BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Eminem (pro) VS Kanye West (con) Rap battle

Your losing the race with your slow @ss pace I only get hornier when you spray my face with mace You're still stuck on the VMAs from 2009 You're putting me to sleep, better grab another line I'm a certified necrophiliac homosexual pedophile I'm not in denial- my little girl really is a f*ckin child Your premise about always getting 10s is really a basic fallacy That I could disprove publicly because in all actuality All I'd have to do is give you a review That was less or more than ten like say 11 or 2 And now your entire rap structure is baseless and completely invalid Somebody toss me the ranch so this boy can toss my salad #VOTEKAN
Eminem (pro) VS Kanye West (con) Rap battle

Oh yeah?? Well your raps like a 3/10 I'm better than you cuz I'm black, Eminem North West may be whack but since opposites attract And you challenge me to battle you'll be headed South East in rap You can't be Eminem with that sh*tty vocabulary Get offline and take your @ss down to the library Open a book learn to read then how to rap You think that you're the $hit but man, really you're just crap. *Outro* Yeah yeah, and world doesn't rhyme with gold...
The Star Wars Prequels were significantly inferior to the Star Wars original trilogy

You say your arguments aren't emotional but you continue to make points starting off with "I felt" the movie wasn't done poorly for the role they were made for. They were made to show us the genius that was palpatine who was the mastermind behind everything. Turning anakin to the dark side to create his loyal warrior, manipulating him as a kid. I disagree that the point of a protagonist is supposed to be someone that we can relate to. You see it all the time, can you relate to James bonds? He always gets the ladies, can you relate to Thor? Tony stark? You don't have to be able to relate to every part of the protagonist, anakin has his moment, his Jedi path or the love of his life. Love makes people do crazy things. Again I told you why qui-gon and obi-wan tried to show little emotions, we got to see what's it's like to be a Jedi, and that's to be detached from emotions, Lucas wanted to make us think and question, do we want to be an emotionless Jedi? Or have the freedom of a sith? Before the prequel most people wanted to be Jedi's cause they are the good guys, but now everyone second guessed themselves. Maybe a sith isn't so bad. Because of this it brought us so many wonderful games and an expanded universe, you can't be inferior if tv show spinoffs were inspired by your movies. Again with the battles you are to emotional about it. You want there to be relatability because you want it to be like the original trilogy when it's set up to be nothing like it. The battles weren't like WW2 because it wasn't so 1 sided. In fact it was prett even until butler attacked Russia and we had the advantage. Duels: if there was 1 million dollars in a safe but I owned all the worlds wealth, it would be pointless to continue to try to continue breaking it. Vader and Palpatine already had all the power they needed with the deathstar, it was just a greed that didn't make sense. just because Their attempt to turn Luke was almost successful doesn't mean it was. Because obviously they died. If they were successful Luke would turned and they'd continue ruling the galaxy. The plot of the prequels was to show us more of the universe, what its really like to be a Jedi, and have a unique ending that most films don't do, and that's having the bad guy win. Closing: just because there is no relatability to the protagonist does not make it an inferior movie. The nostalgia goggles, and the fact it was completely different from the original trilogy is what blinded people from the diamond in the rough. The prequels were good and they did their job. It taught us more about the starwars universe, it made us think, it made us choose sides, Jedi vs Sith which would you prefer? It kept the universe alive by bein so controversial. one of the few stories where the bad guys wins.
The Star Wars Prequels were significantly inferior to the Star Wars original trilogy

My opening statement is going to start off with the plot. Plot: George Lucas wanted to tell a different story In a different. The main difference was the ERA the prequels started out in a time of peace while the original started out in an oppressive state. The original was a constant adventure cause our heroes were being hunted down. The heroes here got to relax a bit more. Okay now that, that is out of the way, I can say the plot is closer to lord of the rings. LOTR our heroes set off on a journey to mordor, but much like the prequels they try to warn other nations of the imminent danger, ones being the sith the other sauron, now either nations didn't take them seriously or they just didn't care. Which were those nations downfall. The Story telling was different we got to see more of the universe as well as learn more about the force and their abilities, we got to see what the big deal actually was and the threat a force user possessed. This brings me to the battles Battles: The battles were actually better, we really got to see what it was like to fight as an actual Jedi, they ran faster, is jumped higher, they accomplished feats on the battlefields that would be close to impossible for a Normal person. We get to see the bad a** that was yoda. You could say the original focused on spaceship battles where as the original focused on force duels. The force duels in the original was more of a joke. Darth Vader who's supposed to be the number two can't even kill a guy who's barely learning about the force. It's like a Paige being on par with the black knight. Then we get to palpatines dearh, palpatine who's supposed to be the strongest force user in the galaxy gets picked up by Vader and tossed over a guard rail. He couldn't like say? Force choke or force break his arm before getting tossed. You're supposed to be able to pull down an entire starfleet with the force yet you get tossed over the rail? Even if Vader prevented it with his own force he should have been able to survive that fall with the force. Characters and writing would be a matter of personal opinion, like we can all agree jar jar was a bs character. You also give quotes on writing but don't give any context, The only one I can refer 2 is number two which shows how wreckless anakin can be. Summary/closing The main issue with the prequels isn't that it's supposed to be a space adventure movie like the original trilogy. It's the fact episodes 4-6 came out first so everyone knew who would survive. The prequels was the telling of legends while the original was the showing of an adventure. Lucas didn't rush he knew exactly what he was doing. Except for jar jar
The Star Wars Prequels were significantly inferior to the Star Wars original trilogy

It's been a good debate but I'm gonna make my closing as brief as possible. I'll start off with my main point. Just because a movie is different from your expectations does not make it Significantly inferior. The Luke conversion was forced to keep the story going. Again there is no point in trying to convert someone when you have all the power in the galaxy without him already nothing will change. Now if Vader was trying to secretly convert him to overthrow palpatine that would have made for an even better story. As palpatine constantly spies on Vader to show that the Siths always betray each other. People have also related to anakin even though it's not right away. We see he is able to love and risk everything for love. Who hasn't? Again the emotionless Jedi's were on purpose it's not that they should be relatable but to make us think. Are Jedi's really all that good if they are so emotionally detached? While the sith played the role of expressing emotions. The original showed Luke struggling between sith and Jedi, however he doesn't truly become a true because he doesn't Toss away his entire emotions. He is closer to a gray Jedi just. You say the writing is inferior but I believe it is superior. It's not obvious and in your face like the original trilogy was however it was more subtle with hidden meanings, more poetic. And to be able to pick up the hidden meaning means you are looking at more than just the big picture. Analyze the Jedi's and sith in the prequels and you see that neither is good. The Jedi's were extreme on one end and so were the sith. There was no balance even with the Jedi's in control
Rap battle

Can't deliver a good rap, can't handle any dramaYou ask me about a kiss when your last was from your mommaI write alone, I stand alone, still hold my own, no holding of the pastMy last song is nowhere close to this contrary to yours you will not lastYou tried to attack my love life, didn't work out so wellNow that its my turn your @$$ will get sent straight to hell But we must not forget this is a battle of rapLets analyze and break down yours to see how you phrase all that crap You gave absolutely nothing, not a rap but a poemThe girls I miss, the girls I kill, no knife or gun just flow andMy expert lyricism, better shjt compared to youI flow with the waves, you gave in with the caves I swish and you're kebab as you let me throughSorry for the fast pace, makes me a little less obviousWhich beat I'm rapping to but that is simply not justThe problem 'cos the moment you say my shjt aloudYou can't realize the power will not just draw a crowdThrough a pen and canvas, crumple the piece of paper!Throw it to the rubbish bin like it's not my little saviour No defenses, I throw easily as I'd do it to youHow long have you been rapping, I already knew that you're new.
I am God and you can't prove that I am not God

The proof is in the pudding my friends, I have cleverly lead my opponent into a logical trap that disproves his claimed divinity. First however I would like to apologise for forfeiting the previous round, I was unable to post arguments, as evidenced by my similar gaff on another debate. In any case, the trap. In the previous (proper) round I stated that God has no form, while my opponent refuted another part of that point, he did not refute the basic premise that God has no form, therefore the argument is accepted. Secondly, throughout the debate I have referred to my opponent as 'him' including in my arguments, he as not contested this and therefore has accepted this to be true. My opponent has given himself form and gender and therefore has been proven through his own folly, that he is god. He is not God Because I am God.
I am God and you can't prove that I am not God

Con says "Clearly the Pro has lost the debate, by not striking me with lightning, he could have made it not cause me pain and thereby quelled his qualms. This inability to exact even the smallest form of righteous justice would clearly indicate that he is not God." I spare his life, you would think he would show some gratitude. Con says "Another feature of God that I have forgotten to mention is that he has no form. Clearly in order to type letters on a keyboard one must posses form, therefore my opponent is not, and cannot be God" I created the heavens and the earth, you don't think I can make a post on a debate site ? Con says "As we can see from his refusal to answer my simple queries, my opponent is chicken. Ask yourself, dear responder, would a being with command over heaven and earth really be chicken? I think not." I am God, you answer to me, I don't answer to you. Con has not proved that I am not God. I am God
I am God and you can't prove that I am not God

Clearly the Pro has lost the debate, by not striking me with lightning, he could have made it not cause me pain and thereby quelled his qualms. This inability to exact even the smallest form of righteous justice would clearly indicate that he is not God. Another feature of God that I have forgotten to mention is that he has no form. Clearly in order to type letters on a keyboard one must posses form, therefore my opponent is not, and cannot be God. As we can see from his refusal to answer my simple queries, my opponent is chicken. Ask yourself, dear responder, would a being with command over heaven and earth really be chicken? I think not. Brrrk. Brrrrk. Brrrk... I mean... I look forward to my opponents further attempts to prove his clearly fake divinity.
I am God and you can't prove that I am not God

Con says - "My opponents opening argument only holds if he is indeed God" How dare you question my word Con says - "If my opponent did indeed create the world then he should be able to answer a few simple questions about it." It is written "Do not put the LORD your God to the test as you did at Massah." Deuteronomy 6:16 Con asks "4- Why is Justin Bieber famous?" Just know that one day all evil will be destroyed from the earth As far as Con striking him with lighting, I was going to do it, but decided out of the goodness of my own mercy not too. I am a forgiving God I am God
I am God and you can't prove that I am not God

My opponents opening argument only holds if he is indeed God, and is therefore more of a resolution than argument and should be discounted. Because my opponent as not used the term 'a God' we must assume he is referring to the Christian or other Semitic interpretation meaning of God as they are the only religions that uses 'God' as a pronoun. Therefore he is arguing that he is the Supreme Being. This means that my opponent must be 1) The creator of the world 2) Omnipotent and Omnipresent 1) The creator of the world If my opponent did indeed create the world then he should be able to answer a few simple questions about it. 1- Why aren't all Humans imbued with the powers of flight? 2- Why did my puppy die? 3- What is the average speed of an unladen swallow? 4- Why is Justin Bieber famous? 5- Why does EPO exist? 6- What did grass evolve from? 2) Omnipotent and Omnipresent In order to prove that my opponent is not Omnipotent and Omnipresent I have devised another small test. If I am not struck by lightening at 12:31 PM on the 31st of November, my opponent is not omnipresent and therefore cannot be God, thereby granting my victory in this debate. I am granting my opponent an exception from his normal commitment to benevolence and kindness. If it helps I'm wearing multiple fabrics most of the time so you're within your rights to do it anyway. I look forward to my electrification, or victory.
I am God and you can't prove that I am not God

Note* No I don't think I am really God, this is an exercise in argumentation, logic and hopefully provide some entertainment Rules: You can't use my previous note as an argument/evidence against me, if you break this rule I win In order for my opponent to win this debate they must prove that I am not God If my opponent fails to prove that I am not God I win My opening argument 1) God can not lie 2) I say I am God 3) Therefore I must be God
I am God and you can't prove that I am not God

Con says "I have referred to my opponent as 'him' including in my arguments, he as not contested this and therefore has accepted this to be true" Con doesn't seem to understand that silence does not equate with acceptance and or agreement. My opponent has not being able to prove that I am not God, only giving even more reason to believe that I am God, and now in a desperate attempt, Con now claims Con is God, what BLASPHEMY ! !! Seriously who are you going to believe, Me God, or some one on the Internet. Has Con proved that I am not God ? You know what you have to do. .. .. .. .. .
Rock music vs country

I shall be arguing that Country music is better than Rock music. My opponent's argumentMy opponent argues that Rock music is better, claiming:"Rock music is soothing (usually) and people especially teens can relate more to it. Bands today are younger adults and teens attempting to express themselves, while country is more about things such as drinking, sex, mad partying. . Rock however focuses on more serious things as suicide and bullying. "To begin with, let's deconstruct Pro's arguments. Simply because certain music may be easy to relate to, it does not follow that the music is "good" or is a positive influence on people. People who want to kill others may often listen to Eminem, or other agressive rap music that talks about acts of violence, but we wouldn't necessarily consider this a positive influence on people. If a person is suicidal or being bullied, it may not be good for them to dwell on these facts. On the contrary, it may be better for them to stop self-pitying themselves, and wallowing in their own misery. Furthermore, while Country music may very well make direct references to drinking and partying, this does not dictate the entire genre of Country music. Finally, Pro seems to think that Country music often explicitly talks about sex; this is unfounded. While Country music may indirectly refer to sex, it is usually not explicitly done (with a few exceptions). Country-an overall wholesome messageI think that Country music has a more positive affect on the listeners. It glorifies hard work, family life, and patriotism. Let's examine a few of the lyrics of popular country songs. .. Hey Pretty Girl - Kip Moore . http://www.youtube.com... "Hey pretty girl, wanna take you homeMy momma's gonna love youShe'll make me sleep on the couch, I knowHey pretty girl, wanna take you home. .. Hey pretty girl, when I see the lightAnd it's my time to goI'm gonna thank the Lord for a real good lifeA pretty little girl and a beautiful wife" [1] These lyrics and the peaceful melody cleary disagree with Pro's blatant mischaracterization of Country music. Furthermore, Country music is also very patriotic. Many times it demonstrates a love for one's country, and a willingness to sarcifice oneself. American Soldier-Keith Urban"And I will always do my duty, no matter what the price. I've counted up the cost, I know the sacrifice. Oh, and I don't want to die for you,But if dying's asked of me,I'll bear that cross with honor,'Cause freedom don't come free. I'm an American soldier" [2]Finally. .. In conclusion, I would like to ask a question: How many times have you heard drugs referenced in Rock music? Now how often have you heard drugs referenced in a country song? Sources[1] . http://www.azlyrics.com...;[2] . http://www.azlyrics.com...;
Energy drinks should be regulated as drugs by the Food and Drug Administration.

Second round is constructive only (no rebuttals). Third round is constructive and rebuttals. Fourth round is rebuttals only (no new arguments). Fifth round is summary and impact weighing. Please keep content organized, appropriate, and respectful. Use correct grammar and spelling. Ad hominem will not be tolerated. A forfeit means a win for the other side. I will define in the second round and set up framework. Thanks, and good luck! -Lulu P. S. Feel free to leave constructive criticism in the comments. Voters, give reasons for your decision.
Anyone who uses this site has no life.

Terribly sorry. Let me continue. "If someone was not in the possession of a life they would be dead..." Wrong. You, sir, are jumping to conclusions. Just because someone doesn't have a life, it doesn't mean they are dead! Good lord, what are they teaching you kids these days? My dear uncle, to his misfortune, misplaced his life just the other day, the loony old man. Told me, "I dropped it out the winder when I's was drivin." Fortunately, he was rushed to the hospital and they were able to find him a new life before his poor old heart gave out. "Dead people cannot use Debate.org to debate." Once again mister, jumping to conclusions! Am I sensing a pattern here? Of course you can use it while you're dead! S' matter of fact, my ol' Grandpap Jimmy's dead right now, he's typing away on this site! "Anyone who uses this site has no life." (my statement) Whilst all of you are reading this, I am actually sneaking into your houses, reaching into your pockets, and grabbing your lives. By the time you turn around, I will be gone, and I will have made off with all of your lives. Now you are using this site, and none of you have lives anymore, so my statement proves to be true. Case Closed.
Anyone who uses this site has no life.

I'm going to start this off since my opponent said nothing about who gets to start so I'll let that be me.Let's break down his resolution:Anyone - Any person or peopleuse - to utilize something and its function (i.e debate.org to debate)this site - debate.orghas - to be in possession of somethingno - a negativelife - the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body [1] Now the resolution reads as this:Any person who utilizes the function of debate.org is not in the possession of lifeMy argument:Anyone who is using this site must be alive and therefore has life. If someone was not in the possession of life they would then be dead and dead people cannot use Debate.org to debate. Therefore the resolution is clearly false.Vote Con. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
Is another revolutionary war about to occur in the United States

The answer, of course, is yes. But why do I believe this? Because history repeats itself, and that is exactly what is going on today as we speak. Let me explain further. You see, in 1775, Great Britain decided to implement a thing called the Stamp Act, which many Americans at the time consider it to be unconstitutional. This feeling was also fueled by the fact that they, the Americans, felt as if they were already paying their fair share of taxes and enough was enough. This as you may know eventually lead to the American Revolution. With that said, take look at what has been happing more and more over the last few years. If you said more and more taxation without true representation, then you have it right. But, hold on a second sir. You said without true representation. We have true representation, don't we? But do we? Do you really feel that the government has been a true representing us, and I'm not just talking about our economical situation. Really think about that. I don't think so. In fact, it seems as if our government has become an entity of its own, feeling that it no longer needs to listen to us at all. In any case, I believe that too much taxation without true representation, coupled with a government that wishes to control the populous instead of work for it or with it, is indeed an act that will lead to civil unrest followed by another American Revolution if left unresolved.