Flashdance... Step Up 2 is one long, clichï¿½d exercise in predictability with... some unintentionally hilarious bad acting." (2) Puig herself says that the plot is essentially plagarized from Fame and Flashdance, showing that the writing itself lacks originality and is also very predictable. Needless to say, good screen writing demands fresh thinking. In fact, Puig is not alone in her comments, Rottentomatoes.com (3) shows the very low rating that Step Up 2 has - 28%. Matt Seitz in the New York Times says, "[Step Up 2] posits a universe where racial and class differences are minor obstacles to fun and pretends its clichï¿½s aren't clichï¿½s." (4) His comment concerning race is elaborated on by Glenn Kenny's review, when he says, "...the picture showed its racist streak by having its plot violence instigated by its black characters." In addition to having bad plot and acting, the writing has a streak of offensive racism to it. All of these factors reveal the substandard qualities of Step Up 2. Although the dancing may be good, the movie all in all, it is a movie that garners 28 on a scale to 0 to 100, a rating that is very far from being considered a "good" movie. Thank you. Seeing that we have 2 more rounds to go, and I do not have much time left, I will devote the next section to responding to your rebuttal and giving examples of "good" dancing movies. Sources: (1) http://www.debate.org... (2) http://www.usatoday.com... (3) http://www.rottentomatoes.com... (4) http://movies.nytimes.com... (5) http://www.premiere.com...
Australia should become a republic

You didn't post any arguments so I won't either. I will rather post reasons why this debate is ridiculous and should result in an automamtic vote against CON. 1. This is not a homework help site. Most of us go to school, have homework of our own but don't go around littering the site with random questions. If you need help with homework try this site. answers.yahoo.com/ 2. At the least you could make an attempt to make a few arguments which then I could respond and introduce some arguments of my own.
High school students should wear uniforms.

oh, my friend, we are not living in the Sovet Union, not in ancient times. I repeat it is modern time. if we want to develop our country and take a place in the modern countries. Uniform has bad influences on our youth, because KZ youth want to be like American. So, it is useful, if we give our youth children, and it helps them to be more confident, creatively and more free. we cannot take youth's rights from their young age. To sum up, we shouldn't take uniforms as necessity.
High school students should wear uniforms.

No, I liked it and awared the real significance of uniform and its purpose. I deem your idea about high price is wrong because of it is bought for the whole year may be for two years sometimes. From another side, it will be the real and hard puzzle to choose different clothes for each new day, it is obviously more expensive than an one-time school uniform. And one more reason to wear unform that people and other pupils will appreciate your internal world when you are in uniform and without any expensive clothes
High school students should wear uniforms.

you and me were in schools. I think that we both hated uniform. There are many problems with the uniform, because when we didn't wear, all teachers abused us, it affects to the psychology of youth. Furthermore, it is business, what I mean is that makers uniform sell us on high price, so not everyone can afford it. In anyway, youth want to buy other styled things, added to it they have to buy uniform. so it is bad for families who are financially lower. think of it!!!
High school students should wear uniforms.

Why should we force our children in one Uniform in school? It's just fool idea. Firstly, every children are creatively, and they can easily think of their style. Another reason not to support uniform is that all pupil want to be free, not wearing uniform. You cannot ban something for children, because they will do it anyway. Lastly, our generation is modern than us, uniform is old idea, because of this our youth want to be more modern. Thus, we shouldn't force our youth to wear uniform.
The argument "The universe is obviously designed" is flawed

A spilled can of paint would show the order common to all of the natural world. However, a portrait contains a level of order not present in a paint spill. (I assume no one would disagree with this much.) When we know the cause, order is a sign of design. The less design put into something, the less order is present. Therefore in things we do not know the cause of, such as the natural world, it is most likely true that a lack of design would result in a lack of order. The presence of order is evidence of design. Concerning the other arguments Pro tossed out: The central characteristic that defines a designed thing is order. Postmodern order continues to display order, and when it lacks order that is an intentional choice designed to make a statement. No one with any knowledge of art would suggest that a smudge on its own is art. The order seen in art is neither vague nor does it rely on sentiment, but it is clearly objective. Source for postmodern art: http://www.visual-arts-cork.com... We can agree that human beings created the abstract concept of design, but not design itself. People created the concept of trees and words to talk about them. We didn"t create trees. We created the words to talk about the design of a bird"s wing, but we did not create the design itself. Apophenia is the tendency to look for patterns where none exist. However, Pro effectively dismisses this possibility in his next paragraph. Pro points out that we can observe natural processes that lead to order, such as evolution, crystallization, and planetary formation. Such processes are themselves evidence of design. Pro has effectively made my case for me. If there were no design to the universe such ordered processes would most likely not exist. The fact that the do exist suggests that the universe is designed. Finally, both theists and non-theists, as well as all scientific evidence, agree that there must have been a beginning. The question is if the beginning was caused by unthinking forces or by an intelligent will. If the original cause was an intelligent will then that Cause is what we call God. Since that Cause predates time itself that Cause would have to eternal. Something which is eternal is by definition not caused by anything else. So there no reason to believe in any of "overgod."
The argument "The universe is obviously designed" is flawed

I don't think I articulated my argument well enough. If there is a supreme designer (in the traditional triomni conception), then there is no such thing as a nondesigned thing. You cannot point to the paint spill and say that it is an example of a non-designed thing because an omnipotent being has created it and had foreknowledge of what it would be, even if we did not and were unaware of this until we were used as a sort of brush for it. But I'll go ahead and toss out a few more arguments. What characteristics define a designed thing? I've created some strange works of art before. What quality is it that differentiates an accidental smudge of paint from a particularly postmodern artwork? The terminology of this argument is vague and relies on sentiment rather than objectivity. Furthermore, it can be observed that human beings ourselves have invented the concept of design. Should you dispute this, I invite you to ask a bird, or perhaps the yawning void of space what design is. Does this not bring into question the idea that design is an inherent attribute of a thing? Then there's the human tendency to see patterns where patterns don't exist. There's a name for it, apophenia. This too should bring into question the idea that design is separate from our minds. And even if order is inherent in nature, we can observe that there's many natural processes that lead to order. Evolution. Crystallization. Planetary formation. And I'll raise one last question: If the human mind requires design, who designed the designer? Surely a more complex thing needs a more complex designer. Was it some sort of overgod?
The argument "The universe is obviously designed" is flawed

The argument is not that everything is designed. The argument is that the natural world shows signs of design. Specially, the natural world can be seen to be ordered, and order is a tell-tale mark of design. We can see many examples of this in life. It is the difference between painting a portrait and kicking over a bucket of paint. It is the difference between playing a drum solo and knocking over the drum set. It is the difference between playing a game of football and various unconnected people walking in the yard. In each case, the first example is the result of design, while the second example is the result of a lack of design. In each the first example shows a pattern of discernable order, while the second example does not. The question is if the natural world was created by design or by chance. The existence of order in the natural world is easily seen and well documented. Here is a general overview of a small part of this evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org... Since the natural world shows signs of order, it is reasonable to assume that it was designed. If the natural world was designed then, by definition, there must be a designer. We could phrase the argument like this: 1. In every example where we know the cause, where there is order there is a conscious will at work. 2. In every example where we know the cause, where there is no conscious will at work there is no order. 3. The natural world shows signs of order. Therefore, 4. The natural world is most likely the result of a conscious will at work.
The argument "The universe is obviously designed" is flawed

All rounds are for argumentation. I will first bring up the point that this argument is impossible, because if everything is designed, then we have no example of a non-designed object to compare anything to. The argument becomes akin to trying to paint in the fourth dimension. Utterly incoherent, comparing a thing to itself to prove the existence of itself. This is impossible. I won't go on stating more and more refutations to this argument, I don't expect many to want to read a wall of text on the subject when it would be redundant.
Universal health care

Unfortunately my opponent did not respond, but this should give me some space to include the information I didn't have characters for last round. 2) I wanted to add another word about wait times. Part of the reason Canada and the UK have slower than average wait times is because people abuse the system by going to the doctor or hospital for every ache and pain(1). Adding a small co-pay for those who would not normally receive Medicaid would discourage this type of behavior. or, as in the Thai system (2), utilize a treatment card that tracks how often you visit health professionals and can alert the appropriate parties to abuse. 3) So I wanted to get back to death panels and how ridiculous a myth they are. This myth stems from part of the health care reform bill about paying doctors for talking with patients about end of life issues in voluntary sessions. This was misinterpreted by Betsy Mccaughey and this misinterpretation was wielded inexpertly by a number of right wingers who wanted to promote confusion and panic about the health care bill. (3) This misinformation is similar to the Fox News story my opponent sourced as evidence of government control over health care in a universal system(4). Even in the story itself they mention that the family tried to have the child transferred to a Michigan hospital but the request was denied "likely because they believed nothing could be done for [the child]". Clearly the life support battle is not because of the type of health care system but because of the tragic vegetative state of the child (4). I'm pretty sure I had more on patient control, but that will have to do. I hope my opponent has a chance to respond for the third round. (1) Sicko (2) Frontline: Sick Around the World (3) http://www.nytimes.com... (4) http://www.foxnews.com...
This House Believes That Homosexuality Is Immoral!

As-Salam-o-Alikum! This debate entitled: This House Believes That On Balance Homosexual Acts are Immoral. This is ROUND 3 of WODC hosted by edeb8 and larztheloser. Now I believe that I should clarify the rules, the order, and some principle definitions which will be referred to throughout the debate. 1. The first argumentation rounds of both parties must be positive material only, no refutations will be allowed in the first argument. 2. The first round is for rules, orders, definitions for Proposition, and Nye may only engage in pleasantries and accept the debate. 3. There may be no positive material in the last rounds of the debate. 4. The order of the debate is of 5 rounds (with the first round being for acceptance, 10, 000 characters per round, 48 hours to post a round, and a Judge Voting, where the judges are: Envisage, bsh1, Sargon, Ragnar, thett3, Wylted, bladerunner060, whiteflame, phantom, and Raisor. 5. If any party forfeits two times, they automatically lose. 6. Each side is allowed to provide references from journals, books, essays, and blog entries so long as the pagination are cited, and easy access is made available. 7. As this is a Philosophy debate all definitions should come from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, or the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Penguin Philosophy Dictionary, the Cambridge Philosophy Dictionary, or any well respected philosophy text. Some definitions have been provided: (i)morality:The term "morality" can be used normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specific conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons. (ii)immorality: will then be the opposite of morality so is can be used normatively to refer to a code of conduct , that given specif circumstances, would be opposed by all rational persons. (iii)homosexual acts: refer to sexual acts between members of the same sex. 8. None of the parties are allowed to take help from any other party in this debate. With that I hope we can engage in a wonderful debate, and it provides us with a productive experience. Please welcome my opponent! I accept the full burden of proof. Faithfully Yours, Ajab.
Hillary Clinton's Statement on Scott Walker and Planned Parenthood is False.

I must apologize to my opponent. For the past few days I’ve been unable to post sufficient, well thought out arguments on any of my debates, let alone one so challenging as this. So, instead of hustling up a short, insufficient argument at the last minute, I’ll graciously concede. I do so with the comfort of knowing that Pro more than sufficiently argued his assertions and deserves any and all points that will be given to him. He’s a gifted debater and formidable opponent.