BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap Battle Tournament - Round 2

f*ck church, I'll send you back to Christ, when you're sacrificed. try actin' nice when I pack a mic, lyrically attack and slice. You use tactics? right. I'd believe that, but you lack the fight. and f*ck your whack advice, or sympathy for stackin' likes [1] You're practice. the worst you do is scratch and bite. In fact its like you try to threaten with a plastic knife. that's my style. try and face it, and you'll die in placement. my rhyming statements will make you cry in basements. Better yet, I'll chop you up, leave you in an IKEA bag. you rap using "IRL" and Pokemon, and call me a fagg? (haha) I don't "write behind a mic", kid, I freestyle. meanwhile, you need your paper, are you senile? [2] like my last opponent that I made cry and run home, I'm honestly surprised you didn't die from one poem. When I find you, I'll make my malevolence felt. Ride by on a bicycle, til my presence is felt. A bag with 5 rifles that watched as presidents fell. [3] Or stab you with an icicle, and watch the evidence melt. Careful wearing sympathy. or you'll never ditch the outfit. I hold my own AND my family, and don't bitch about it. instead I hold my head up, never let up. Every time I fuckin fall I sit up, laugh, and get up. By all means, post your incoherent lyrics. pardon me, if I won't click to hear it. or will you use a slow computer as protection [4] and be a little b*tch that raps in the comment section. Tell me again how hard it is, and you'll feel trouble. I'm the wrong f*ckin' person to bring up a real struggle. Stop writing kid. None of us need to hear more sh*t. "Mock" all you want. But you're the one who started with a forfeit (Explanations in comments)
Rap Battle Tournament - Round 2

I lost to Mikal? Wow! is that true? you're the fifth person to act like that's news. never gave it focus. like "you'll feel my wrath soon" Never did. wrote my last verse in my girlfriend's bathroom. As for Shadowking? We all know that story. Despite breaking rules, people said they'd vote for me. He didn't lose though. from technicality and luck to. I took that battle proud and left an open "f*ck you" As for you, you fuckin' baby. I'll make you swallow your rattle. I just think its adorable how you follow my battles. Tell the voters what you want. see if you win it. I hope they all see you waited til the last 2 minutes. "I hope the voters see there's nothing I could do" except using the three fuckin days that were given to you. YOU better be glad this is digital. you're nothing to talk about. if this was real you would've challenged me, stood, paused, and walked out. And stop using the word "bodied" before you get knocked out! you see, my flow is kinda like a stick of dynamite. when I'm behind the mic I'm dangerous with a line to write. you try to be a guy to find the light, shinin' bright. You're like its time to fight, then quit to hide your vagina, right?
Should Schools Allow Phones In The Class

I understand your view on this. Many schools offer computers for their students nowadays so the education portion is not usually a huge issue. Also, Schools usually let students carry their phones on them, But require for the phones to be turned off in class but they will usually let the students use their phones in emergency situations. As far as teachers using their phones in school settings and not getting in trouble for it, I agree that it is not fair. But look at it this way. . . . Teachers are usually communicating with other teachers about curricular matters. So while students think that teachers are using their phones for recreational uses, They may very well be trying to communicate with other teachers.
Should Schools Allow Phones In The Class

While it is true there are many distractions, And they can get in trouble. But if it was not possible that an adult was able to reach 911? It can also teach students about responsibility and trust. It can also prepare them for the real world because in the real world you will need your phone. Also many phone apps offer visual representations of difficult-to-grasp subjects (like astronomy, Science, Or anatomy) Tablets offer the same services, But may provide a better user experience because of the size difference. Administrators often take notes on their phones as part of teacher observations. Some teachers, Coaches, And counselors use their cell phones in school settings, Too. It may not be permitted, But they are allowed to do so without the same consequences as students. Why shouldn"t students be able to do the same?
Should Schools Allow Phones In The Class

While I do see our stand on this matter, I do feel the need to point out that many schools have resource officers that can contact emergency help if a crisis were to occur. Students should not have the pressure put on them to be responsible for a hundred lives in a school. That is why there are adults present in schools. Students should focus on school. Also, If schools allowed students to have access to their phones, That opens up the door to many distractions.
Should Schools Allow Phones In The Class

Having phones in school can provide a distraction yes, But what is a fire was to occur and the adult could not contact a fire station. " On april 20th 1999, 2 teenagers walk into columbine High school carrying sub- machine guns and homemade bombs intending to do some damage, 13 innocent students were murdered and many more would have been if it weren't for some students and their phones. 1 student hiding for his life called 911 and described the location of the school, And what the murderers looked like. If it wasn't for him and many other, More people would be dead. "
Saudi women should have the same rights as men

I believe in gender equality. However I am also an American, and I have been raised in a culture in which democracy is celebrated - not condemned. I live in a country that upholds (or tries to) the separation of Church and State, and in a nation that does not subject law breakers (for the most part) to corporal punishment. Thus my view is completely Westernized and I understand that. So although I agree with my opponent's point of view, I do not agree with her reasoning, and for the sake of debate I will try to disprove the resolution which states Saudi women should have the same rights as men. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As Pro noted, Saudi Arabia is a theocracy - a form of government in which a 'god' or 'deity' is recognized as the supreme civil ruler (Wikipedia). Much like the Bible, the Qur'an (Muslim Holy Book) does not grant equal rights to men and women in the eyes of the law. Because God's word is of utmost importance in a theocracy, what He says - or rather what the Qur'an says - is the only ruling doctrine. Onto your points... Pro writes, "if their beliefs get in the way of justice, then that's simply not right." What we have to remember is that THEIR BELIEFS = JUSTICE. God or the Qur'an determine what is right and wrong - not us. In their eyes, they ARE upholding justice, and to deter from what has always been considered right and wrong (remember - many of them are religious extremists), they would be doing both society and God a great injustice. Pro then writes, "Personally, I believe that if a country is predominately a certain religion, then it should be influenced by its religion, but not entirely controlled. The courts of any country should be ruled by justice, not what the religion says is right or wrong." So what Pro is describing here is The United States of America. Not every country is a democracy or places a distinction between Church and State. Those are our values - not everyone elses. And further, we cannot be the judge of which value is correct. In order for Pro to accomlish this, she would have to prove that man-law is more important than God's law (be it the Christian God or Muslim God). Theists will certainly disagree with this logic, and the atheists who DO agree really don't matter, because Saudi Arabia is not inhabited predominantly by atheists.
Saudi women should have the same rights as men

In 2006, a Saudi woman was alone in a car with a man who was not related to her, and a gang of seven men found them and raped them. They were given 10 months in jail. She was given six months and 200 lashes. Now I understand that Saudi Arabia is predominately a muslim state, and their government can be theocratic, but if their beliefs get in the way of justice, then that's simply not right. All over Saudi Arabia, women are crying out for help from oppression and injustices. They should have the same rights as men. Personally, I believe that if a country is predominately a certain religion, then it should be influenced by its religion, but not entirely controlled. The courts of any country should be ruled by justice, not what the religion says is right or wrong. We are all created equal and we should all be viewed as equals.
are republicans a better choice then democrats in the 2016 election

you are right about alcohol causing deaths but if u remember prohibition era violence u know that did not end well. however the weed problem could be tackled as it is not as widely consumed. ive been to Colorado were weed is legal and the streets of downtown Denver are filled with druggies. as a result more weed addicts are arriving in Denver and hence many normal people don't want to live there anymore. my own friends live there and they think that legalizing weed is on of the worst decisions ever. i heard that the economy is declining because of this.
are republicans a better choice then democrats in the 2016 election

The difference between our sources is that I posted a article from the Center of Drug abuse And you posted one from right wing news. Yes I know weed causes a loss of brain cells and decline in IQ after a long period of use. But that applies to alchohol too. The annual death rate for cigarettes in US: 400,000 Annual death from alchohol: 2.5 million deaths world wide Annual death in US for Weed: 0 Yes that's right and it says so right here: http://www.economicsjunkie.com... If your really concerned with brain damage then protest alchohol since that causes more loss of life and more brain damage than weed ever will http://www.cdc.gov...
are republicans a better choice then democrats in the 2016 election

Well my opponent didn't really expand so I wont either By using your definition "if something is profitable that doesn't make it right. week is bad for ur healtht" That was word for word Anyway using this definition alcohol, cigarettes, and guns should be outlawed. Alcohol can destroy your brain cells quicker than weed and is more deadly than weed. Cigarettes cause lung cancer and kills over 400,000 Americans every year. Over 800 Americans have died after the Paris attacks due to gun violence. So basically you just want to restrict Americans as much as possible. Classic republicans Sources http://www.webmd.com... http://www.cdc.gov... And this is a 2013 videos detailing gun violence
are republicans a better choice then democrats in the 2016 election

Okay firstly Bernie Sanders is not really a socialist. He is a capitalist. Why he calls himself that I don't know but he's not a socialist. Socialism is the collective ownership and distribution by the people. There is no money or government leaders Here ill give a link to a REAL socialist party fighting for REAL socialism: http://www.worldsocialism.org... Hillary Clinton, while she has been getting funded by many corporations, is nothing compared to the corruption of the republican candidates. The problem is that republicans being corrupt is just the norm. They get funded by big corporations and don't do what the American people want. Ex: The minimum wage. Lets look at the most likely Republican Choices Donald Trump: Radical who has no political experience. "We are going to go in there and take their oil" Yes......Yes he said that. Donald Trump can be effectively classified as a facist Marco Rubio: Crows about being a champion on people living paycheck to paycheck...........raises their taxes in his national tax plan Ben Carson: Doctor who has no political experience. Says being gay is a choice and literally believes in the bible even though science proves that wrong
are republicans a better choice then democrats in the 2016 election

this has turned into a weed battle when the original topic was republican or democratic. on the democratic side of things Hillary Clinton is a corrupt politician who took millions of dollars of bribes from Russia. Bernie sanders identifies him self as a democratic SOCIALIST. as a young person he was a member of the youth socialist party witch was very left leaning. he will quite simply not be nominated to be a democratic party candidate because of that one word SOCIALIST. instead Hillary will be nominated and as i already said she is corrupt and cannot be chosen as president. that leaves the republicans
Fox News has a negative effect on America

To be absolutely clear bias is not bad. That is not my contention. What is bad for America is a slick and highly sophisticated Propaganda machine that uses clever techniques to manipulate it's audience. See clip 1. http://www.youtube.com... . This is the live desk. Fox often uses the excuse that they have "News" and "Opinion" separated on their network. This clip is supposed to be real news. In the beginning "Opinion" is presented as hard facts with no evidence. Delivered in the same style as legitimate news has been for decades. The interview is a setup "You are completely misrepresenting the facts" (with a sly laugh before he speaks) is a news anchor telling the audience to ignore the "opinion" of a credible source. As a result the viewers did not learn anything about the conflict in Palestine. Not one valid argument against what she is saying is offered here. This stifles debate by perpetuating the belief that you must be stupid to ask questions about this conflict. Remember the movie shown to Lisa Simpson's class when she turns veggie about "Bovine University"? Same principle is done for real here. Also across the globe anyone viewing this clip in the Arab world would be infuriated. Both these consequences are bad for America. See Clip 2. http://www.youtube.com... This is Fox's "Opinion" MVP. He is exceptional at what he does and that is Republican propaganda sold under the guise of an independent angry at both parties. A financial meltdown happens under an administration he supported. In the "no spin zone" he can't deny that happened or he would lose what is crucial to making his ruse work - credibility. So he quickly shows two pictures off republicans he has supposedly called on to resign then brings on a hate figure from the left to bash the hell out of him. This mauling is designed to misinform and misdirect the anger people are feeling about the financial collapse away from the republicans and onto democrats. Just an FYI I'm not arguing that democrats played no part in that I'm using this as example of Fox's behaviour. Shouting, ranting and throwing tabloid buzz lines at Barney while he desperate attempts to explain what happened is stifling the debate. The overriding message here is O' Reilly is on your side and you "CAN'T TRUST THE GOVERNMENT" especially the politician you just saw abused. This is bad for America, how does anyone learn from mistakes and how do you build confidence in the future when propaganda like this is pedaled to 3million viewers a night.
Drugs are more harmful than useful

Man, I wish everyone had the self-control you did. I am glad you do not get high all the time. But how many people, who are susceptible to addiction, will you see getting OD'd right in front of you. I do not know man. Right now, prices are incredulous. So many people loose all their money on weed, crack, cocaine, opium, etc. Do you suppose that these will cost less once it is legalized. I just do not so many families ruined by drugs. I mean, alcohol is legal and you still see family torn apart
Drugs are more harmful than useful

Im no hippie bro. I only listen to pink floyed on the weekends hippies listen to them all the time and I only take acid sometimes. yeah if your not careful you can get addicted but bro just take it every now and then. Like the coffe. Coffie make you addick to caffine but only drink it sometime. Yeah drug wars you know drug wars only exist because drugs are illegal. If the legalized it all the wars would be like "dude sh1ts legal why bother?" We dont have candy wars because candy is legal.
Drugs are more harmful than useful

Man, you sound like a hippie to me. Were you high when you said that drugs provide spiritual insight or is this just your belief. Drugs are too addicting. More people have died from OD than alcohol. That said, in the case of enlightenment, the consequence is not equal to the act. Not that they even an enlightener. Drugs are more of an enslaver. Everyone I know that have quit, are glad they did. In conclusion to my argument, I will also say that drug wars are numerous in casualties.
Homosexuality

First of all, we cannot go through this debate if we don't do a clarification on a few things. The very format of this site indicates that my opponent, Sotiras, is for homosexuality while I am against it. It is, at least, how I understood it due to the position of the debate. You should have created something such as "Homosexuality is wrong" and be con. The current form indicates that you are for homosexuality, (Therefore the "promoting") I do understand that it is not the case, however, and I will now move on to another point. Second, I must say that your points are all composed of subjective views. As such, I certainly cannot allow myself to port a judgment on your current beliefs. I am to, however, convince you that in the current form of this debate, the point you raised do not have any weight in a position that is in defence of homosexuality. Let's now get, once again, to the rebuttals. 1. Homosexuality is not morally reprehensible, [...] Since homosexuality is also something you have no choice in, I propose they do not deserve to be discriminated against, or called immoral. If we follow this reasoning to the end, it also implicates that being a psychopath or pedophile, on the basis, is not morally reprehensible (Which is quite certainly not the view of most "civilised" individuals). I certainly hope that you do not wish a society that accept pedophiles on the claim that they were "born with it". 2. Homosexuality does not harm humanity. Even if it does not harm other individuals directly, they might do it indirectly. A simple comparison with a psychopath would do: A lone psychopath, as long as he have not done anything reprehensible, does not "harm" humanity. Of course, he is much more likely to do so later on, as are homosexuals on certain occasions. As this debate is more abstract, I'd rather avoid sources, but it is some kind of known fact that homosexual do have an higher frequency of sex with young boy in age. 3.Homosexuality is positive in its combatance of overpopulation. I must concede this point as they do not have child, but it does raise an important question. If being an homosexual is so much due to natural causes, how do they pass it on to others? As you probably know, the characteristics of an individual are all stored into his DNA. Which is passed on from parents to son. If homosexuals do not have children, how is it even possible that it is a matter of natural causes? 4. Gay marriage should be legal Some government already allow it, depending on their moral views. As you probably know, the North-American government moral system is still based in most part on Christianity, and as such they still follow their very precise view, which are against gay marriage. If the government was to be completely secular, even in his morality and history, I would concede this point. It is, however, not the case. 5. Homosexual intercourse is their business, not ours. Once again, following my previous reasoning, I do not see how this help defend the homosexuals if no one know about their sexual orientation.
Homosexuality

My opponent asked me to clarify my position, because he for some reason thinks I am "promoting" homosexuality, whatever that means. My position is that it simply isn't wrong to be homosexual. I am not "promoting" homosexuality, just attempting to defend it. Arguments: 1. Homosexuality is not morally reprehensible My opponent quotes my supposed contradiction of myself, but I said "...unlikely to find it immoral." I didn't say, "You will not find it immoral." I even went on to explain how, through free speech, we spoke out and eliminated the injustice of segregation and discrimination, because we reasoned that it was immoral to judge someone based on a condition into which they were born. Since homosexuality is also something you have no choice in, I propose they do not deserve to be discriminated against, or called immoral. 2. Homosexuality does not harm humanity I clearly stated in the previous round that I was not referring to humanity as a whole, but that I meant homosexuality is not harmful to people. I'll make it simpler, so you can try to actually refute it next round. My position is that homosexuality is not harmful. 3. Homosexuality is positive in its combatance of overpopulation My opponent's argument is rooted in the presumption that I am "promoting" homosexuality. Since I am simply defending it, he has, in essence, fully conceded to this point. 4. Gay marriage should be legal The point I was making was that gay marriage in general, religious or otherwise, should not be governmentally prohibited. One specific religion has every right to promote bigotry, but government does not. 5. Homosexual intercourse is their business, not ours I believe my opponent may have conceded this point as well. He seems to simply state that people are allowed to be bigots, which I am aware they are. What I said is that intercourse between two consenting adults should not be illegalized on the basis of their sexes and sexualities. I once again await my opponent's response.
Homosexuality

I hope we both come out at the end having learned something. Arguments 1. Homosexuality is not Morally Reprehensible My opponent's point about subjective morality is well made, but I believe that morality in some ways possesses limited objectivity. To put it simply, if it doesn't hurt life, you're unlikely to find it immoral. Vice versa, if it does hurt life, you're likely to find it immoral. I find homophobia to be in line with racism. Racism also used to be not only commonplace, but enforced by law. However, through our greatest right, free speech, we spoke out against judging them by a condition they were born into. They had no choice in their race, but were judged by it nonetheless. Similarly, homosexuality is related to brain proportioning and glandular size. You don't choose these things, they just happen. I therefore say it's not wrong to be gay. 2. Homosexuality does not Harm Humanity I apologize for not making myself clearer. My opponent seemed to compare homosexuality with war. I might be mistaken, considering I have no idea how they're related. The point I wanted to mae with this was that homosexuality itself does not harm people, and does not cause people to harm people. I leave it up to my opponent to refute this. 3. Homosexuality is Positive in its Combatance of Overpopulation I ask my opponent to correct me if I'm mistaken, but I got the impression that you have conceded that homosexuality does indeed combat the mounting problem of overpopulation. If that's true, then 4. Gay Marriage Shoud be Legal I realize that it already is legal in many countries. That doesn't mean it's not a point of contention in the United States, which it is right now. My argument is that the union of two people of the same sex, either religiously or legally, should not be prohibited by law. 5. Homosexual Intercourse is their Business, not ours The point I was trying to make was that sexual reations between two individuals of the same sex should not be something that any laws concern. If it's two people at the legal age of consent, there shouldn't be anything to prohibit. I eagerly await my opponent's response.