BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap Battle Ten

I know what a Tec is.My flow is infectious.I’m going in reckless;verses gold as a necklace.Now I’m hotter than Texas,burning up; I’m a flame.Tick you off of my checklist,time to turn up the game.Never brake, I go fast& leave this Fake in the past.F*ck this snake in the grass;about to break him like glass.I got the gun on my waist.You got my cum on your face,and I’ll just keep dropping versesuntil I run out of space.What’s it like to be losing, Jimmy?The one I’m abusing, Jimmy?You know when they vote,I’ll be the one that they choosing, Jimmy.Cut you up like a switchbladeAll your verses are b!tch-made.F*ck your Mom every-which-way.Now get on your knees, b!tch. Pray.
Rap Battle Ten

(Note do not read bracketed numbers aloud)- One...two...three...four,[1] That's four syllables, bjtch I counted this time Pass...block...shoot...score Like basketball I dunk with powerful rhymes Then get the Tech foul with my Tec 9[2] Aim it at yo head with my finger on the trigger The ref whistles, but it's your end, die Pop it, ref says stop it, I put lead in his liver I kill all I'm faced with, knock em' with a stone like David [3] I'm tired of squonk's gay shjt, but we know he's prone to say it and do it, he's no fake bjtch! with a guy he's known to trade djcks! On a man he lays lips, so many men he's blown, a rapist! Opponent couldn't reason past an autistic school Can't find complicated rhymes? I'll list them, fool! Can't understand shjt, you're like "What is this? *drool*" The rundown: Jim Shady with yo mom, he's up in the tool.[4] Since you don't understand what anything ever is I filled the rest of this, stutter man[5], with references- References: 1. The opening of B Rabbit's final rap battle in 8 Mile 2. Tec 9 is a pistol-like submachine gun. 3.Reference to the Biblical story of David and Goliath 4. Definition of a tool: your mom. 5. stutter man, your new nickname, it's great,
Wilt Chambelain was the greatest NBA basketball player

Alright, since whenever I don't answer a contention in one round, apparently, it's dropped. So, I will have to specifically do this. Contention 1: Look, the things that Wilt's teammates did were and still are perfectly legal in basketball games, and the only person who could do those things was Wilt, so it is not an unfair difficulty advantage. It was just that Wilt had more talent AND he is the most physically gifted NBA player to play on the hardwood. He was even a Track and Field star at the University of Kansas, and won the high jump there. Contention 2: It is not dropped, it is just that I answered this in Rounds 2 and 3. Btw, Jordan's high is 69, and if he had had 7 more minutes a game, staying at that pace, he would have just topped Kobe's high of 81, and would still be 15 points or more off of Chamberlain's 100. Yes, I brought in the 100. Come at me bro. Contention 3: Still not dropped, and as I said, this was already answered in rounds 2 and 3. Nothing further is needed for this contention. Teams. My favorite part of this final round. 90-91 Lakers. Simple. They (Johnson and Worthy) were at the tail end of their careers, when less than a year later, Johnson announced his HIV and leaving, and Worthy retiring in '94. 91-92 Blazers. While I do admit Clyde the Glide was good, he wasn't close to the level of the people Chamberlain played against, and Terry Porter shouldn't be in this debate. 92-93 Suns. You have to admit Barkley was better in his 76er years, and Majerle shouldn't be involved. 95-96 Sonics. Yes, this was when Payton and Kemp were at their primes, while I do feel it's incorrect to call Kemp an all time great. I still don't think this could match up against some of the teams Wilt faced. 96-97 and 97-98 Jazz. Yes Stockton and Malone were greats, and I'm willing to concede that they are the only team who would match up to the teams in Chamberlain's Era. So, what teams do I keep on mentioning? Well, let's take a look at them 64-65 Celtics (pretty much the fabric for the '60's celtics teams) Greats: Bill Russell, Sam Jones, K. C. Jones, and John 'Hondo' Havlicek. 70-71 Bucks Greats(still great at this time): 'The Big O' Oscar Robertson, and Lew Alcindor (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar) 69-70 Knicks Greats: Walt 'Clyde' Frazier, Willis Reed, Dave DeBusschere 66-67 Warriors (Wilt Beat them in the finals) Greats: Rick Barry, Nate Thurmond, Chet Walker. Your turn Con, and as the memes say, Come at me Bro.
Wilt Chambelain was the greatest NBA basketball player

Alright, I'm not going to specifically address all of your previous contentions specifically, but I'm going to do this simply. 1. When you say Wilt has an unfair advantage, I see it as extra talent, something nobody else could bring to the game. Jordan didn't have the talent to do things that Wilt could do. Which leads me to point 2. 2. Wilt had rules changed for him, unlike Jordan, who didn't change the game. Think about it. Jordan never really did change the dynamic, style, or rules of the game. Wilt did all 3. And that defines why Wilt was the greatest. Wilt was an innovator, and brought a new style to the game. He changed the dynamics of the games he played in. Wilt made the NBA make a 16 foot lane, and made the NBA institute the Wilt Chamberlain rule. Nobody changed these things like Chamberlain did. And I'll also address your assessments on their acomplishments. First of all, the all defensive teams were established in the 1968-1969 season, so in most of Chamberlain's years, there was no defensive teams. Second of all, Championships. Jordan played cakewalk west teams compared to what team Wilt had to face, somewhere close to alone in your comparison. He had to face the '60s Celtics. They were loaded with more prime hall of Famers at once than Chamberlain ever had. Also, the celtics were a lot of the time, lucky. Example. In game seven of the '65 playoffs, the ball hit the wire in the Boston garden, forcing Philly to inbound it. The result? "Havlicek stole the ball! It's all over! IT'S ALL OVER!". Chamberlain is the ONLY NBA player to win MVP and Rookie of the Year in the same year. Also, during Chamberlain's days, only amateurs could make the USA basketball team. Also, Jordan had the advantage of the Dream Team. MVPs are selected mostly on team performance. If the best player in the NBA is on the league's worst team, they won't win the MVP. Your turn con.
Wilt Chambelain was the greatest NBA basketball player

I shall now refute my challenger's Round 2 contentions now, as further proof that Wilt Chamberlain was the greatest NBA player of all time. Contention 1: There is no proof or rule change that made it harder to score points in Jordan's era. In fact, there was no 3 point line during Chamberlain's day, so if anything, it would be easier to score more points. Chamberlain raised the point amount due to his skill. 1a. They made a rule right before Chamberlain went into the NBA that prevented Wilt from doing this because of him. It prevented any player from moving past the foul line during the shot. In fact, the rule is called... Of course... The Wilt Chamberlain rule! I don't even have to cite the source for this one. Just google it. In fact, his free throws were around 50%, even more amazing how dominant he was. 1b. Offensive goaltending became a rule for the NBA in 1958, before Chamberlain played an NBA game. Some games where Chamberlain tipped was the result of bad refereeing. 1c. That is impossible. You know why? 8.6 APG in 67-68. And them missing free throws is what I see as a smart way to play, a strategic way that shows the rebounding skill of Wilt Chamberlain. Source 1: http://www.nba.com... 2a. Wilt Only had one season where he missed 30 or more games, and that was in 1969-1970, and he played 18 more playoff games in 69-70. Wilt, besides 69-70, never missed more than 10 games in a season. 2b. One question. What coach would take a player out of a game if he weren't A. Tired B. In foul trouble So Jordan was in one of those groups. In fact, considering Wilt was a CENTER, Wilt never fouled out of a game. 2c. Any NBA player has a lot of wear and tear on the legs. If you had an extended period of time off, like Jordan did, your legs are closer to brand new than a player probably about age 28. So, that fairly justified the time away from the fast paced sport. Source 1: http://www.nba.com... 3a. There is a possibility that teams played somewhat less defense in Chamberlain's days, but not so substantial that it makes Jordan better. Griffin had his surgery in his early 20's. Wilt had his in his early 30's. Very different for an athlete at Wilt's age. Jordan played 1,072, while Chamberlain played 1,045. Only 27 more games. And Wilt's durability let him play more minutes. And there was no complete package like Chamberlain. Led the league in scoring the same amount of times as Jordan, is the all time rebounding leader, led the league in assists at one point, would have averaged close, if not 10 blocks, and would have averaged at least 2 steals. He was athletic, a track and field star. He was the greatest offensive player ever, was one of the best defenders, and was the league's greatest rebounders. One word. Perfection. No player will ever reach Chamberlain's level. Source 1: http://www.nba.com... Source 2: http://www.nba.com...
Wilt Chambelain was the greatest NBA basketball player

I disagree with Contention 1 because: The 3 second rule was first instituted in 1936 in college basketball, and was always a rule for the NBA/BAA/NBL since their inception, so Wilt Chamberlain played with that rule. Source 1: . http://answers.yahoo.com... I disagree with Contention 2 because: While Wilt Chamberlain played more minutes than any NBA player from 1984-beyond, while you see it as an unfair advantage, I see it as a form of ultimate durability and stamina. Think about it. No player would last with the amount of minutes Chamberlain was playing with. Therefore, your argument only makes mine stronger. And Jordan only played 15 seasons, and missed substantial time from injuries/two retirements for 3 of those. Source 1: . http://www.nba.com... Source 2: . http://www.nba.com... I disagree with Contention 3 Because: Your minutes played contention in argument 3 is ludicrous because all games were played with 48 minutes. While a lot of games did have high scores, there were also a lot of high octane offenses during Wilt's time, and there were also tighter defensive rules during that time as well. I disagree with Con's Commentary on my statement because: MJ had a lot less minutes on his legs when he played, as I stated before, so it was easier for him to score points on his legs as opposed to Wilt. MJ also had a lot of time for his stamina to boost back up from all of the retirement time he had, while Wilt never retired in between seasons. Therefore, it was easier for MJ to score points in his Wizard years so that his PPG would stay up, as opposed to Wilt's Laker years, where Wilt had to undergo knee surgery, so his dominance was limited. Their PPG averages are only separated by a few tenths of a point. Also, Wilt was the greatest rebounder of all time, and even Bill Russell's peers said that Chamberlain was better than Russell in shot blocking. Wilt also had a knack for stealing a ton of balls out of midair, so he would have averaged a lot of steals as well, if Blocks and Steals were recorded. Source 1: . http://www.nba.com... Source 2: . http://www.nba.com...
Wilt Chambelain was the greatest NBA basketball player

Resolved: Wilt Chamberlain(who I think he meant) was the greatest NBA basketball player. By this meaning I am inferring that he means "greatest basketball player ever" and not of his time period since he did not specify that this was limited to only his era of basketball. Contention 1: No 3 seconds in the paint rule The reason this is a critical issue in the debate over whether Wilt Chamberlain was the greatest basketball player of all time is that he was over 7 feet tall with an 8 foot wingspan. The 3 second in the paint rule established after Wilt Chamberlain's prime/days of excellence. Coupled with the fact that he was over 7 feet tall with a wingspan of almost 8 feet, he could remain under the basket for the entire possession of his team and just take away every rebound and dunk/lay-in every shot. Compared to someone such as Jordan, Patrick Ewing, or Shaquille O' Neal who had this restriction, it severely limits those players as compared to Chamberlain. Contention 2: Minutes playedAnother issue that shows Wilt Chamberlain wasn't the greatest to play in the NBA is the amount of minutes he played. The average NBA game in Shaquille, Ewing, Jordan's time, were 48 minutes pre game(excluding overtime). During the time Wilt Chamberlain played, he accumulated a miraculous 48.5 minutes per game, and in one season he played 3,882 minutes out of 3890 minutes he could've been on the court. This means Wilt was on the court for all but 8 minutes during a season in his playing time. This is also an indicator of why Wilt has almost 7,000 more minutes played than Michael Jordan. If you look at the seasons played you'll see that Wilt only played 14-5 seasons and Jordan played 19-20 seasons. Include the fact that Wilt only played half of some seasons and you'll see that this is absurd. Contention 3: Scores of some gamesDuring the amount of time Wilt Chamberlain played, the game he scored 100 points, had a final score of 169-147. The only games that occur now, that have scores of this nature are NBA All-star games, where the players don't play competitively until the 4th quarter arises and the game is close in the end. This shows that defense was at a limited level in his time period, or also can serve as an add-on to the minutes played contention. Pro statement: In pro's statement he reitterates the fact that Wilt Chamberlain scored the most 60 point games out of any NBA player. The issue with this argument is that even though he had the most 60 point games, Wilt did not finish with the highest per game average in history, Michael Jordan did. Michael Jordan also did this with more games played than Wilt. This made it harder for Jordan to average the highest, since his total points were divided by more games.
Wilt Chambelain was the greatest NBA basketball player

I believe that Wilt Chamberlain (Wilton Norman Chamberlain) was the greatest basketball player who played at the NBA level. Wilt may have only won two championships, but he lost a good amount to the Celtics, who were loaded with Hall of Famers, the Milwaukee Bucks, who had the Big O and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (Ferdinand Lewis Alcindor) on their team, and the New York Knicks, who won Game 7 of the finals against the Lakers when Willis Reed played in the game. Wilt led the league in Rebounds, Scoring, AND assists in different seasons, once averaging 50 PPG in a season. Wilt had more 60 point games than any NBA player ever, and in fact, has scored more 60 point games than all NBA combined. If wilt had been in an era when they recorded blocks, according to his colleagues, he would have averaged double digit blocks, when the most an NBA player these days can average is 5. This is the essence of Wilt Chamberlain.
Is War evil? Con is no, Pro if yes.

I remind you and to all that is reading that I feel I have given credible proof that war is evil. I understand that sometimes you have to fight for what is right. But that's not what this debate was about. I have given substantial proof that to be at war is to be in a state of hostility. To be hostile is to be unfavorable to health and well being, and showing enmity and ill-will. And to be evil is causing ruin, injury, or pain(all of these sources can be found within the first round). Given the nature of war and all things attached to it's name there is no way war is not evil in any way. Look at the enemies(and how each party perceives each other), look at the battles(and how their carried out), and then look at the after effects(destruction, casualties, and war crimes). The sources and arguments provided make a great case. Thank you.
Is War evil? Con is no, Pro if yes.

You bring up good points. I wouldn't disagree that the Jews saw the good intentions of their rescuers. However, as I had mentioned earlier the head of the attacking party doesn't feel their reasoning for taking action as evil. I would assume the Nazi German soldiers would view Americans as evil, as they would with the Soviet soldiers and the British. I will also remind you that during this specific time period Pearl Harbor had been bombed by the Japanese, another axis power in world war 2. After the time of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the U.S. Military had set up internment camps for the Japanese Americans. (1)Over 100,000 Japanese and Japanese American individuals, mostly citizens of the United States, were placed in these camps living as a prisoner where some inevitably died. Germans and Italians were also relocated to these camps but not nearly as many as the Japanese. Also, during this same time period the Americans, in retaliation to the Japanese bombings of Pearl Harbor, had dropped 2 nuclear bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki making the death total from 2 bombings alone anywhere from 150,000-246,000, including non-military personnel and children, some of which had prolonged death due to radiation poisoning and severe burns(2). As for your statement of, "If some maniac with a knife woke you up in the middle of the night, trying to kill you, you'd be a fool not to try to kill him.", I think we can both agree that this maniac would have evil intentions. I would defend myself with whatever I could. I would try my best not to kill the individual, I don't think I could deal with the trauma of taking another life, and let the law take care of the maniac. We have to remember we are dealing with 2 parties in a state of hostility. There is no way that evil can be avoided during this contention. To respond to your last point, "War against evil people like Hitler is the same thing, only on a larger scale.", again I will have to point out there are 2 sides to war and both view their opposing parties as evil. Also, when you have a ruler like Hitler, you have to think of who is following his orders. The Nazis, and the SS' Gestapo, are following the orders of an evil man. Therefore, all members following an evil party are performing actions that are intended for evil purposes, i.e. killing over 5,000,000 Jews. With each war there are many facts overlooked and many war crimes to be accounted for. And with war crimes involved with war, I will note that (3)crime is directly defined as an evil act. In my closing argument in this round I will agree that war is necessary to an extent. But, we can't argue that war is not evil. I will close this round with a quote(4) from Jimmy Carter "War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children." 1. http://www.bookmice.net... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 4. http://www.quotationspage.com...
Is War evil? Con is no, Pro if yes.

Even as your opponent, as must admit you have a strong defense for the subject. Now, I must clarify something. War is horrible, but not evil. Ask the families of all the Jews killed if war is horrible, and they'll obviously say yes. But ask them if USA was evil to come fight to protect them, and they'll say no. War is horrible, but evil? War can be used for evil purposes, but it can be used for good. If some maniac with a knife woke you up in the middle of the night, trying to kill you, you'd be a fool not to try to kill him. War against evil people like Hitler is the same thing, only on a larger scale. I eagerly await my opponents next arguement. Good luck.
Is War evil? Con is no, Pro if yes.

War has much evil to it's attachment. Within war itself, you are going to destroy or kill whether it be other people, properties, beliefs, or anything that stands in the way of accomplishing the main objective. Evil is defined(1) as (adj. ) causing ruin, injury, or pain. Also,(noun) that which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction. It may also be defined as something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction. War is defined(2) as a condition of active antagonism or contentions. Or, to be in a state of hostility or rivalry. I'm also going to stress the importance of hostility and hostile behavior. To be hostile is(3) to be unfavorable to health or well being. And is also described as feeling or showing enmity and ill-will. I present the idea you can not be hostile and not wish some form of pain, or destruction as a result. In any war-based scenario you will find some form of suffering, destruction, or injury. You can see the direct result of evil through the loss of innocent lives or any other collateral damage, not to mention casualties of soldiers and destruction of military property. War is usually not seen as evil from the heads of the attacking party. When waging war, there are 2 parties fighting for what they believe is right. Each party sees the opposing side as a force to be reckoned with. For example, we view the aforementioned terrorists as people who are out to cause harm to our society. Whereas they view us as a superpower running out of control that needs to be stopped. Both of these parties are looking to eradicate their opponents for what they believe in, or to be put plainly, they are seeking to cause evil(harm, injury, pain, destruction) for their benefit. I will also address some of my opponents viewpoints, they had mentioned, as well. ". .. we shouldn't be allowed to murder because war is legal. That makes sense only for those who want it to make sense. " I won't deny that killing is wrong and evil. However, I don't believe people are killing because we, as a country, incite war. If we could look at this in a different perspective for people. For example, a gang war is something that does happen, there may not be a country involved but there are 2 parties contending. Sometimes the result of death will occur over something that seems insignificant to an outsider. I will state that, to the general population, war is not the best example to use to solve problems. Therefore, other hostilities could be avoided to find a solution to a problem, and should be exercised entirely until it is absolutely necessary to start a "war". According to the definition of war alone, any altercation is a war to an extent. Within those altercations pain, injury, or ruin occurs. Whether it be physically to the person, to their property, or their beliefs/feelings. 1. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 3. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Is War evil? Con is no, Pro if yes.

War isn't evil. And we shouldn't be allowed to murder because war is legal. That makes sense only for those who want it to make sense. Just because we fought against terroists, should Billy Joe be allowed to blow somebody away for the fun of it? We would be in total anarchy! People would be killed left and right! War is horribl, but horribly, it is a neccessity to protect our freedoms. Thank you.
Dragonvillage is a better game than Minecraft.

I'll start by stating who I am and why I am here.I'm a 14-year-old South Korean who enjoys playing dragonvillage. I know that the game has been translated into English, so I also know that many people play this game in the US (NCSaint, Aquablast...etc) I also play Minecraft from time-to-time, but I think Dragonvillage is a better game in general. I knew that I had to start a debate to vote in a debate, so I thought, why not debate this issue?So, I'm arguing that the statement above is true.RULES1st round: acceptance only2nd round: Constructive arguments3rd round: Rebuttals4th round: Concluding arguments *Only accept this challenge if you are going to take this debate seriously.*Do not accept this debate challenge if you never played all the two games.*By accepting this challenge you agree to my rules 100%.*Finally, the argument max character count is 6000 characters- please make the arguments short and to-the-point.I look forward to this debate as it is my first debate that I started that really connects to me.