BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap BAtttlllleee

So i can tell you're a beginner cause your rap lines are so long It sounds to me you'd be better off singing a Disney channel song If you were Bob Barker than the Price is Wrong Im younger but i got you looking up at me like I'm King Kong A yo look this guy acting like he's all big a tough Cause he tried to rape his mom and she went to hard and to rough Tried to put him in a handcuff So he just said enough is enough Your names Dawg Face cause you uglier than hell Im a bad as* rapper but I guess you couldn't tell For dinner you cant find food so you eat a pack of gel Your probably writing these raps from a god dam cell From charges of crimes like steeling bras from Macys If you were to swing a bat you'd strike out like the mighty Casey My raps are tasty while yours are just pasty I walk around with shoes of suede while yours are all lacy You say your nothing but live Dawg you wouldn't be live if you were an active bee hive. Your so ugly looking you'd even make frankenstein come alive And he'd wake up before you even arive Id like to see you make in a city like mine where they rap like a speech We got Fort Lauderdale all the way down to south Beach And are cars are all lambos and would never ever screech And the homeless get ignored and they would just die for a peach Talk about my mom and dad like that is a disgrace their my own flesh While your mom stand on a corner wearing leggings made of mesh The raps that i have spit will make even Lil Weezy thresh But you just heard from the man himself, its FatBoyFresh
Rap BAtttlllleee

Your nicknames Diesel, you got it while you were alone./ Went hunting for you on Myspace , found a pic of Vaseline and hotdogs with a tag line that said, "Another Friday night at home."/Those rhymes you laid were dumber than strangling yourself with a cordless phone./ How does this muppet think he's gonna take the Kings throne?/I took this battle just to throw a nerd a bone./ You're just another hopeless teen that shoulda been aborted... on your own./ Yeah son, your rhymes got flow. They come once a month./ Dr. Suess said he never had kids, now I think I gotta hunch/He didn't wanna claim the retarded daughter from the Brady Bunch./ So now I gotta serve you AND take your lunch./ Must kill you that I don't even do this an you're still getting crushed./ Like when you popped out the womb and the doctor didn't spank your butt/ he gave you a gut punch/Rick James'd your mom and kicked your dad in the nuts./ The name's Dawg Face chump, I'm nothing but live./ I'll come to your nice burbs and get more respect than YOU in the 305./ Dang, now I think that was the line./ I'm gonna be responsible for your internet broadcast suicide./ "LOCAL BOY BULLIED TO DEATH", I can already see the headlines./ News stations will drop it when they find out it's you and nobodies tuning in at Nine./
Rap BAtttlllleee

alright, Ding the round begins, I'm the heavy weight CHAMP If my raps were wet, yours wouldn't even be DAMP Im a miami boy representing 305 You'll be loosing to a kid who can't even DRIVE My nickname is diesel and it's because my raps are highly FIERY Your so feminine you probably write your raps in a DIARY Busting out rhymes, to me, is a MUST Im hotter than the core your not even the CRUST I think its about that TIME to bust out a RHYME and murder you with every single type of CRIME Im a lil overweight and i consider myself a CANNIBAL Instead of studying id rather drink a case of DANIMALS You said to keep it clean so that's what I'm going to DO But you probably never thought a kid could rap like this, who KNEW Im out trying to make a name so i could make a good LIVING And give my whole family a good meal like THANKSGIVING Im a white rapper, out numbered and CONFUSED Your probably beat up, tired and ABUSED Im keeping the lyrics on the down LOW Its amazing how much like a river my raps FLOW Best dam rapper even with out an AFRO
Dinner Party Debate

Dinner Party B 1. Ellen DeGeneres 2. Seth MacFarlane 3. Amy Schumer 4. Jimmy Fallon 5. Megan Fox Dinner Party C 1. Cleopatra 2. Voltairine de Cleyre 3. Anne Boelyn 4. Marilyn Monroe 5. Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dinner Party D 1. Stephen Hawking 2. Barack Obama 3. Elon Musk 4. Steven Pinker 5. Noam Chomsky I look forward to your final guest list.
Dinner Party Debate

Here are my choices. A. For our first dinner party, we are only allowed to invite any 5 people that are dead. (They magically... come back to life for the evening, unscathed by the facets of death.) 1. George Carlin 2. Freddie Mercury 3. Charles Darwin 4. James Madison 5. Mahatma Gandhi B. For our second dinner party, we are allowed to invite 5 musicians/actors that are alive. 1. Gerard Way 2. Brian May 3. Joseph Gordon Levitt 4. Neil Patrick Harris 5. Mary Lambert C. For our third dinner party, we must invite any 5 women, dead or alive. 1. Janis Joplin 2. Joan of Arc 3. Marie Antoinette 4. Princess Diana 5. Julie Andrews Thank you. I look forward to my opponent's choices. So long and goodnight!
Dinner Party Debate

Let's imagine that we are friendemies (a person with whom one is friendly despite a fundamental dislike or rivalry). Both of us have somehow acquired the ability to invite anyone from the following categories to attend our dinner parties, and anyone we invite will attend. We brag to each other about which of us can host the best gatherings, and I mention that it is the company we keep that account for the best get-togethers. You agree, and insist that over the next month, you will host the 4 most interesting dinner parties. Nay nay, I say. Indeed my guests over the next month will be the most fun and insightful; the mixed company I keep will undoubtedly make for the most profound evenings. Thus we decide to compete. ==RulesA. For our first dinner party, we are only allowed to invite any 5 people that are dead. (They magically. .. come back to life for the evening, unscathed by the facets of death. ) B. For our second dinner party, we are allowed to invite 5 musicians/actors that are alive. C. For our third dinner party, we must invite any 5 women, dead or alive. D. For our last dinner party, we must invite any 5 living people that are not musicians/actors. The goal is to host dinner parties that are awesome for whatever reason. We will be responsible for explaining why they are awesome. We should assume that the parties are hosted in the same type of environment around a dinner table. The food, music, and anything other than the guests (at this 2-6 hour dinner) are mostly irrelevant. ==Round 1 is for acceptance. In Round 2, I will select my A) guests first. You cannot choose the same people I do. In Round 2, you will select your A) guests and your B) and C) guests. In Round 3, I will select my B) and C) dinner guests; I cannot duplicate your choices. I will also choose my D) dinner guests first. In Round 3, you will choose your D) dinner guests. In Round 4, I will start my arguments on why my 4 dinner party guest list is superior. I will explain why each of my 4 parties trump yours. You will do the same in R4. I will continue my arguments and conclude in R5; so will my opponent.
this example of people rising from the dead n the bible is probably an embellishment or false

con just asked a bunch of irrelevant questions and made irrelevant points, just made some blank assertions. we dont have any reason to think someone's journal would be tampered with. but that claim was never made. to look at the supernatural things jesus did isn't looking at this verse in particular. where is the historical record of people rising from the dead? and the supernatural things you mention are only backed by teh bible itself anyways, not historical record.
this example of people rising from the dead n the bible is probably an embellishment or false

I accept this intriguing subject of a debate. I challenge you, my opponent, firstly why we would question the miracles the Bible says Jesus performed for other (dead) people, when probably the most significant event in the whole Book is when Jesus himself died and rose again--or is this what we are debating? Second, why would anyone want to change the stories recorded in someone's journal? [1] The case for Christ started when people began noticing how odd Jesus was in His life on earth and how He did "supernatural" things (like heal people and raise them from the dead). He did this to show His power, his authority as God, and--my opinion--His love for us. If Jesus really is the Messiah and the all-mighty God who created everything/one, why would His miracles on earth be so astounding? We can look at all the evidence for Creation(ism) and know that it is not to be taken lightly, nor is it fabrication. [2], [3] Next round I will confront my opponent's thoughts on why some miracles in the Bible are fake. As for this round, I didn't know what exactly we were focusing on so I will await what DG says next. SOURCES [1] http://coldcasechristianity.com... [2] http://www.bible.ca.... [3] http://www.reclaimingthemind.org...
this example of people rising from the dead n the bible is probably an embellishment or false

this example of people rising from the dead in the bible is probably an embellishment or false 51 When Jesus died, the curtain in the Temple was torn into two pieces. The tear started at the top and tore all the way to the bottom. Also, the earth shook and rocks were broken. 52 The graves opened, and many of God"s people who had died were raised from death. 53 They came out of the graves. And after Jesus was raised from death, they went into the holy city, and many people saw them. -Matthew 27:51 Aside from Jesus healing people, this appears to me as the biggest supernatural event in the Gospel: Other people rising from the dead, out of graves! The fact this story is only mentioned in one of the gospels (and incredibly briefly at that) is interesting. More interesting, perhaps, is that we have a range of non-Biblical records from a similar time, and this event is not recorded. Frankly, it would have been. Corpses stumbling through the streets is not something that people idly dismiss. Even for the people not all that interested in "yet another prophet", but just wanted to eke out their existence - this would have been a huge event. I know this won't be popular, but it seems the most likely explanation is that this was an embellishment, perhaps intended to resonate with a particular audience, but equally perhaps just accidentally added during the oral tradition (IIRC the gospel of Matthew is usually dated between 40 and 70 years after these events). The problem, though, is that it is not kosher to suggest/acknowledge this view, because it raises the ugly question: "if that bit is an embellishment, what else is?", and throws the "divine inspired" into chaos. But: I know plenty of Christians who raise an eyebrow at this part of Matthew, particularly because it is so throwaway.
Xbox one has the better exclusive games than PlayStation 4

While it is impossible to decide which games are best by game-play, as it all comes down to personal opinion. We can look at this from a technical standpoint. As far as I know, The MCC was an abysmal for its extremely buggy launch. Also Titanfall and Dead Rising 3 are on PC, so they do not count as exclusives. The PS4's (as far as I know) hasn't had any buggy launches, or exclusives, that became multi-platform.
Xbox one has the better exclusive games than PlayStation 4

I agree with you, but this entire debate was suppose to be both of us making claims and saying why you think your claim is correct, so let me begin, let's look at some exclusive game titles that have already came out as well as some that are coming out. Halo the master chief collection, Titanfall, halo 5 guardians, gears of war 4, sunset overdrive, forza horizon 2, dead rising 3, forza motorsport 5, and much more. Let's look at some exclusive games that are out for ps4 already, and and some that are coming out. Uncharted 4, infamous second son, the last of us, fallout 4, and much more. Even though these ps4 titles are excellent, these games for Xbox have defined the Xbox one. Let's look at a quote that Microsoft says on the Xbox homepage, "Xbox one was built by gamers, for gamers, with the best exclusive titles and all the biggest blockbusters you want to play." This proves that the Xbox one has the better exclusive games than the PlayStation 4 does.
Xbox one has the better exclusive games than PlayStation 4

Didn't have to bring PC into this but I was making a point. Exclusives don't matter. Whether someone want s to play Halo, God of War, Smash Bros, Pokemon, inFAMOUS, or Gears of War, it all comes down to personal opinion. Some people want to play Halo, some people want to play God of War, it doesn't matter, there's no such thing as a "best exclusive".
The Current Pledge of Allegiance is Unconstitutional.

For my final round I will address the main points. These 2 voting issues are from the Neg. side of the flow. 1) Purpose From what I have clearly proven; the "Under God" Clause encompasses all religions. That was the purpose. My opponent keeps on repeating that there are other religions without deities. A religion means you believe in a higher power. That higher power can be claimed as a god. "Under God", includes all major deities. Furthermore, my opponent has failed to bring up any denomination that doesn't have a main deity. His attack is unwarranted. Make this the first voting issue. 2)Mainitaing Judicial Conssitency He has dropped this point in his last round. Extend my reasons from the 2nd round. This is the 2nd voting issue. 3)"The reason why the current Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional is due to the insertion of "under God". Such a phrase is an imposition of monotheism, and excludes polytheism, deism, and nonreligion. I have shown that atheists are relevant to the Establishment Clause in my arguments that have been stated." --> I have clearly proven this to be false. Reasons listed above. Essentially my opponent has an unwarranted case. He doesn't actually prove anything by his statements. They are merely assertions. For that reason, this is my 3 voting issue. Lack of warranted evidence to uphold the affirmative burden. for these reasons I urge a negation.
The Current Pledge of Allegiance is Unconstitutional.

Freedom of religion and Freedom from religion are two sides of the same coin. Religious liberty must simultaneously protect both the right to be religious and the right not to be religious at all. When applied to politics, this means that we are to be free from any government imposition of religion. So when the it says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, this also means that Congress shall make no law that will impose a certain religion upon others. In the case of the Pledge of Allegiance, it is imposing monotheism upon all the others who are not. For the sake of argument, let's suppose that what my opponent said was the intention of the inclusion of "Under God" was true. However, my opponent fails to realize that their are many other minority religions without a deity or with numerous deities. Thus, the phrase "Under God" cannot compensate for the other denominations. "From what the 1st Amendment claims, you are protected if you have a religion." ---No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.--- => This excerpt from the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom clearly show's how the wall of separation is intended. The Establishment Clause applies to religious folks and atheists. Five of the eight voiced no opinion as to the validity of the suit but instead ruled only on standing. "Again, my opponent hasn't truly read what I written. The secular purpose is to show that the US is indeed a place of religious freedom. The government is making a stamp that this is a haven for religious tolerance. This goes against the teachings of communism, forced upon members of societies brought down with a fist against religion." The government is making a stamp that this is a haven for religious tolerance...by endorsing religion over the preferences of nonreligious people? Hardly what I would call religious tolerance. It shows an obviously favoring side to monotheism, not every religion such as polytheism. I have also shown that the Establishment Clause is relevant to nonreligious people, and thus this means that the Pledge of Allegiance endorses monotheism while not polytheism and atheists/agnostics. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The reason why the current Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional is due to the insertion of "under God". Such a phrase is an imposition of monotheism, and excludes polytheism, deism, and nonreligion. I have shown that atheists are relevant to the Establishment Clause in my arguments that have been stated.
The Current Pledge of Allegiance is Unconstitutional.

Refutation to Contention 1: During the 1950s matters worsened as people became more and more afraid of the communists. Many people were persecuted, denied work, and even jailed for no other reason but that they allegedly had Communist leanings. In an effort to link national unity with opposition to "godless communism," the Knights of Columbus ("Strong Right Arm of the Church") campaigned to have the words "under God" added to the Pledge. For awhile, the Knights of Columbus couldn't get their revision of the Pledge to come through, until during a speech in June 1954, was President Dwight Eisenhower present and eventually convinced. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. The word's "under God" create a conflict with atheists/agnostics/etc. Anyone who does not profess a monotheistic religion are obviously not addressed under this term. What if the pledge put "under Allah" or "under Brahma"? There would be a religious uproar amongst the Christian and other religious denominations across the country. Yet this phrase is so blatantly endorsing any monotheistic religion and not those who are not monotheistic. Refutation to Contention 2: Everyone knows of the famous case brought by the atheist Michael Newdow. He challenged the court that the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional in its endorsement of monotheistic religions. It passed in the 9th Circuit Court, but the Supreme Court struck this down because Michael Newdow was not the custodial parent of his 2nd grade daughter. This obviously doesn't address the merit of whether or not the Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional or not, they just dodged the bullet. The political principle of separation of church and state obviously conflict with the phrase "under God", as it is clearly endorsing monotheism. "Since the Supreme Court has claimed it constitutional, we must remain consistent within judicial limits. " The court has never squarly addressed the subject yet. As I've said, the closest was the Michael Newdow case, during which they did not address the constitutional question raised by the case. "As I have brought up in my contention I, the purpose of the clause was to encompass all religions, not just one. It does not support any specific religion at all. Just because my opponent may think ti does, does not make that an inherent truth. Furthermore, it claims "with no identifiable secular purpose." As was the foremost reason: To make a distinction between us and the USSR and any other Communist, who were atheist. The secular purpose was, to uphold religious freedom, and to show the international community that the US is indeed a nation that has all religions. It does not support just one, and it is not an atheist country, like those of communism." What could the indentifiable secular purpose be of endorsing monotheistic religions against the views of nonreligious/polytheistic/deistic denominations?
The Current Pledge of Allegiance is Unconstitutional.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Unconstitutional unï¿½conï¿½stiï¿½tuï¿½tionï¿½al –adjective not constitutional; unauthorized by or inconsistent with the constitution, as of a country. http://dictionary.reference.com... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As is evident, I am arguing that the Pledge of Allegiance of the United States of America is unconstitutional in it's sanctioning of a religion. I contend that this is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The particular part I point out as unconstitutional is the induction of the two bittersweet words, "under God". For a nation to be brought up on secular foundations, a step forward will be to remove this phrase. I would now leave it up to my opponent to give me arguments of why this phrase is constitutional. I look forward to this debate :D
Should kids be able to drive under the age of 18

This is topic is mostly one sided towards the pro . Anyways i shall fight and win this debate hopefully. Now listen i think that children may be allowed to drive under the age of 18 . don't take this statement in the wrong way, I'm not talking about 12 year old taking their dads bmw around town with friends, I'm talking about slightly older people. I feel children under the age of 16 children shouldn't drive.
Should kids be able to drive under the age of 18

Kids under the age of 18 should not be able to drive. They cause a lot of deaths for them selves and their friends. They often text and drive. They drink and drive. They go out and party then drive home and crash into a telephone pole. These kids are either seriously hert and killed. The kids these days all they want to do is be on their phones and be able to talk to their friends. Yeah i get that they can have fun and go to the grocery store but they don't always go where they say their going. They could go to their friends house then go to the grocery store. In that length of time they could have gotten in a wreck and you wouldn't even have know in.
American Citizens Should Have Their Firearms Removed

You said that you would only take the guns of the people if they are, Essentially, Unfit to own firearms. This completely contradicts what you said in the poll about guns being bad. Plus, You accepted to be the affirmative speaker in this debate, So you have to prove that American citizens' firearms should be taken away. If you cannot do this, You have lost this debate. Your side of this debate is to prove that the people's firearms should be taken away. Please begin offering evidence to support this idea. back to you!
American Citizens Should Have Their Firearms Removed

Presently American citizens can have their private fire arms confiscatted if they commit a felony or become mentally incompetant, I would not under any circumstances confiscate fire arms from law abiding citizens, Unless they failed to be licensed and register all fire arms if they failed to register all fire arms especially semi automatic rifles and handguns which would be regulated more strictly that they presently are, Then and only then would they have them removed. . As long as people follow the new rules they will be okay
American Citizens Should Have Their Firearms Removed

To remove the citizen's firearms is to remove their method of self-defense. A common saying goes "If you outlaw guns, Only outlaws will have guns. " I want my opponent to prove that GUNS are the problem and not just the insane people using them; I want my opponent to prove that taking guns will solve the problem; and I want my opponent to prove that the government has a Constitutional right to take the guns from citizens. Please be respectful, And good luck to my opponent! -Eugenious