BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap Battle 2k17 PT 3 Freestyle (CONT)

SupaDudz FreeStyle Rap BattleThis is a freestyle rap contest. First round is acceptance. The rules are followed.FREESTYLE GENERAL----------------------------------------It should be the rap that is the easiest to rap too, best flow, and best roastsRHYMING does not needed to be taken into consideration, but if they do a good rhyme in their rap, that can be an advantage to them.No Beats, Just Raps---------------------------------------------------------------------------------RULES IN GENERAL :/---------------------------------------------------------------------------------First round is acceptance, rounds 2,3,4 are your rapsVulgar Language Is Allowed, Just No N WordingThe voting is a who win's process. Judges should say who won each battleMay the best rapper win!
Reservation

Reservation = affirmative action, my case refutes yours. C1: affirmative action is bad for minorities Proponents of it basically tell African-Americans and Hispanics they are inferior and, therefore, need special help. (1) Affirmative action hurts people of color. Minority students who are qualified have to endure and fight the second-guessing and white patronization that come along with preferential policies. (1) "Affirmative action may increase academic pressure and stigmatize minority students, according to a study conducted by sociology professor Douglas Massey GS '78." (2) It hurts their education, which in turn hurts the economy. C2: causes reverse discrimination "Weak Affirmative Action weakly discriminates against new minorities, mostly innocent young white males, and Strong Affirmative Action strongly discriminates against these new minorities" (3) It discriminates to end discrimination. Lol. " Opponents of affirmative action in the labor sectors state that affirmative action causes reverse-discrimination leading to fewer jobs for white males, that it leads to lower productivity due to hiring of less skilled workers " (4) Makes sense, it gives these people such a leg up it puts whites at a disadvantage, reverse discrimination. Most forms of reverse discrimination are now illegal in most countries, however in some countries, like the U.S, affirmative action assisting minorities is required by law (5) So it basically discriminates against the majority. Kinda funny huh? Basically, affirmative action is a form of state-approved discrimination. Affirmative action is most controversial in college admissions and employment opportunities, although it does occur in other places. (6) C3: Hurts education Affirmative action hurts historically black colleges. (7) Also it hurts black law students by sending them to schools they are not ready for, they then get bad grades drop out etc. getting rid of affirmative actions minority preference would end the problem. (8) Accepting affirmative action policies lower you chance of getting a successful job ex: engineer doctor. (9) /conclusion Affirmative action does the opposite of what it's meant to do. Vote con Sources: http://badgerherald.com... (1) http://www.dailyprincetonian.com... (2) http://www.csus.edu... (3) http://www.nyu.edu... (4) http://www.allisontaylor.com... (5) http://www.uni.illinois.edu... (6) http://www.nationalcenter.org... (7) http://chronicle.com... (8) http://m.aol.com... (9)
Reservation

Well , the main objective of the reservation is to provide relatively easy opportunities to peoples to bring them to the forefront and have respectable life . Racially discrimination & outcast ism from the society solely on the grounds of their birth origin still persists in most part of the country which happen to be remain transparent to the section of the society living in metros. You may not find caste's being severely practised in rural/metro cities in today's era, giving the impression of caste's being getting extinct , Or almost at the verge of , so why enforce reservation anymore ?
Battlefield 3 is far superior to Call of duty: Modern Warfare 3

When it comes to campers, I couldn't have said it better myself. Campers basically cheat, and then earn powerful rewards they don't deserve. Both in CoD, and BF3. However in CoD, you at least need to do some work, and get some kills before you get the reward. But in Battlefield, anyone, even if they suck can go get into a tank, and boom your dead.In BF I always get killed by screaming 9 year olds. They will blow me up with a tank, and then tell me on their mic. how good they are. But as soon as they get out of the tank, they die over, and over, and over. Vehicles in battle field are like handicaps; who ever is in the vehicle has an unfair advantage that they have not earned in any way. "I also think that only people with certain stats in Battlefield should have access to more powerful vehicles at certain times but vehicles just fit the game play of Battlefield."Yes, you think only people with certain stats should have access to more powerful vehicles, however they don't! That is exactly my point. Anyone can easily get in any vehicle, at any time. It seems we agree on this.
Battlefield 3 is far superior to Call of duty: Modern Warfare 3

What I meant was that the campers in the game should at least try to use the gun even though it may not be real life for it's intended purpose. I don't think that people would add sniper rifles to a game so people can quick scope other players, and in Call of Duty there really isn't any need for a sniper rifle because of the maps size and enclosed space. However I did not mention in my last post but you said Call of Duty players earn their stripes, I agree most do. My point is that yes actual skilled players like you and me might be able to get the major kill streak by using pure skill and not using normally one shot one kill weapons like the snipers in the games. The fact of the matter I want to address is that anybody who camps, or quick scopes can just as easily get a kill streak that is powerful like the air strikes and such just by using no skill. Quick scope requires skill yes, but to me it seems more reasonable to use a sniper rifle for it's intended purpose, then to not barely aiming through the scope and killing somebody with one shot. Do you kind of get what I mean? Also I agree real life soldier camp because that is how they stay alive, but in the game people camp to get a reward they might not deserve, I think only skilled players with real skill should have access to the big time streaks. I also think that only people with certain stats in Battlefield should have access to more powerful vehicles at certain times but vehicles just fit the gameplay of Battlefield. My point is anybody in CoD could get these streaks basically by just camping which is a problem in the CoD series in general.
Battlefield 3 is far superior to Call of duty: Modern Warfare 3

Since you posted a very short response, I shall do the same. Also, note that you ignored some of my arguments. "The definition of sniping is to "shoot at someone from a hiding place, accurately at long range.""That is the technical definition of the term 'sniping', or more plainly, the 'real life' definition. However this debate is not about real life. It is in fact about 2 fictional video game worlds. Granted, these worlds are based off of the real world, and while they seem close to the real thing they are in reality, not.What I'm saying, is that every field soldier in the real world camps, however in a video game, things are not the same. There is no hesitation to kill someone, and when you die you just come back to life. There are no real risks, or fear for the players and/or campers to experience. So a camper, or a sniper who never moves, is basically cheating or using handicap.
Battlefield 3 is far superior to Call of duty: Modern Warfare 3

Last round you said, "Well, the thing that you fail to see here, is that to sit perched out of a window and snipe a ton of people is worse than a person in call of duty who is actually running around, and then quick-scoping people. Also, anyone can kill with a BF3 sniper, but quick scoping takes skill." The definition of sniping is to "shoot at someone from a hiding place, accurately at long range."
Battlefield 3 is far superior to Call of duty: Modern Warfare 3

You do have very valid points with some of your arguments. However, you are taking this a little to serious by modifying names there is no need for that. You may not like the class system in Battlefield 3, but it provides a variation of soldiers on the map, Assault, Recon, Engineer, ext. The point to a class system is built for teamwork which is the way Battlefield is to be played. I agree the snipers are annoying, but are they any better the the quickscoper's in the Call of Duty franchise? Vehicels are available to both teams. All maps in Battlefield 3 are not huge, the have the "Close Quarters" expansion pack which includes several maps that are the same size if not smaller then Call of Duty maps. This provides the non stop action CoD players are looking for and are used too. In Battlefield 3 you aren't killing for nothing, the kills count towards unlocking weapon attachments, new weapons, new ammo types, new camos for your character, ribbons, and medals. So your argument of big maps is kind of cancelled out because Battlefield offers both kinds of maps and many kinds of customization for weapons and your classes. As for your vehicle argument, vehicles are in the Battlefield game because it is for tactical play not to get across the map, you can use them to get cross map, but that is not really the vehicles soul purpose. Battlefield is played like a tactical game and that does differ from Call of Duty's run and gun formula which most people have come to adore because of the constant action, the vehicles are there for tactical use on the map. Also your argument about spawning at one end of the map and running back to get where you were is also invalid. There is a system called "squad spawn" which allows players not just to spawn in friendly vehicles but to spawn in and around the area on their squad or team. This eliminates the need to spawn at the original spot, and allows you to spawn close to, if not right back where you were. Plus, one of the classes carries a revive tool. This gives around 5 to 10 seconds for another player to revive a dead player so the constant action you so claim doesn't exist in Battlefield 3 can continue. The vehicles in MW3 are not operable for free use, which is the major difference between the games. The players need to get their AC130, Predator drone, ext. is what keeps them from truly enjoying the game. I say this because they are only focused on being rewarded by run and gun tactical approaches. Imagine how mad you get when you need one kill before you have your kill streak, and bam somebody blows you away six ways to Sunday. Once this happens you get mad and don't enjoy your experience. Kill streak rewards also create campers, yes campers. People camp to farm kills for their kill streaks. Campers barely exist in Battlefield 3, and if they do they get booted from the game. I see your points in the debate, but with a little research you would understand the mechanics and how certain things are implemented into Battlefield 3 and why. I do respect your argument though.
Battlefield 3 is far superior to Call of duty: Modern Warfare 3

Don't watch video until you get to the part where it says to watch it!!Mw3 is better than Butt Facker 3 Battle Field 3 because, 1. The maps are ALOT bigger in Bf3 which means you will be running through half of the game, running and running, and running, and when your finally there or almost there you get this warm fuzzy feeling, and you think "YES, I finally made it! Hoo F!CKING Rah! But then wait... ohhh yaaa.... HOLD MY F!CKING D EVERYONE!! I NEED TO RESPAWN ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE MAP REAL QUICK! And do you know why that is audience? Your correct, a sniper shot me in the mutha' F!cking head! Now, being shot by a sniper really makes me want to punch whoever is behind the controller because with a puzzy gun sniper you don't need to run through the whole map to get some kills. YOU CAN JUST SIT THERE BE A LITTLE BATCH!BA-TCHBAAA-TCH!2. I don't like the class thing, why cant you have a desired weapon in one class, the classes has its own weapons, I want weapons to be free around all the classes so you can choose all kinds of weapons for all the classes. You get what I mean?3. What are you fighting for in BF3(BF3 sounds more like a porno name..) multiplayer? Only thing you are fighting for in BF3 is to win a game. In MW3, you fight to earn kill streaks. This makes the person playing actually care if they get killed once, because if they do, they will lose all of their kills. It maKES IT SO LITTLE SNIPER WH0RES CAN'T R@PE THE FACK OUT OF YOU!I REALLY frigen hate those snipers.............HERE, watch this sniper azz wipes WATCH THE VIDEOhttp://www.youtube.com...4. Mw2 was a quite disaster with all noobtubers, rushers and boosters, but I guess that will be fixed in mw3 because they fixed it in black ops. Yeah,yeah, Treyarch made black ops but I think infinity ward will do like them, otherwise this will be a huge letdown.5. Maps in mw3 is smaller which means constant action everywhere, if you go around a corner you can be quite sure you will find an enemy on the other side.6. NO VEHICLES in mw3. I hate the friggin' vehicles in bf3! Your not safe anywhere, if you see a tank and run to cover and the tank see you it shoots one time and the whole cover is gone, and the second shot you lay down on the ground lifting your hand. There's vehicles in mw3 too, but there you will have to fight for them, because they are kill streaks. In Bf3 you can even spawn in the vehicles if a friend is in it. Otherwise you spawn a few meters from the vehicles.
The United States Should Ban Assault Weapons

Hello all. These are my main arguments in favor of a ban on assault weapons in the United States.--------------------- ArgumentsI. A Ban Would Save LivesOut of all mass shootings in the US since 1982, 67 out of 142 were carried out using semi-automatic handguns, while more than 30 were carried out by assault weapons. During the period when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was instituted, mass shootings reached an all time low.Although assault weapons are responsible for little of total gun deaths, any saved life is worth it. Between 1% and 7% of gun murders are committed by assault weapons, and even then, between 90 and 700 lives can be saved with this ban in place.All of this data shows that a ban on assault weaponry, no matter how small of a portion of gun murders are committed by them, is worth the effort in terms of lives saved.II. Assault Weapons Are Not NecessaryFor purposes of hunting and self-defense, assault weapons are not necessary. For self-defense, response with an assault weapon would be astoundingly disproportionate, and would risk injuring people around the defender with both the rapid rate of fire and the spray of fire emitted when shot. For hunting, even proponent Dave Kopel concedes this point, as he says that a hunter will only carry a few rounds, therefore a high-capacity assault weapon that shoots 50-60 rounds per minute is not needed to hunt.Police chiefs and law enforcement officers argue that the risks outweigh the supposed benefits, as assault weapons are "made for war" and are not appropriate to be available in the public sphere, only appropriate for a war zone.III. A Ban Would Increase Liberty and SecurityProponents of assault weapons argue the illegitimacy of police having assault weapons while they are banned. However, police forces are much more likely to give up assault weaponry if this danger mentioned above is reduced. In the UK, for example, there is little reason for a police officer to carry more than a taser or baton, as there is such a low rate of gun crime, especially against police themselves. Moreover, banning assault weapons would reverse the arms race between criminals and police and allow for a safer environment for both law enforcement and the general public.Also, without as much police involvement or concern with the arms race or the exchange of these weapons, civil liberties would be enhanced in this respect.As shown above, banning assault weaponry grants the most prized liberty of all: life. If we ban assault weapons, the lives saved are priceless for the general liberty of public.--------------------- It is shown that since banning assault weapons saves lives, assault weapons are unnecessary, and a ban would increase liberty and security, the US should institute a ban on assault weaponry.Sources(1) http://www.motherjones.com... (2) http://election.princeton.edu...(3) http://www.iop.harvard.edu...(4) http://www.davekopel.com...(5) http://idebate.org...(6) http://idebate.org...
The United States Should Ban Assault Weapons

Hello all. This debate is on banning assault weapons in the United States, which I am wholeheartedly for, and my opponent will be against.FormatR1: AcceptanceR2: All ArgumentsR3: Rebuttal (no new arguments)R4: Final Rebuttal/ConclusionDefinitionsassault weapon: [Assault weapon is] a term used in the United States to define specific types of firearms. The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud. (Wikipedia) ----------------------------I await my opponent's acceptance.
Justice Requires the Recognition of Animal Rights

My case shows that giving animals rights would benefit humans and our world so much, that even without looking at whether or not the animals "deserve" rights or not it is so clear that the benefit of animal rights outweighs the consequences. This directly contradicts my opponents sole contention regarding the social contract. Also, I would like to clarify that I am debating pro for animal rights in the United States, my apologies. Before we can effectively establish regulations we must give animals rights. We have policies currently in place related to the well being of animals, but these are largely ineffective and lack much. We can not improve our treatment of animals and the betterment of society until animal rights are granted. My case proves that if we treat animals better, than we will benefit. Animal rights would improve many aspects of our world, health, environment, and justice. This contributes more to our society than being a part of the social contract. Furthermore, my opponent states that John Stuart Mill is not a supporter of animal rights and only wants to benefit humans. This is exactly why he is that perfect example of why you should vote pro for this debate. Animal rights improve human society so greatly that it is unnecessary to debate any more. Also, my opponent continuously claims that my case is contradictory. This is false. We need to improve the conditions of animal life, not stop eating them. For example, with the fish, if the waters in which the fish lived in were cleaner than when we ate them we would not cause damage to our health and our environment. As I said in my first contention, the recognition of animal rights means that we acknowledge that animals have value and those values to society should be respected. In a similar sense the United States recognizes human rights and has standards for ways that people can be treated. Recognizing the value of human life means that we aren't permitted to kill someone randomly on the street but doesn't mean that killing someone is always illegal. An example of this is that international standards like the Geneva Convention do not make war illegal but look for ways to minimize the frequency and the extent of wars. So therefore my case does not contradict itself and so clearly proves that animal rights benefit humans so greatly that no other argument against animal rights can be accepted. Justice is being fair and reasonable and the most fair and reasonable thing to do to help our society would be to vote for pro in this debate.
I"m pro-life change my mind

I present my argument on one level, the scientific level. There are four criteria necessary to establish life. 1) Reaction to stimuli 2) Metabolism 3)Cellular Reproduction 4)Growth The human fulfills all of these criteria from the point of conception. To draw any line of the human life other than conception is impossible. Fallacy one: Life starts at the first breath Rebuttal: Is it ok to stab fully formed adults with iron lungs Fallacy two: Life starts as the child physically exits the womb Rebuttal: The child is exactly the same 1 second before exit from the womb as it is 1 second after exit from the womb. Defend killing identical children based on their location. Fallacy three: Life starts when the child becomes sentient Rebuttal: Is it ok to kill fully formed adults in comas? Fallacy four: Life starts at the heartbeat Rebuttal: If a fully formed adult is using a pacemaker can I stab said adult? Fallacy Five: Life starts when the child isn"t depending on any outside force. Rebuttal: If you are on a respirator can I stab you. Fallacy Six: Abortion is ok because the child does"t feel pain. Rebuttal: Can I kill you if you are on anesthesia Fallacy Seven: Abortion is necessary to prevent parents from being financially incapacitated Rebuttal: You don"t get to kill children for money, you don"t get to kill children for your own convenience The answer to all these questions proposed is no, you cannot stab fully formed adults. So why is it ok for children. It"s not fair for us to ascribe lines to the fetuses that also impose on ourselves. The only line that can be drawn that defines human life is the line of conception. This is why abortion is inherently evil and perverse.
I"m pro-life change my mind

The example you listed is incredibly rare. In the case you suggested you say that the baby has no chance of living, however there are experimental treatments that could possibly give the child a small chance to live. I see this example all the time because the left refuses to talk about the majority case of abortions. The truth is, most abortions are born from irresponsibility. The case your referencing has happened 5 times in the past decade and rape and incest are .5% of all abortions. Did you know that in England, 90% of children diagnosed with down syndrome before birth are aborted? Those are the true abortions, not the marginal case that you suggested.