BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Obama be getting $hit done bitchez

I. Stock Investment has raised 140%We all remember the stock market crash during the Bush regime, but under Obama, our investment within the Stock Exchange and NASDAQ is up 140%, which means 140% more shares are getting bought since the Bush regime, which means not only is the economy growing, but at an extremely fast rate. 1000's of companies are recieving stimulus from fellow investors, at not cost to the taxpayer.II. Obama has got the economy rolling During the Bush regime, the GDP fell 8%, and remained like that for pretty much the whole presidency. Under Obama, the economy has almost recovered the lost 8% under bush, and a couple months a go, we were projected for 3% growth in our GDP. Whether that's still holds true is irrelavant. The economy is soaring above the international developed average.III. Unemployment Pre-regime levels We have now officially recovered all employment since before the recession. That is about 3% from where we tanked in 2007, with unemployment from 9% to 6%, and on way to reach 5%, or the goal line.IV. Affordable Care Act Obama has brought 8 million people into buying healthcare, making it affordable, and stimulating the insurance market all at no expedenture to the government or taxpayers. V. Conclusion Obama has accomplished $hit, whether it's enough, is up to you. Unless the OP can refute all these claims with a BOP premise requirement, then he has failed to negate the BOP. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com...
Obama be getting $hit done bitchez

Obama don't get crap done. I see him spending more time playing basketballin the back of the white house than being productive in making this a better country. He then defend his reputation rather thandeal withiss ues like a real leader. I sorry, but his motivational "yes we can " not only sound corny, but he didn't live up to his word. He changed it to "yes we can, but it's going to be very very hard before it is going to get better "no crap sherlock, I think martin Luther King Jr make a better president. When are things going to get better? 3013?
Homosexuality is Genetic

An examination of family pedigrees revealed that gay men had more homosexual male relatives through maternal than through paternal lineages, suggesting a linkage to the X chromosome. Dean Hamer24 found such an association at region Xq28. If male sexual orientation was influenced by a gene on Xq28, then gay brothers should share more than 50% of their alleles at this region, whereas their heterosexual brothers should share less than 50% of their alleles. In the absence of such an association, then both types of brothers should display 50% allele sharing. An analysis of 40 pairs of gay brothers and found that they shared 82% of their alleles in the Xq28 region, which was much greater than the 50% allele sharing that would be expected by chance.Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Homosexuality is Genetic

My opponent has not made any separate points, therefore, no rebuttals from me. My conclusion: APA states: "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles...."[1] VOTE CON Good luck Pro [1]http://www.onenewsnow.com...
Homosexuality is Genetic

My opponents arguements consisted of two points:Where does the gay gene come from?conversion therapy is an option.rebuttal of the first point:Although research for a gay gene has been in mainly small animals (worms, fruit flies, etc.)I understand that studies with animals not be cited, but we DID all share a common ancestor, (or 'common creator' as creationists say) and we all show similar behavior. A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates (who's body is structured much like that of a human.) to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.Rebuttal of point two:I cannot go into the methods of conversion therapy, as the character limit doesn't allow, but I will give you some facts about it. Mike Bussee and Gary Cooper, the founders of the ex-gay movement, fell in love with each other, and divorced their wives. Exgay usually resuts in attempted suicide, Sexual disorders,etc.
Homosexuality is Genetic

Let's begin. Before I start my main points, think about this: Where did that gene come from? It sure wasn't your parents, they're obviously not homosexual, they had you, didn't they? Well maybe it was your grandparents? Most traits and DNA make-up skip a generation, right? But, they had your parents, so it couldn't possibly be them either. So where did it come from? Also, I request you don't bring in studies on animals that have structures very unlike the human body. Columbia University Professor of Psychiatry Dr. Robert Spitzer has done several research projects and is the man that had homosexuality removed from the list of mental disorders. Dr. Spitzer interviewed more than 200 people, most of whom claimed that through reparative therapy counseling, their desires for same-sex partners either diminished significantly or they changed over to heterosexual orientation. Robert L. Spitzer, "Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? ", Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 5, October 2003: 403-417.
Ultimately, Everybody Is Even

There are many ways to gauge and potentially measure equality. By every metric everyone is unequal. From amount of performance at a job, to ability to retain and form new ideas, and health everyone is unequal. Certain metrics may align such as performance at a job and meet at an equal endpoint. However, there are too many aspects to an individual for consider people equal. Consider Bill Gates and a heroin addict. Bill Gates has clearly, measurably, improved the human condition. It is possible these two individuals may meet at an equal endpoint by certain metric(s) however they are different. This is a result of biology. If we were all robots many metrics would be equal.
Ultimately, Everybody Is Even

Stephen Hawking is one of the best physicists alive, but he has a shortcoming, his amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), "Steven Hawking," Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org..., visited Jul. 4, 2017. Jesus Christ is perhaps the most popular person over the last 2,500 years, yet he was disliked by those in power and painfully crucified. It seems that every time somebody becomes better than another person, that person ends up getting pushed back so that the two people are ultimately even. No person ultimately is better or worse than any other person.
Ultimately, Everybody Is Even

Your definition is still vague and a solid point hasn't been made as to what we are debating. In your situation there is little context still. Socially speaking, generally if you murder someone you are very low on the scale of social "even-ness" so this does not hold up. Things don't cancel out out in real life. Even after people die some are remembered for ages like George Washington and most are forgotten soon after their death.
Ultimately, Everybody Is Even

I suppose I would like to instigate that ultimately, everybody is even in the social sense of evenness. I don't like using the word "equality" here. It is obvious we are not all equal in the technical, mathematical, and logical sense of "equal." I prefer to use the word "even." Suppose a person p murders another person q. At the time of the murder, p murders to become better than q. But this superiority is only temporary. It is supposedly completely canceled out when p has been legally prosecuted and completely punished for p's crime. So ultimately, p and q are even.
Ultimately, Everybody Is Even

I agree there are many ways to gauge and potentially measure equality. Nevertheless, there does seem to be a metric of evenness from whence I am coming. For example, when a person murders or badly assaults and beats another person, there seems to be a sense of evenness that is used to help justify getting back at the first person by punishing him or her. Sometimes organizations of criminal justice involve balance scales in their seals, and Lady Justice is known for holding up balance scales. "Lady Justice," Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org..., visited Jul. 4, 2017. The balance scales suggest some sort of metric of social evenness. It is this social evenness, or something similar to it, to which I am referring when I claim that ultimately, everybody is even. There seems to be a psychological aspect to the evenness. You mentioned Bill Gates. Steve Jobs got cancer and died young. "Steve Jobs," Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org..., visited Jul. 4, 2017.
YouTube should be banned!

Youtube should absolutely not be banned. You've said that it is integrating itself into our daily life and it's educating our youth. Where is the downside? Youtube is globalizing education and entertainment. It's a great way to spread knowledge and will probably lead education in 3rd world countries through the Google Loon. (http://www.google.com...) As far as I can see Youtube has only positive effects and will be incredibly beneficial to 3rd world countries.
Rap Battle

Battlin me again, I think you"re delirious You suck so bad, I can"t even take you serious You only talk smack when you"re safe at your computer. I think now it"s time for T-dogg to get neutered I use the same rhymes every time, according to you. You might wanna check your facts, all my lyrics are brand new. You don"t know what you"re talkin bout, you don"t have a clue. It"s all out my head, its comin out of the blue. White face and red cheeks, looks like you got a fever. And your teeth look like one of your parents was a beaver. You like to act like you're 50 Cent But in the gym locker room you're always pitchin tents. You say I"m gay, but I want you to pause it. I"m still waitin on you to come out of the closet. Losin to Reed, then me, and now me again. You getting your butt kicked is becoming a trend. You gotta stop, Your gonna lose Just go home and drink some booze
Rap Battle

My rhymes are awesome, yours are just whack when you wrote them, i ask, were you on crack? My ryhmes be so great, yours people just hate try not to be late for this battle because this is your fate. We could argue about the winner, all day but I dont wanna hang out wit you, becuz u gay. this is crap i already won i is afraid to tell ya, that its over, son im telling you once go away its bad enough your already gay. your like justin beiber he sings like a skank you better back up or your gonna get shanked after i win this im gonna get bank.
Rap Battle

Boy, I aint be cheating. But me you aint gonna be beating My rhymes are so tight This aint even a fight Try to take a hit But just watch my glove fit I aint sayin bad words But you might say two thirds You rap worse than Miley Cyrus. Now you"re gonna lose to a kid that"s Harry Stylus. We"re the whitest country the world"s ever had Losin to one of us, that"s just sad. I"ll go forever, and keep rhymes comin all day, Am I gonna stop soon? Son you better pray. Cause I"ll ruin your reputation and I"ll mess with you"re head. I"ll embarrass you so bad that you"ll wish you were dead. I got enough rhymes to go on for years, But if I don"t stop now, you"re gonna be in tears. I beat you again, but I don"t think you learned, When you mess with me, then you"re gonna get burned
Rap Battle

Im about to tell ya about the rules butcha shouldnt even listen cuz ya gonna get schooled this battle is about...whos gonna win Soo ill rip off ur pubes and wipe them on your chin first rule dog, make your own rhymes first when i rapped, people copied all the time second rule is, no talking bout jizz keep it clean cracka, bad words are for kids i hope someone joins, but they gonna die aint gonna win cuz my rhymes are fly now quick, someone..reply
The Wang Experiment Proves Relativity Is Wrong

The laser pointer is actually a very good analogy. Yes, it's exactly an effect of geometry just like the traveling wave moving faster than c. The thing that is moving faster than c, is not light, it's simply the point at which the waves intersect in certain ways. The reason this doesn't have any bearing on relativity, is that neither light waves nor information are propagating faster than c , but the point where they intersect in a specific way changes position faster than light actually propagates. My opponent has not yet provided evidence, nor logical syllogism to support his claim. This doesn't bode well for the pro side of a debate. I'm left wondering if he will provide such.
The Wang Experiment Proves Relativity Is Wrong

To see actual standing waves, checkout this link: www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gr7KmTOrx0#t=03m11s "In a perfect vacuum, light would propagate at exactly c."That is what Special Relativity claims, but it's my task in this debate to show it's wrong.My opponent states that a standing wave can travel faster than c without violating Special Relativity, but his analogy does not explain the logic of this:"Imagine you have a laser pointer and you point it at the wall at a distance of one meter. When you flex your wrist just a little, the point of light will move. Then, repeat the same motion, pointed at the same wall from a distance of 5 meters. The point of light will appear to move a great deal faster (5 times the speed of the first)."This has to do with geometry, not the speed of light. How is this analogous to a standing wave exceeding the speed of traveling waves? I await a better analogy or explanation from my opponent, maybe a graphic or animation illustrating how and why a standing wave can exceed the speed of traveling waves.
The Wang Experiment Proves Relativity Is Wrong

The Wang Experiment can be read about at these links: http://www.researchgate.net... http://web.stcloudstate.edu... http://repository.stcloudstate.edu... An animation of the experiment can be watched here (the second part is simply the first in the frame of the detector/emitter): www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmGStcDcUGk Relativity: A term referring to both Special Relativity and General Relativity.Special Relativity: A theory which states that light speed will always be measured at c in an inertial frame.General Relativity: A theory which states that light speed will not always be measured at c in a non-inertial frame.Inertial Frame: A frame that is either motionless or moving in a straight line at an unchanging speed.In this experiment, the speed of light is measured to be other than c in an inertial frame. Therefore, Special Relativity is false.Please post your rebuttal to this statement. I do not expect anyone to accept, because this falsification of Special Relativity is so manifestly obvious and irrefutable that it would be foolish to contradict it.
Money laundering had effected the banks badly

I think "Yes" because recently what cases had been raised about money laundering had hampered the reputation of banks what RBI had done to overcome this by imposing fines on all the banks including the Public sector banks like SBI, BOB, BOI, PNB and others. It has been increasing day by day all due to completing their targets. Targets should be well defined and it should be done in proper way under the guidelines of RBI. Success is good but to get success by adopting miss-selling the products or giving wrong information leads to worse. Amount of money which had been rotating in the market as Black money, if only 10% of that amount will come in market which may bring money in market and possibilities are that rupee will get strong competitively to dollar.
Science is not against catholic religion: the blood of Jesus Christ case.

I would like to state beforehand- that science is impartial- it seeks only truth, taking no sides- and that your belief about whether science is "for" or "against" a religion is not in fact, the purpose of science. In the seeking of truth of the existence of the universe-religion is an unproven- and very unlikely-theory. As to the subject matter: There is no evidence submitted currently by you that proves the existence of the entire Catholic religion is a true event. There is 2000 years of recorded catholic history. Using the bible as a sort of evidence- we can see that there is a good deal in it that pre-dates Jesus. The idea that everything within it is true because Jesus may have existed- that's not a case you're going to win. You cannot prove the existence of God with the statements of a person- many people exist today that state they speak with God. The man who shot John Lennon said he spoke to God. The man who climbed the white house gate yesterday, did, too. If instead your intention is to prove that Jesus existed- there is enough historical evidence, socially and across many countries that scientists and historians have agreed it is most likely he did. However, both The Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo- the relics you mention- (To the laymen out there, these are two separate shrouds that were used to cover a crucifixion victim) both having AB blood type plasma does not prove nor disprove the existence of Jesus. All it does is prove a man was crucified, transported, and covered with several linen cloths, who had AB blood type. There is no damning evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ besides the impact the man had. And there is no evidence that what he said was true, because what he said is varied and written in many different holy texts, many of which have been changed and amended over the years- and this is without accepting the fact that many of the things he said are simply unverifiable- like the existence of heaven- or God. To sum up my point- Science is not against the Catholic Religion- but that does not make it false. The lack of evidence makes it an unknown, but incredibly unlikely theory.
Science is not against catholic religion: the blood of Jesus Christ case.

Hi,In this debate I will hold the position that modern science actually give a proof that catholic religion is true. I will argue on the fact that a lot of eucharistic miracle case and also that some of allegedly Jesus Christ relics such as the shroud of Oviedo or the shroud of Turin were analysed as containing some AB+ blood type in all of them.Rules: Round 1 acceptance, Round 2 I will have the burden of proof, Round 3 rebuttals, Round 4 rebuttals and conclusion.I am waiting for an opponent and I hope this debate will be interesting
Defenders are highly underrated in Soccer

People watch football because they want to see goals scored and excellent passes. Yet we are missing the point. Defenders are the one who prevent the game from becoming one sided, they are the ones who try to stop the opponent's offense from scoring. They are the back bone of the team. Seriously, how many defenders have won the Balon'Dor. Stating factually only three in the history of the world of football. Messi has one Four by himself whereas the three won by defenders were won by three different people.
Defenders are highly underrated in Soccer

Thank you, gyaniwasp, for instigating this debate.Seeing that he/she is Pro, my opponent has the burden of proof to affirm the resolution. In the event that I negate or null the resolution, I win this debate. I do not need to provide a negative case of my own and I will not be providing one.Counter-arguments"Defenders are the one who prevent the game from becoming one sided, they are the ones who try to stop the opponent's offense from scoring."I.My opponent's assertion is purely theoretical. There is not a study or example provided that shows a game without defenders would become one sided. Thus, this is a bare assertion [1], which is a logical fallacy. II.Furthermore, as counter-evidence, there have been instances wherein games have been one sided *with both* attackers and defenders. For example, in 2009, Tottenham lost to Wigan 9-1, which is a one-sided affair, despite both teams having defenders and attackers [3]. It was a one-sided affair because the amount of goals scored by Wigan is almost *double* the highest ever average of goals scored in a World-Cup of ~5.50 [2], showing that this is indeed a one-sided affair. Therefore, one-sided affairs can result in games with defenders, thus defenders *are not* necessarily the ones who prevent the game from becoming one-sided, but at best can be theoretically (which does not maintain my opponent's claim of "Defenders are the one who prevent the game from becoming one sided".Conclusion: The argument posited by my opponent is (1) a purely theoretical, bare assertion, and (2) games can become one-sided with defenders."They are the back bone of the team."My opponent's offers another bare assertion [1]."Seriously, how many defenders have won the Balon'Dor. Stating factually only three in the history of the world of football. Messi has one Four by himself whereas the three won by defenders were won by three different people."My opponent provides another fallacious argument in the form of an argument from final consequence [4]. This occurred by my opponent arguing that:A: Defenders do not win awards at the rates of other positionsC: Therefore, defenders are underratedYou see, the problem with this is that there might be other reasons as to why defenders are not winning the awards. Other reasons such as the defenders are not as good. However, my opponent assumed via induction that it *had* to be because they are underrated, rather than entertaining the idea of alternate theories. This is how the fallacy was committed.ConclusionMy opponent's entire argument is plagued with logical fallacies, as I have expanded upon under each of his/her main argument. Therefore, the resolution is not affirmed and I win by default.References[1] http://fallacies.findthedata.com...[2] http://www.statista.com...[3] http://news.bbc.co.uk...[4] https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com...
Resolved: The advacement of technology will significantly harm the job market.

This is a debate in the second round of the official May tournament. TUF and I are going to be debating the topic that is written out in the topic portion above. Structure is pretty standard. In TUF's first debating round, he will be allowed to provide rebuttals. Otherwise format is: 1st - intro/acceptance 2nd - main arguments/starting rebuttals 3rd - rebuttals 4th - summaries In the fourth round there shouldn't be any new argument. It should be for new evidence and elaboration on things already said in the debate. Just so everyone's clear on that. Now let's get started! Good luck!