BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
RAP BATTLE(begginners)

This is no battle, more like a war Get your rap together, before i kick you out the door And if you want more, just like the poor Cause once you start a fight i wont give any remorse Cause rapping you aint hard, its more like a choir I'm gonna win its factual, like 2+2=4 Listen here, your a girl, and i respect that But dont come in here acting like i dont know rap Cause to me it looks like its YOUR rhymes that are whack Dont even bother, just take a step back Before i quickly turn you into the class act Hey, you brought baseball into this? Well i play it, what a coincidence You watch, real fast ill make you wince Cause I started going and i havent looked back since And your over there spittin' like your the priest Youve probably never been to church, but i have atleast It seems to me like youll be the one on your knees Youll be begging for me to stop this pounding, like please, please Youll be the sinner, and Ill eat you for dinner even though I am the begginner
RAP BATTLE(begginners)

I'll write this with four minutes to spare before posting It's lyrical war so just prepare yourself for the roasting I'm not shy about boasting - my skills are fly, worth the toasting So keep that in mind throughout this battle you're hosting Yo, why'd you limit these rounds to just 1,000 letters? I guess you know the less ammo I have, then the better And why'd you even start this, just to walk away from it? Silly rap n00b, you must be on some crazy sh1t No I can't relate to it, In fact I'm gonna hate on it Instigate a challenge and then forfeit like a lazy kid You talk a big game but don't deliver like that Pedro biz So I'm gonna make you my daddy like them Yankees did Laying down Law like Jude; no not the one from the Beatles My rhymes are holier than people's praying under steeples So know I'll have you on your knees, begging for mercy like the sinners Note: you're the only novice in this rap here "for beginners"
Are video game restrictions in need of changing/updating (violence)

PS3?! :) Anyways, I think there needs to be a test, almost like a social, emotional, face-to-face and written test put in your name. Each year you can take the test but only once a year, and it will be to see if you are allowed to play those games. It isn't a teen that killed everyone in a movie theater, is it? Not all, but some teens are more mature than some adults, or at least smarter. In my opinion if those people who wanted to ban it actually cared they wouldn't bother putting in the time and energy needed. I think most problems could be solved, at least temporarily, by changing the restrictions. But it is more work and therefore hasn't happened.
Are video game restrictions in need of changing/updating (violence)

When you are proposing a new restriction guideline, what types of restrictions do you have in mind? Children who aren't mature enough to purchase a video game would typically ask an older relative for it. Usually, the older relative will know if the game is for the child. Teens who can make their decisions are responsible for those decisions that they make. If you go out and buy a copy of Halo, and you go up and start shooting everyone and doing all sorts of violence, that's not the video game's fault. It would be yours for taking the game too literally. Besides age restrictions, I don't think there should be more limitations in video games because it would become less enjoyable. If developers of a game get rid of all violence and make a game about peaceful activities, it would rarely appeal to anyone older than eleven. I'm curious to know, what other restrictions do you have in mind? Ah, sorry about that, I play the Playstation 3.
Are video game restrictions in need of changing/updating (violence)

"but there is the true issue I wish to address. Nothing against you, but there's more to it than adding stronger age restrictions." I'm not understanding, is your 'true' issue that there's more to it? Since you do play a violent game have you became more violent because of these video games? I certainly wouldn't. These games are made for entertainment, not for real life advice. No one is telling you to run over twenty people and commit a mass killing. As for age restrictions, they are in place. Certain games are labeled with what the minimum age is. There is a guide for it here: http://www.esrb.org... I'm looking forward to your response, but could you be a bit more specific so I can understand exactly what you're saying? Thanks for doing this debate! :)
Are video game restrictions in need of changing/updating (violence)

I believe that video games do not cause real world violence. Instead, they channel someone's energy into killing video game 'bad guys'. This is a stress reliever for people. People who do these mass killings have a psychological problem. It really isn't the video game industry's fault, but it is the person who is playing it and what he or she does with it. You have to understand that video game restrictions should not take place, because it does not lead to violence. Take a look at this article and see if your opinion has changed: http://www.usnews.com...
Are video game restrictions in need of changing/updating (violence)

If tests and restrictions were made to just play a video game, I don't think the video game industry would do too well because of people not wanting to take these tests. I hope you understand that the cons very much outweigh the pros of having more restrictions for video games. Again, it has been fun debating with you and I hope that the voters will use their best judgement in deciding who is the winner. -Corey561
Are video game restrictions in need of changing/updating (violence)

I see what you mean, but kids are more inclined to shoot someone because they "did it in the game so it must be ok". That is where there needs to be a better system to make sure gamers understand these differences and make sure that each gamer is mentally ok to play these games. I will start a new open topic, "Military Video Game Funding and Contest". hope you either agree or fight again. It's been fun, -THEVIRUS
Are video game restrictions in need of changing/updating (violence)

I don't believe there should be any form of test for a video game, ever. What could you really find out about a test. More importantly, maintaining those tests aren't free. It will be very costly and difficult to keep track of who took the test and who didn't. There would be ways to bypass this test. You could purchase the game on eBay or by a third party distributor. You could get your parent to purchase the game for you. This test would be a waste of time and money, and will be detrimental to the video game industry. Problems would not be solved, it will just create more problems! People should understand that video games don't have a connection to violence, and that restrictions such as tests won't provide accurate information. No company has the time and energy to perform background checks and tests annually for millions of gamers, simply because it might or might not stop the few psychologically impaired from thinking that real life is the same thing as their Halo game.
We should criminalize the payment of ransom

Thank you for posting such an interesting topic. I will argue for my case, then attempt to refute my opponent's. First, arguments in favour of the motion; -- The payment of ransom rewards criminal activity -- Paying the ransom rewards the criminal for their criminal activity, and brings about their desired conclusion. It also brings an end to a risky situation for them; part of the ransom demand is often safe passage away from the authorities, greatly increasing their chances of escape. Furthermore, in places where the police force is inadequate, making it virtually certain that they would be paid would make the problem worse. -- The payment of ransom feeds more ransom and increases crime -- Ransoming is often conducted by organised criminal networks. Paying the ransom funds these organisations, increasing the capability of them to perform even more ransoms, as well a other crimes, in the future. -- There are other options -- Police forces are trained in hostage and ransom situations, and may well be able to either find a way to resolve the situation peacefully, or to take down the kidnapper without risk to the hostages. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the kidnappers will release the hostage once paid. They may simply increase the price to squeeze more money out, or raise other demands. They may even kill the prisoner anyway, for fear they would identify them later on. Now, my opponents case; 'This motion won't stop people paying' This is just an assertion. When something is made illegal, it puts a barrier against it not only through the law, but in people's minds as well. It would make people far more likely to call the police instead of just giving in to the kidnapper's commands. 'human sacrifice is not a morally acceptable way of fighting kidnapping' Firstly, it wouldn't necessarily be human sacrifice- the police are, after all, trained to bring an end to these situations peacefully. Secondly, it would cut down criminal activity, in the long run saving more lives than it sacrifices. 'when governments refuse to pay terrorists to save the lives of their civilians, they effectively turn their civilians against them' In order to prevent crime and promote a healthier society, sometimes tough decisions have to be made. If that includes gaining the resentment of the citizenry, then so be it.
Atheist, are under Gods wrath, no attempts should be made to convert them.

Note: (First off, I'd like to use atheism as well as paganism in this debate. Both of these options damn you to hell, so I think they can be used interchangeably. You could say "converting pagans is useless" Just the same as "converting atheists is useless" because both are unwilling to accept Jesus as God of the universe and will be punished by Hell.) Debate: I've read your previous debates on this topic. So there is no need to spam bible verses that have little or no pertinence to the discussion. The ones you choose are so vague to your opinion that I could probably use them for my side of the debate if I wanted to. I will refer you to Luke 15:7 "I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who do not need to repent." I barely have to explain this verse, it is so clear cut and obvious that God rejoices when sinners (atheists) convert. We must do God's will and work to convert them. Aside from relying on scripture, we know that Roman Catholics and other Christian denominations have taken steps to evangelize those who do not believe in God. I find it very funny that your profile picture is of Saint Paul, arguably the greatest apostle ever who spread Christianity to thousands of pagans and atheists. Multiple Saints have worked to convert the masses, and one Catholic order, the Jesuits, worked viciously to spread the faith all over the world. You say that spreading the faith is a waste of time. How, though? Christianity has been spread to the farthest reaches of the Earth. It hasn't been spread everywhere, which is a reason why we must act to convert. The benefits of working to convert atheists and pagans can be seen abundantly clear. Also, I'm willing to bet you would be going to Hell if it were not for the spread of Christianity. What if Jesus and his apostles said "Ah, who cares about everyone else, let's keep this religion to ourselves and let everyone die." We would all be pagans or atheists if Jesus had this thought process. But Jesus was an evangelizer. And in Luke 10:37, Jesus says "Go and do likewise." We are to follow God's lead. This means to teach those who are unable or unwanting to be taught. They might not accept it, but God gives credit for you trying to convert them. The Lord holds you accountable for those you could've helped but didn't. James 4:17 "Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin."
Atheist, are under Gods wrath, no attempts should be made to convert them.

It is round 5, and I'm half glad because this discussion in which you show no open mindedness to will be over, but also I am sad it's over because I cannot continue to try and convince you. Like his very first rounds, the Pro, aka Follower of Christ, suffers from the same disorder: failure to acknowledge my arguments, let alone try to explain why they are wrong. As an exception, he did well in Round 4, but in Round 5, it seems he has given up. He completely ignores my arguments on Catholisism, the sameness of a non-believer and an Atheist, his obvious point of view that atheists are un-saveable completely. These are only 3 topics, there are many more in which he falls flat. There are two reasons why he does this: either he skips over what I say, or he has no come-back. He makes excuses my saying I'm just "ignorant". He explains nothing. Here, Pro states "hence use of the word Damn... and you [sic] complete INABILITY to UNDERSTAND it!" I do understand, I understood right from the get-go, and I have apologized. Only reason Pro brings this up again is because it was his only success in this debate and he likes to dwell on it. I will not have any Biblical questions, and if I do, I will definitely not go to you. You have demonstrated how badly you are at reading the scriptures (my explanations are in above rounds). I will debate you on scripture alone later, I have some real deadly debate tactics and Biblical proof that you are wrong. As far as the debate topic, which we have strayed far from, I must point out one more of your contradictions, the finale of your grand total. You have been trying to convert me to your side this while time, but have deduced that it is "moot to continue to endeaver [sic] to explain that which one has no possession of nor ability to OBTAIN... The Holy Spirit". And yet, you have attempted to convert me to your side. The whole point of this debate is converting atheists is useless. Tell me then- why did you attempt to convert me to your side (which is wrong.)? If you truly believed what you preached, you would have forfeited immediately. Nevertheless, I think we have both benefited from this debate. It was not a waste of time, at least we have more knowledge of the scriptures. Conclusion: In conclusion, my opponent might have knowledge of what the scriptures say, but he can not apply them to his or others life. His debating tactics are very weak and un-courteous because he fails to acknowledge my points and questions while I have answered his. If this was quote the Bible competition, you would win. But it is not, it is a debate, and you fail to engage in debate. Nevertheless, I will end with a Bible quote since you love them (not debate) and them alone: "Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'" -Acts 2:38, in which Peter is converting sinners, God's will. End note: Pro: "bye I must prepare for another debate." You should've prepared for this one.
Atheist, are under Gods wrath, no attempts should be made to convert them.

As you've done nothing but ramble about what Mankind says ABOUT the Bible and what your denominational literature tells you, YOU should think, and as you have no real questions for me that you are capabe of understanding, Our time together has come to an end I do believe.You see the false doctrines of your denomination and denominations in general have corrupted the word of God, the only thing different is the point of salvation?Beyond that I am content to allow you to find out from God in person. It would be moot to continue to endeaver to explain that which one has no posession of nor ability to OBTAIN possession of THe Holy Spirits leading. Don't get me wrong, I do not say you do not have Him?, as by all evidence He certainly is being held hostage BY you. but as all Believers of God know it is critical and crucial to Biblical understanding .... hence use of the word Damn ... and you complete INABILITY to UNDERSTAND it! In any case should you ever decide to loose your captive and finally ALLOW the Spirit of God a higher position than your presently willing to extend to Him. Drop me a line.In closing it was great talking with you. Should you have a Biblical question, rather than questions based on Mans beliefs and mans knowledge, I certainly do avail myself to you otherwise humanistic questions require humanistic answers, and those hold no interest to me whatever but certainly may be found in the fictions, myths and legends section of your local library.I'm here for Biblical questions, otherwise?bye I must prepare for another debate.
Athiesm is the same as Agnosticism

Vote freshness, vote for Fool, eh? Well, wait a minute, don't you think you should be saving that line until I've at least offered my first rebuttal? Anyway...My opponent defined both "agnosticism" and "atheism" quite accurately in her first round, but then seems to showcase how little she actually understood those definitions in her second round. Allow me to explain the difference as clearly as I can.Theism and AtheismTheism and atheism are ontological stances (concerning belief). If one believes a deity exists, then he/she is a theist. Otherwise, he/she is an atheist. Neither theism nor atheism require an assertion of absolute certainty.For instance, I believe life exists elsewhere in the universe, but I cannot know for certain and don't assert that this is absolutely the case. Despite the fact that I don't assert 100 percent certainty, though, I still believe extraterrestrial life exists. Only when life is discovered on another planet will I assert 100 percent certainty.Gnosticism and AgnosticismGnosticism and agnosticism are epistemological stances (concerning knowledge). If one believes absolute certainty can be obtained about a particular phenomena (such as the existence of extraterrestrial life or God), then he/she is a gnostic. Otherwise, he/she is an agnostic.Mutual ExclusivenessBoth of the ontological stances are mutually exclusive of each other, and both of the epistemological stances are mutually exclusive of each other as well. This means one cannot be both a theist and an atheist, nor can one be both a gnostic and an agnostic (concerning the same phenomena).However, the ontological stances are not mutually exclusive of the epistemological stances. This means one can be a gnostic theist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, or agnostic atheist (in fact, one must be one of those four), depending on how they answer the following two questions:1. "Do you believe a deity exists?" (YES: theist, NO: atheist)2. "Do you believe it can be known for certain whether or not a deity exists?" (YES: gnostic, NO: agnostic)My opponent states this: "Agnostics do not belief that such knowledge is possible. Therefore they lack belief in god or not god."This is simply false. Calling yourself an "agnostic" does not clarify whether or not you believe in a deity. Again, I believe it's impossible to know for certain whether or not extraterrestrial life exists (that would make me an agnostic on the subject), but I do believe they do. Similarly, a theist can believe in God without asserting 100 percent certainty.ConclusionI believe I have thoroughly shown the difference between agnosticism and atheism. TheFool lost this debate from the beginning by defining the terms correctly in the instigation and taking Pro.
Athiesm is the same as Agnosticism

Private Fool at your service Agnostics Agnostics do not belief that such knowledge is possible. Therefore they lack belief in god or not god. You can’t have a belief in not-god because not-god does not existence. Therefore it’s only possible we believe in god. Or I don’t believe in god. Therefore they don’t believe in god. Atheist Atheist do not belief if god or such deities. However the atheist does not believe in god because there is no sufficient reason too. But this is also as epistemological reason! Therefore they both don’t believe in god and they are both epistemological reasons. They end up being logical equivalent anyways. I believe Positive belief synonymous ‘I belief that P is true’ A subjective feeling of inclination that P is true I have faith that p true I expect that p true I trust that p true I have confidence that P true I do not believe Negation of belief synonyms “I do not belief that p is true.” A lack of subjective feeling of inclination that P is true I expect that ~p is true Or I don’t expect that p is true. The Fool: There are some redundant variations but I am tired .lol The master of Fools is the master of logic! ~E(p) = E(~p) ~E(p)<-> E(~p) E(P) mean p is within a framework of E P is something which is believed in. Relative negation: (relative negations can have opposite) Expectation=E the expected= X Mathematical proof Logical proof -1(E)(x)= -Ex ~E(x)-> ~Ex 1(E)(~x)= -Ex E(~x)-> ~Ex That is they are all logically equivalent. Absolute negation: (cannot have opposites) Because God is supposed to be an absolute entity, it’s really this, but I didn’t want make is confusing. Mathematical proof Logical proof 0*E(x)=0 ~E(x)->0 E(0*x)=0 E(~x)->0 That is they are all logically equivalent That is to not believe in the existence of god is synonymous with believing that god does not exist. Understanding relative vs absolute: A relate opposite can be HOT and COLD but they are only relative opposites of an average temperature. We could explain them as absolutes in that HOT is its own positive sensation and COLD is its own unique positive sensation. The both become painful the stronger they become. Thus we have the absolute value. And the opposites are non-existence. For in an absolute framework hot is not the opposite of cold. No sensations are the opposite what is the non-existence of them. Another is example is direction. We may to east is +X and to west is –X relative to a point of origin. e.g. As in let’s say we travel 5 miles east and then 5 miles west, we will have traveled 0 miles relative to the point of origin. The absolute value, in this case, give us the absolute distance traveled we take (5 East)+ (5 West )to get an absolute distance 10 miles travelled all together. (Absolutely) There you have it! There is no logical difference between them after all! More original philosophy from your favourite Fool! You heard it here first, straight from the hill! Vote Freshness vote for Fool!
Best Songs to Party to

Just picture it... There are girls like: http://t2.gstatic.com...The guys are like: http://2.bp.blogspot.com...What bettter way to help the guys vibe the girls than this? Both gender benefit.My comment was not meant to offend the BLGT community, any combination of genders is applicable.For the party.......For the love....For the music....Vote Con ❤!http://www.youtube.com...
Best Songs to Party to

I must compliment my opponent for offering a challenge to me. The song he offered is modern enough to avoid a battle of old vs. new and I appreciate the song! However, I prefer not to have so much swearing and also I believe the beat matters just as much as the melody. http://www.youtube.com... I find this song much easier to "jump" or dance to than my opponents song. His focuses more on feeling, mine more ont he ability to dance. Jai Ho is hindi for 'victory', I hope my Jai Ho awaits em at the end of this debate.