BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap Battle

I'm not sure how to start this blasted craziness, or shall I say wretchedness with bull Mikal here's jist trying to keep thinkin up words, why, he looks like he got no soul He forgot to take off work from vacation to play this super rap battle of a bowl "Oops, does this count?" Mikal done ax as e'ryone pities his heart-felt yet awful goal The only reason you get A's in battles is cuz ya momma's making sure the voters are gettin laid You won some gals over but inside you all clich" and child's play while I'm from the movie MADE I like those rules you posted, I hope it makes you work so when the voters vote I'll be rightly paid Lookin at you pictures it clearly looks like your thoughts are vile an' you skin is so ugly it's decayed [1] Roses are red, violets are blue, dandelions make you sneeze so what do ya think I'll do to you? So many choices in this world for a career but all you good at is taxi driving slew and makin stew People try to have fun wit you, ask 'knock knock' you say 'boo who' without even hinting the clue Man I never met a person so slow, you as bad as Manuel Uribe, and to rapping you like infant new [2] Manhatten keeps on making it, Brooklyn keeps on taking it ... Bronx keeps creating it, you keep on faking it Don't let bad words slip, don't throw a noob fit, cuz you're sad gf is a virgin spiff and on her you try but fail to hit You my friend have had twenty nine rap battles, all non-original remixes with no rhyme, talent, or gift to play on E'ryone mark the date for when a girl beats Mikal graceful as a swan - did y'all know he's a member of the Klu Klux Klan? My opponent's trying to present words on paper written by an atheist rapper then calling it art Man, this guy thinks he knows his life meaning yet he's in a play and he don't know his role or part It don't seem like he knows how to play since every time I've seen him he's stern as Sternest Brown My sword is what I kill you with after you get stuck in your cheesy lines, this is when I claim the crown. I know Christians who wimp out when they see your name, just like the Philistine army and Goliath That means I'm David, and I'll win cuz I got God in my side, this'll make me look like the Behemoth! Please listen to me dudes and dudettes everywhere, my mouth is big and this is bout to get harsh Nothin can stop me I'm wearing all white like an angel too bright for Satan but you've always been Goth. 1: [http://www.debate.org...] 2: [http://time.com...]
Tracy Mc Grady is the biggest waste of money in the NBA

Like I said before Tracy Mcgrady takes up too much of the Rockets Salary room by not performing. He missed half the season last year and hes going miss half this year and still his 40-43million dollar contract is still guaranteed to him. He is a waste of money. This is not what the Rockets were expecting when they made this deal with him. My opponent in the first round said that McGrady is getting help so that he can reach his potential and be a sound investment when he returns. First of all Mcgrady even IF Mcgrady makes a recovery from this injury it still doesn't take away the fact that he got paid for 3 years for sitting on the bench. IF Mcgrady's contract was not expiring this year and even if he chooses to sign back with the rockets and vice versa. The Rockets will never get that 60 somewhat million back from his 3 years of non performance after that extension was made, but worse they would have to give him an entirely new contract so in anyway you can possibly view this scenario Rockets lose 40million from a man who is too much of a sissy to play with his injury. I am not being harsh their have been many cases where players play with injuries. Its not even an injury anymore its a healing process that takes him months to recover from. Example: Gale Sayers came back right after his knee surgery. Football is a lot more intense than basketball where there are people intentionally trying to break your body. If Tracy Mcgrady is not playing not doing his job and STILL getting paid he is obviously wasting the Rockets money. Its like if you paid me 20 bucks to mow your lawn, we shook hands, you handed me the money and I took a dump on your lawn and left your house. You just lost 20 bucks and your going to either have to mow the lawn yourself or find a new person to mow it. This scenario is a scam and the person getting scammed obviously was not thinking clearly when paying me. Tracy Mcgrady takes a dump on the Rockets every time he goes to a rockets game FOR FREE, Sits on the bench as he enjoys not having to do anything on the Rockets dime. Pictures of a man apparently worth 60million dollars. . http://sports.yahoo.com... This man looks hurt he can barely walk. .. . http://sports.yahoo.com...
Tracy Mc Grady is the biggest waste of money in the NBA

The term waste is defined by google as "spend thoughtlessly; throw away" The Rockets investment on Tracy Mcgrady can be perfectly defined in this way. They clearly were not thinking long and hard when they signed McGrady or had any idea that his injuries would set him back for so long. Let's be real here who would pay anybody 20million dollars for 3 years to sit on the bench? It doesn't sound to me that the Rockets were having that in mind. My opponent has also compared this situation to buying a car. Well the example is in fact a waste of money whenever you buy a broken product it means you've wasted your money. "Does this mean that the car is a waste of money? No. The car did well in the past, and if its mechanical difficulties are dealt with and corrected, it may do well again. In other words, the potential for success remains even in the face of mechanical problems, or as in McGrady's case, injuries." First of all you cannot compare Tracy Mcgrady to a car it is not the same thing. A car's parts can be replaced and fixed. Tracy Mcgrady is a professional athlete and the effectiveness of a professional athlete usually does not last after the time of youth passes, stamina gets weaker, physical abilities start to decline like speed, strength, jumping height, and his bones will stay fragile. Tracy Mcgrady is pushing 30 and his skills have already started to decline. Also to note in my opponents example the person making this investment will most likely keep the car if he pays it off. Tracy Mcgrady on the other hand is seeing his contract expire after this year and he is already expected to miss at least half the season to recover from surgery then he will probably miss more games this season to get in shape. Tracy Mcgrady might not even be a Houston Rocket next year so he basically just sat on his butt for 2 seasons raking in their money. So correcting the problem will most likely not benefit the Houston Rockets as his future will them is not even guaranteed. So seeing the facts at hand McGrady is about to steal 40 million dollars from the Houston Rockets and even if he heals from his injury it will take him another year to be effective and when he is, His time with the Houston Rockets would have expired and he is free to sign with any team he wants. The Rockets are in a state of rebuilding right now and they are no longer a championship contender so the chances of an aging McGrady even deciding to sign back with the Rockets is unlikely. http://www.faniq.com... Title of article: "T-Mac done, Houston done, Relationship Done."
Tracy Mc Grady is the biggest waste of money in the NBA

Thanks to my opponent for posting. I negate the resolution "Tracy Mc Grady is the biggest waste of money in the NBA." My opponent argues that this is so because: 1) "Tracy Mcgrady has not been able to finish a complete season in his entire tenure with the Houston Rockets." 2) "Tracy McGrady has been unable to lead the Rockets to anywhere near a championship in the time he's spent with them." While both of these statements in themselves are undoubtedly correct, that does not mean that he is a "waste of money," much less the largest waste in the NBA. McGrady, of course, has a contract. The contract requires certain things be done on his part. If either of the objections that my opponent has raised were contractual obligations, then the contract would be void. While McGrady may be overpaid in a general sense, the same sense that most high-profile professional athletes are, he has kept his end of the deal he made with the Rockets when he signed with them, thus there is no waste. That is, the Rockets knew that injuries occur and still decided to pay him this much, so by their own logic he is worth what he is paid whether he is on the court, on the bench, in the locker room, or in the stands. Consider it this way: You buy a used automobile for $60K and will make payments over three years to the former owner. The automobile has a history of performing well in races. However, every time you are about to race the car yourself, mechanical problems occur and not only do you not place in the races, you do not even make it to the finish line. This happens repeatedly over the course of the three years you are paying for the car, and every time you sign a payment check you grimace. Does this mean that the car is not worth the money you paid for it? No. You had decided, based on past performance, that the car was worth the amount you paid for it when you bought it. Just as the Rockets did when they signed the McGrady's contract. Neither had a factory warranty. Does this mean that the car is a waste of money? No. The car did well in the past, and if its mechanical difficulties are dealt with and corrected, it may do well again. In other words, the potential for success remains even in the face of mechanical problems, or as in McGrady's case, injuries. McGrady is not a waste of money. He is simply injured.
Tracy Mc Grady is the biggest waste of money in the NBA

Tracy Mcgrady in my opinion is the biggest waste of money in the NBA. Tracy Mcgrady has been worth $63million for the past 3 years (including this year) and he is the biggest waste of money that a franchise as sad as the Rockets has had to spend on a player. Why? Reason 1: Tracy Mcgrady has not been able to finish a complete season in his entire tenure with the Houston Rockets. This season Tracy will be making the most money in the NBA ($23,239,561) and he is expected to miss at least half the season to recover from his injury last year. Tracy Mcgrady played 35 games last year and he made almost 20million dollars doing it, an NBA season consists of 82 games. Reason 2: Tracy McGrady has been unable to lead the Rockets to anywhere near a championship in the time hes spent with them. Every time the Rockets have made the playoffs they reach the 1st round and then faced a humiliating defeat. Blowing 2-0 leads and 3-1 leads. Last year when the Rockets finally passed the first round of an NBA playoff series was when Mcgrady was unable to perform. When a franchise pays a player that much money they expect a leader, a great performer, and a guy who will sell the tickets. Mcgrady has completely failed to live up to these expectations put on him and he has done it in a fashion that far surpasses any other player. McGrady is about to leach about 40 million dollars away from the Rockets. This man is making 40 million dollars to sit on his butt and rub his hurt knee. Tracy Mcgrady is not the only leach in the NBA but he is the worst leach. I thank whoever takes this debate http://hoopshype.com... http://sports.yahoo.com... http://www.insidehoops.com...
Was Roe v. Wade correctly decided? No.

Thanks for submitting your response, and for your interesting argument. - Your interpretation of the ninth amendment, and the role of the Federal Government, practically make the Supreme Court obsolete. For example, and forgive me if I"m interpreting your argument wrong, a state could ban voting (a right not listed in the constitution) and the Supreme Court wouldn"t be able to intervene. This is ridiculous for obvious reasons. Your next point was that there is no evidence that the Framers of the Constitution believed there was such a right. This is true. And yet it took us thirteen amendments to ban slavery, an incredibly long time. Now of course there is evidence that many of our Founding Fathers did not agree with slavery, but no action was taken. Your point of view pretty much means that our society cannot progress morally, cannot examine new moral questions that come up. Our federal government, does and, should have room for expansion of the rights it gives its people. Your next point is one of the more common discussions that come up during the topic of abortion. When life begins. Instead of taking the standard route of naming when it does, you say it should be left up to the states to decide, and the people within them. We do not live in a direct democracy, and civil liberties should not be voted on. Not to mention that following your line of logic, as well as banning voting (see above), voters in a state could decide that life doesn"t start until someone is 18, and therefore parents should have a right to execute them until that age. Once again, this is ridiculous for obvious reasons. On your fourth point, something being legal in almost all states does not mean that we should simply turn the other cheek. Once again, voting rights and slavery. I also have to say, that for someone who seems to have a lot of respect for the Constitution and the way our country was founded, I"m surprised you have such disdain for the Supreme Court. Now here"s something we can agree on; I also think that the "born on U.S soil" bit is completely ridiculous, and your point was very good. However, you end that paragraph about saying that our society should be the ones to decide on abortion. I mentioned above my opinions on this, but let me reiterate and expand. We do not, thankfully, live in a direct democracy. We have representatives on a state, and federal level. The question of when life begins is not something we should leave up to the masses. Roe v. Wade was not a blight on our Supreme Court, but rather a shining moment in the progression of personal freedom, privacy and about our Governmental process. - I"m eagerly awaiting your reply.
Was Roe v. Wade correctly decided? No.

Was Roe v. Wade correctly decided? No. There is no right to abortion in the Constitution for two simple reasons: (1) the Constitution says nothing about it and (2) when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted (1868; please note that the Fourteenth Amendment was the basis for Roe's holding) almost every single state had a law prohibiting abortions. Given this historical fact, it is plainly absurd that the Constitution grants a right to an activity that was entirely prohibited when the relevant portion of the Constitution was adopted. Clearly the Fourteenth Amendment's authors did not believe that they were granting a right to abortion, so neither do I. The first round is just to accept the debate. My only request is that you know what you're talking about. You should know a few things about the case you are defending, like what "substantive due process" is, or the relevant precedents, like Griswold v. Connecticut.
Agnostic Atheism Is The Most Logical Default Position

There are however a few errors with his introduction that I would like to correct before we get started. [1] My opponent places atheism against religion, but theism is the opposite of atheism, not religion. I do not have to defend religion, but theism. [2] My opponent defines faith as “belief in the absence of evidential or logical justification”. One may argue to the conclusion that faith is belief in the absence of evidence or logic, but to define it as such begs the question of the rationality of faith and hence makes a debate involving the defense or criticism of faith impossible. [3] My opponent sets up another false dichotomy, this time between logic/scientific method and faith. Again, I disputed his definition of faith, but also, my opponent cannot simply assume that there is no faith used in what are called scientific theories, just as he cannot assume that there are no theistic arguments that do not rely on logic and the scientific method. It is something that must be debated, not assumed or defined as such. [4] The title of this debate is “Agnostic Atheism Is the Most Logical Default Position”. We must define the word “agnostic”. There are two definitions of the word. The first refers to the position that we cannot come down on either side of an issue. We must remain in the middle. In this sense of the word, an agnostic is someone sitting on the fence between theism and atheism, someone who does not believe that it is rational to take either of those positions. One of the debaters on this site, RationalMadman, is one of these agnostics. The second use of the word agnostic refers to the position that we cannot have knowledge of some particular area. This leaves open the possibility of taking a position but not claiming knowledge about it. So an “agnostic atheist” is someone who does not believe in God but does not claim that we can know that God does not exist. Similarly, an “agnostic theist” is someone who believes in God but does not claim that we can have knowledge of God’s existence. To negate my opponent’s resolution, I could argue for agnosticism in the stronger sense, the one which is incompatible with atheism. Or I could argue for agnostic theism, or I could argue for pure theism, or even pure atheism. Since I believe in God, I will not be arguing for pure atheism. Which of the three remaining resolutions I defend the best I will leave for others decide, but I will definitely be arguing against my opponent’s resolution. Following typical debate procedure, I assume that first round is for acceptance, and that my opponent’s remarks in round one were more of an introduction. Therefore, I will wait for him to present a more substantial case for his resolution in round two, and we will take it from there.
Agnostic Atheism Is The Most Logical Default Position

Atheism makes more sense as a worldview because it is usually based on evidence, the scientific method, and logic, whereas religion is necessarily based on some degree of faith, which I define as belief in the absence of evidential or logical justification for said belief. Logic and the scientific method are almost worldwide considered to be valuable and productive, whereas faith has not ever been proven to be useful for improving the quality of society.
the concept of disability should be abolished

First off, I would like to point out that the Pro has presented a case that have many levels. The term of disability is more of an umbrella than a category, because depending on what specific disability you are talking about depends on whether it is a category or not. Second, the Pro does not give which term or type of disability we are arguing, therefore we can not abolish such a term with no meaning or actual concept. The reason I say that there is no concept is because the Pro hasn't stated what type of disability the concept is about. Depending on the type of disability depends on whether or not it needs to be abolished. The concept is needed in some areas of employment, education, and residence. I would also like to point out that the Pro also used the statement, "We are not good at everything, so technically were all disabled." By using this statement, the Pro is going with the Con by using the term/concept of disability. I cannot argue further without clarification of the term/concept of disability that the Pro wishes to abolish.
Should animals be used for research (pro:yes con:no)

I will skip to rebuttals and leave my argument to the last part if that wouldn't be a problem? P1: You say "torturing" animals but scientist don't go in front of an animal and just torch their eyes on purpose. And if they do they are not scientist they are psychopaths, but the last time i checked, i didn't see buffalo bill or the Texas chainsaw massacre guy testing animals, the experts were real scientist with real diplomas "EXPERIMENTING" on animals for a "REAL" purpose. The only things that scientists actually do in most animal tests are injections, blood sampling and surgeries. Now death may be a fate that some of the animals in tests go through but the deaths dont affect the population nor should they affect anybody. 5 million monkeys in the world and only 50 thousand are used in research not even 100 thousand its only 50. i think the monkey population isn't affected by the science. In 2001, there were estimated to be 400 million dogs in the world only 75,000 dogs are used in testing, again i never heard on a dog going extinct. there are 58,372,106 horses in the world. only 25 thousand are used for research. Now i can keep going on and on about animals but the main point im trying to say is this: Animals die, plants die, people die, you can't stop anything from death. What i am wondering is why i don't see PETA or people like you crying for the insects that get tested on as well as animals. Sure you care about that homeless dog. what about that ant hill in your back yard are you going to take them in too and feed them. While your helping those ants get some venomous snakes that help us in loads of research i'm sure they would love your help to. P2: You are just repeating P1. not a valid argument. C1: again repeating P1. What is the matter running out of stuff to say? P3(a): You never said HOW expensive is it and because of that this is not a valid argument. i am not gonna do your homework for you. Also, you only mentioned 1 experiment that was "unreliable" there are BILLIONS of experiment P3(b): You are just reapeating again and again on your other points so again, not valid. And i would like to rebuttal your rebuttals. i would like to tell you about the AWA also known as the Animal Welfare Act which is the only U.S. federal law that covers animals in research. Formed and signed in 1966, it regulates the care and use of animals in research, testing, teaching, exhibition, transport, and by dealers. I will also like to add that this law states that it is REQUIRED that animal testing MUST HAPPEN before a human can eat it, drink it, inject it. Now i would like to tell you that there are 7 billion people in the world. 300 million people live in the U.S. now awnser me this Sashil: are you willing to risk YOUR life, YOUR FAMILY, YOUR SPOUSE, YOUR CHILDREN LIVES, to save animals that cause 3 million deaths of HUMAN people per year?Ii know you want to save milo and otis and all the other animals out there... but is it really worth it? http://www.neavs.org... http://www.animalaid.org.uk... google.com http://www.peta.org... http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk...