BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Population growth needs to be controlled

As developed, intelligent beings we have managed to overcome natural selection in so far as we can give people increased immunity to diseases and help them survive even in the face of serious genetic disorders. According to a graph on the BBC website [1] the population has grown very rapidly in the past 50 years. Scientific progression plus an increase in health care and hygiene has attributed to this growth; people are living longer and there is lower infant mortality. We are overpopulating the Earth, this increases the possibility of wars over land, oil, food and water as these resources become scarce. There will be insufficient jobs to go around and there really will be no way out of poverty for those unfortunate enough to be in that situation. As we continue to squeeze every last drop out of the Earth it will bite back causing large scale natural disasters and due to the increased population density - greater loss of human life. This is shown by the current Global Warming issue - our demands on the planet are having adverse effects. We are cutting down rainforests and destroying huge colonies of animals as our demand for goods grows. Technology is unable to provide answers for the near future in terms of energy alternatives. I feel that given the fact that due to human advances we are now able to live longer and overcome many diseases and medical complications that once controlled population levels, we are now responsible for controlling our growth. Also given the fact that we are an intelligent species and quite capable of foreseeing the consequences of our actions and of our failure to act, we are in the position of power. If we choose not to act, this fact could have a huge impact on our ability to avoid conflict in the future and possibly destroy much of the varied life on Earth. I do not intend this to be a discussion of who should control growth or by what means it should be done, this discussion is intended to be about mankind as a whole and simply a discussion of the above. Thank you for reading, Daven 1. http://www.bbc.co.uk...
Celebrity Rap

Worshipping somebody for the fact that they are famous, Envying their success and startin' a pack o' haters, Sendin' them death threats like we're a bun o' alligators, Any time they do a bad thing, to fans they're blameless, Screaming their name in awe like this generation's brainless, Smiling and pretending to be kind just for a paycheck, The ones who get the furthest were simply the fakest, Nod their head like a female dog to all of their agents, "Just forget who you used to be, conform and say YES!" It's really pitiful, the effort put in is minimal, The rappers who make it are the ones acting like criminals, So don't be tellin' me it's wrong to be critical, The critics are both the ones fighting and enforcing this evil, Some critics criticize the underground for being whack, Some criticize the mainstream for being worse than that, It doesn't matter if you made it or not; that is a fact, This dominion of opinions is warping the white and black. So you kinda poor and alone but you know how to sing? Come onto the X Factor to be a puppet on a string, Oops we shut it down in USA, why not come on The Voice? You wanna be a slave, and behave or lose? Make your choice. For 12 year olds there's Bieber, the rest of the world want shim dead, What exactly did he do wrong? Was it something he said, As far a sI remember the guy was loathed for having a high tone, When he broke his voice and dropped his balls, he still wasn't left alone, It's a corrupt world, people are cynical, To succeed and remain unique would take a miracle, Some people pretend to hate the mainstream but they're hypocritical, If you dare to say bad things about their cult, good riddance fool. Actors never stop acting, that's a blatant fact, On and off the movie set they're rainbows posing as black, You really think they're all flawless; so nice and kind and hot? How about we wipe that make-up off and revert that photoshop? If you're ugly, you won't make it, and you better get near-naked, Every movie or music video your fans wanna see those fake tits, Or your six pac that was drug induced, or your white teeth that were painted on. It's all about selling your soul for success, Is the Illuminati real? Well I'll take a guess, That original Illuminati is a long gone mess, But the industry still brutally mould celebs for the press. So are you a trained puppy? Do you sit on command? Are you ready to apologize to fans? Give into what they demand? If you change they'll hate you for changing,if you don't they'll get bored, If you're lucky, you'll be Queen or the Beatles, and be widely adored, but if you're unlucky all the times you performed, will be misrepresented and deformed, Your reputation will erode and your fan's faith in you will be thawed, And don't you dare ever comment on politics or god, You're allowed to have opinions but reveal them and you'll rot.
Celebrity Rap

Thank you for acceptance! As an actor, Tom Cruise is first rate It"s some of the other stuff that isn"t so great We had mostly forgiven how he dumped Nicole And didn"t mind much his Scientology role But then he met Katie, and everything changed He jumped on that couch, looking crazed and insane Suddenly the Kate was out of the bag He was strutting and gushing and rushing to brag We might have forgiven- New love has strange power But then he attacked Brooke Shields and Matt Lauer "There"s no such thing as a chemical imbalance" He blew. "You don"t know the history of psychiatry. I do!" Ironic but true, we say with a shrug, Maybe it"s Tom in most need of a drug. Donald and Martha- Such passion they show! Such fiery hearts- alive and aglow Try as they might to hide their love We know what those sparks are REALLY made of. To have so much hatred- that comes from hurt The hurt of a love that got squashed in the dirt. Ahh- Donny and Mar Mar- What a couple they"d make If only their egos would take a small break But the chances of that- well we all agree Are really quite small- like 0.3 But frankly their bickering to us is quite tired So Don Don and Marty- Bad news. You"re both fired! Tiger Woods is a man full of sin. The game of golf want the only thing he was scoring in. No more calling him a tiger, because he is a cheetah.(cheater.. that sort of thing)
Is there a god or deity that governs the universe? (against atheism)

The Problem I find with the Laws of Logic is that they are a description not a prescription. In other words, the laws are simply a description of things we know to be true. The universe does not conform to logical absolutes because someone thought them up and is holding reality to that standard. These absolutes exist purely to describe patterns that we have observed as true in reality. To understand the difference between a descriptive and prescriptive law, consider this example: Gravity is a descriptive law. Isaac Newton didn"t create gravity. It existed before he identified it and would have continued existing regardless of whether he had ever given it a name. The laws of gravity are simply observations made by scientists that explain natural processes.The traffic speed limit is a prescriptive law. It was created and enforced by people, and it"s meaningless without such enforcement. If no one came up with a speeding limit or held people accountable for speeding, speed limits would cease to exist. In the same way, the laws of logic are descriptive. No one made them up or wrote them in a handbook somewhere for them to exist. They were simply observed as always being true (rocks are always rocks because if a rock were anything else, it would cease to be a rock). Because the laws of logic are not prescriptive, they do not require the mind of a deity or any other mind to exist. Human minds can identify them and put them into words, but the phenomena these laws refer to would continue to exist regardless of whether a deity or anyone else thought about them.What this means is that these descriptions themselves are what is purely conceptual. But the laws they describe are not conceptual. What these laws refer to is the consistency of existence, which exists whether or not they"re being described or identified by a mind. A rock is always a rock because it exists in reality. If there were no mind to observe the rock, it would still be a rock. Minds are necessary only to describe that phenomenon, not to make it true.
Is there a god or deity that governs the universe? (against atheism)

God is defined as the creator and ruler of the universe, therefore he is outside of space and time. Note that I am not trying to prove a specific God, but rather a God in general. I am going to try to prove that there is a deity that governs the universe, thereby refuting the idea of atheism. First off, atheists utilize negative apologetics such as "can God create a rock too big for Him to lift?" In address to the question, by saying that God can create a rock too big for Him to lift implies that he is bound by space and time. If a deity exists, then they would not be bound by space and time, therefore this is an illogical question to present. My argument goes as follows 1. The laws of logic exist 2. To speak of a low is to imply some sort of order, and to speak of order is to imply some sort of 'orderer' 3. The laws of logic have three possible sources/orderers: humanity, nature, and God 4. The laws of logic are abstract, invariable, and immaterial. 5. Thus the laws of logic are not arbitrated by humanity or nature. _______________________________________________________________ 6. Therefore, the laws of logic can only be arbitrated by God. Round 2: Response to point 1: To clarify, I am saying the Laws of Logic exist because a creator (God) put them in place. I apologize as I didn't realize people wouldn't know which laws of logic I am referring to. First off there are three "Laws of Logic," they are the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle. Law of Identity states: "each thing is the same with itself and different from another." Law of non-contradiction states: "Something cannot be and not be at the same time in the same respect." Law of the excluded middle states: "for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true." I will use the Law of Non-contradiction for my argument. It can be used as follows, the universe cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. Do you find any fault in the Laws of Logic? Also I pose the question, what is the source of these Laws of Logic? Going back to point 3. in my syllogism, which of these do you suppose is the source of these Laws? or pose another possible source if these do not fit your rationale.
Is there a god or deity that governs the universe? (against atheism)

I will not use negative apologetics because frankly, I see it as not needed. We are not arguing about Donald Trump Here. I will prove that there is not a deity that governs the Universe as you asserted. First, I will ATTEMPT to disagree with the points you made, and some questions I really want to ask. 1. The Laws of Logic exist. Yes they do ! There is no doubt that there is Laws of Logic. If there was not, People would have sex with each other every single day, just joking. 2. Is your argument based on the assumption that God already exists ? Because from what I am reading ( My Glasses might be going bad ), you are saying that God exists because there is Logic and this is where I disagree...... Ready ? Start reading ! 1. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines logic as "the science of reasoning, proof, thinking, or inference." Logic will let you analyze an argument or a piece of reasoning, and work out whether it is likely to be correct or not. But Logic is not an absolute law that governs the Universe. For example, People thought the earth was flat. Because of the science of the time, it was considered Logical. Now with Modern Science, it's not logical. Logic is our expirinces, from what we learn. If I stick my hand in a fire and pull my hand out, it's because it's logical..... 2. The fact that the world is governed by laws of logic is exactly what eliminates god. since logic exists, god is not needed. I suppose you assume that logic needs an intelligent initiator of some sort in order for it to exist ? Why? Logic dictate that adding quantity causes that quantity to increase. This would occur with or without God's existence and needs no DIvine intervention to be consistently true. Logic dictates that a system in equilibrium has a total of equal opposite forces and that the sum of all the forces in the system is 0. This is not contingent on god's presence either. The more explanations of phenomena that can be logically explained, the less God is needed. God and Logic are indirectly proportionate. an increase in Logic causes a decrease in God.
Is there a god or deity that governs the universe? (against atheism)

God is defined as the creator and ruler of the universe, therefore he is outside of space and time. Note that I am not trying to prove a specific God, but rather a God in general. I am going to try to prove that there is a deity that governs the universe, thereby refuting the idea of atheism. First off, atheists utilize negative apologetics such as "can God create a rock too big for Him to lift?" In address to the question, by saying that God can create a rock too big for Him to lift implies that he is bound by space and time. If a deity exists, then they would not be bound by space and time, therefore this is an illogical question to present. My argument goes as follows 1. The laws of logic exist 2. To speak of a low is to imply some sort of order, and to speak of order is to imply some sort of 'orderer' 3. The laws of logic have three possible sources/orderers: humanity, nature, and God 4. The laws of logic are abstract, invariable, and immaterial. 5. Thus the laws of logic are not arbitrated by humanity or nature. _______________________________________________________________ 6. Therefore, the laws of logic can only be arbitrated by God.
The United States should significantly increase the number of Syrian refugees entering the country.

My opponent has probably made an error in his response to my statement. I will now clarify both the obvious and the detailed parts of his errors. First of all, I would like to quote one of my opponent's statements that he made during the second round: "My plan is for the United States to take in 100,000 refugees who have been security screened and have at least a high school level education. They also must be part of families, and agree to learn English as well as become citizens. " And I do agree, sir, that the plan has already been stated. Once you have a single plan with no other emergency roads, you cannot change it as easily. It is like trying to fit an elephant inside a briefcase; it is impossible. My opponent seems to have made a contradiction error. Please excuse him, Voters. Secondly, in the third paragraph of subpoint A of P2, he claims that refugees and immigrants can do things as well as other U. S. born citizens. This statement is too opinionated, and unfortunately, he does not give a specific source to prove this claim. Please ignore this. However, do not ignore the statement my opponent made which says that I have no source for the ISIS invader claim. It's all over the news, the papers, and the media: ISIS invaded Paris, France, as Syrian immigrants. If my opponent really does need a source for such a general and obvious claim, than I will give a bibliography notation at the end of this argument. All claims aside, it is just as likely for ISIS to invade America as it was with France. We should not make the same mistake twice. Lastly, I want to thank my opponent for giving his indelicate response to my conclusion. It seems that some would rather want themselves dead than allowing someone else to be at risk. I will respect your beliefs, sir. And, as you can see, he is also making my conclusion a "ludicrous" statement. I'm not quite sure if this is against rule #3, but putting opinion-based commentary can be. .. risky. If you would like, I'll give a new conclusion: For the purposes of the well-being of those around you AND yourself, vote Con. I thank my opponent for allowing me to debate with him, and I give him the best of luck. May the best debater win!
The United States should significantly increase the number of Syrian refugees entering the country.

My opponent seems to be questioning if the refugees will meet the requirements, but it simply doesn't make sense. The plan has already been stated. It isn't a matter of "what if they don't meet the standards given", because we will make sure they do. My opponent says that these people will have diseases when they come in, and brings up the Ebola case. Again, the United States government, mentioned in my plan, will check these refugees for these diseases. The disease argument was meant to say that we need to prevent more people from getting the diseases, which we do. My opponent offers no source for their ISIS invader claim, so please ignore this, Voters. To summarize, "for the purpose of thinking about ourselves before others" shows just how ludicrous arguing against this is. No lives come before ours, we are all human beings, Syrian or not. Thank you.
The United States should significantly increase the number of Syrian refugees entering the country.

On the contrary, the refugees of Syria cannot be allowed into America. A plan of such, though seeming to be very safe and secure, is not safe enough. P1: These refugees, even if they meet your criteria and requirements, can and probably will be apart of terrorist organizations, such as the infamous ISIS. We mustn't forget about the tragedy of Paris, France. They let in Syrian refugees, and at a terrible cost. We shouldn't follow in the footsteps of a nation that made a mistake. If we are to let in Syrian refugees, they must be checked multiple times for hazardous material, and interrogate them to make sure they are not terrorists. Subpoint A: Your requirements What if these refugees don't meet your requirements? What of the children that have not graduated junior high, and the uneducated families that they are apart of? And there are many people in the U. S. who don't even know the slightest of English, and some are not legal citizens. I won't go too far into the political zone, but there are people in Mexico who are crossing the border illegally and having children in America to become a citizen the easy way. Just because a terrorist group and a squadron of Russian and American fighter jets is present in Syria doesn't make it 100% different from the Mexican drug lords who indirectly terrorize the citizens there. P2: You may have mentioned diseases in the Middle East like malaria and cholera. You are almost contradicting yourself in your argument. Do we really want sick people to be allowed into the United States, especially with such lethal diseases. We can obviously use the Ebola virus as an example here. The Ebola victims may not have been refugees, but after coming to the U. S. with such a fatal disease, they caused several dozen Americans to fall victim to the virus as well. And allowing Syrians in America, either by air or by sea, they might and probably will bring the infected mosquitoes with them, causing yet another invasive outbreak in the United States. I truly do want these refugees to be safe in America, but it is common sense to keep yourself out of danger when possible. I believe that we can and should allow Syrians into America when the time is right. And at the moment, we must bide our time and not make a dangerous mistake against our country. I am interested in what my antagonist's proposal will sound like after this argument.
The United States should significantly increase the number of Syrian refugees entering the country.

BenJWasson, I hereby accept your challenge and will take you on in this debate. Quite an interesting topic, I might add. Anyways, I do agree to your terms and, if I may, have one rule for myself that doesn't have to be accepted, but is recommended: Let's not go below the belt in this debate. You may use sources and factual opinions, but please do not use personal feelings and "hate words". It would be appreciated if you could abide to these terms. Thank you, and good luck. RadiatedDalek
The United States should significantly increase the number of Syrian refugees entering the country.

Hello, my name is Ben. I am on the Pro side of this resolution, and I personally believe the same. Please be experienced if you accept this debate. Some rules: 1. No forfeits 2. Sources may be provided in the comments 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling 6. First round is for acceptance only 7. Violation of any rules is an automatic loss First round is for acceptance only. I will provide the plan and criterion as well as the contentions in my next speech. Thank you.
Rap battle

This btch talks sht then decides to quit This battle is a skit and hes not emitting any wit spit and slit your wrist and drop you in a pit You got beat so bad you didn't even post a final round, you are a spineless twit I would literally laugh if you dropped dead I slit your wrist you bled red and I stuck your body in a shed Even in your death your hoping GCL will give you head The fact you think God forgave you, means you have been mislead You fuking retarded, hopeless, idiotic magot I'f I didn't respect gay people so much I would call you a fgot The moment you decided to to try and battle me, you lost the damn fight Even standing tall your less than half my height So step down and bow out, you retarded nigga Watch yourself drop dead when I pull this trigga I'm going to grab you face and throw you in the ground fuk killing you quietly I want to hear every single sound
Rap battle

At first, i didn't want to battle so i forfeited, but as i stated in the comments, i said i'd destroy Mikal in 1 round while Mikal failed to hurt my feelings and failed to make me leave DDO as he claimed he did. I will explain why i think he lost this battle unless he can prove me wrong next round: 1) I already admitted my weaknesses and cleverly dissed him by using them against him while he just throws out empty and vain threats, only confirming what i said he'd do in my rap. He points out several other things, but they are weak and ineffective as it's essentially already been said. 2) his flow is weak as it's bombarded with curse words, no lyrically clever punchlines involved. 3) His lyrics seem to be clouded with blind anger flying at random. With that in mind, i rest my case.