BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Monster Rap

http://www.youtube.com...Beat courtesy of Die AntwoordIt’s inaccurate to call your raps immaculatewhile I’m just attackin it not unlike the Captain Starbuck hits all the twits with grit to blitz the B.G. ship. My magic tricks equipped with slick and rhythmic bits to finish weak limericks.Got no spare minutes for half-witted sh*t. Tried to listen but then I found that I got sick of it.Please seek to keep these skeet spiels discreetly unexpressed.No one desires a liar in denial with myths of breast conquest.No smitten kitten here. Just admit Ren’s been bested, dear.Rip that tapestry up with shears. Reveal Ren’s rusty writing gears.You’re defeating tender meats? I’m dethroning preceding Kings. Watch your retreating feet concede, condoning my impending lead.Guilty of ganking. Giving Ren baby a spanking.Flanking and shanking him because I’m clearly greatly outranking him.-that's f*cked up-My lyrics are Egyptian cotton to your rotten textile.You tried to rebut but got caught up in my high profile style.You’re slackin it, not mackin it. I’m frackin’ paybackin’ it.You’re bushwhackin just like mizzou. While I give voice to “muck fizzou,”you’re soundin blasted booming, “what da f*ck are you gonna do”Maybe it’s time to retire cause it seems you need a new pursuit.
Monster Rap

This time, it shall be audio, hehe:http://www.reverbnation.com... I flip facts like derivatives, expletives Lining my genius quips, shiit, I’m excellent No sentiments for lesser men, and speaking of lesser men You’re lesser than most of simpletons I’ve done in For Ren, winning is a given, I’m gifted with spittin The lyrical tapestry I’ve woven is as tight as linen You’re not tight like jean shirts, attempting to fit in And my jaw is made of granite, so tie up your mittens Or this little kitten will by smitten by simply swingin I’ve been word slinging since birth, bringing Defeat to every tender meat I meet, WoW kids call me leet I dps to impress so every nerd girl healer skeet’s I kill kids causally, in rhymes or actuality Or an MMORPG, please, you never really wanna meet me But you beg for it, and I can’t ignore it, in fact I adore it Live for it, so you wanna challenge the best? Go for it
Monster Rap

Eh, I've been super sick this week so his text round was a blessing in disguise. I wouldn't have been able to make a video anyway so don't count it against him. I'm turning verse organized just like astute librarians, Spurning perverse lies about all my acute summations. This is the tale of a guy who thought he was a champion His story ended by Ory: New Yorker beaten by a Kansan. All along the way she knew that it was pre-determined To be her win. Failure prescribed for Ren like medicine. She also grinned. Voters know which rhymer they'll defend: Oryus Quite Intelligent. They're quick to comprehend Ren's negligence, inclined to vocalize she's ended him. Even a kid with nursery rhymes could step to Ren. No neat organization, he just has threats of violence. He's all bark, no bite. Flexin juiced muscles, no might. All tied up in ego with no real flow but my writings quite right. He's makin me go l.m.a.o. with some dupers delight, All giddy with my winning of this rigged knife fight. Heartless wounding and removing of the source of the spite A Lorena Bobbitt who saw it, got it, and gave a nice slice. !
The United States Federal Government should legalize prostitution.

Well well, it's been a long time since kasmic's been active, and it's my pleasure to be one of the first to debate him following his return. I look forward to a great debate on this hot button issue. Just a note to voters: the ELO minimum has been set to 2500. I think this resolution is relatively straightforward, but I'll be as clear as possible. This is a policy-based resolution, and as such, it is my burden to present a case. The burden of proof is on me, as I am seeking to change policy, though if my opponent decides to present a counterplan, our burdens will be shared. The United States Federal Government: In this case, since we're referring to U.S. policy and what it allows for, we're necessarily referring to what should be done by the U.S. Legislature. To be clear, we're not talking about the political will for this to be done, but rather the positives and negatives of the legislature passing my proposed bill into law. Legalize: "make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law." Prostitution: "the practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment." This debate will have a total of 4 rounds. The usual rule of no arguments in the final round still applies as always, first round is acceptance, and the opening rounds may include no rebuttals, in order to balance the debate. With that, I await my opponent's acceptance.
celebrities should not be held liable for their endorsements.

" 1. legally responsible:" LiableCelerbities have a profound effect upon public opinion. Celerbities should use this power resonsibly. Think of Cathy Lee Gifford and how the public reacted to her. Based upon the experiences of Cathy Lee Gifford the majority of people want celerbities to be liable for their endorsements. "told Congress on April 29 that her clothing line was being made by 13- and 14-year-olds working 20-hour days in factories in Honduras. Never mind that Wal-Mart was responsible for producing the Kathie Lee Gifford clothing line. Never mind that Michael Jordan and Jaclyn Smith have come under criticism for endorsing products made in sweatshops. " STEPHANIE STROM Nytimes.com http://dictionary.reference.com...http://www.nytimes.com...
celebrities should not be held liable for their endorsements.

If its the company that is advertising the product in a misleading way then it is the company that should be held responsible for being misleading, not the celebrity.... Its not the duty of the celebrity to know inside-and-out if the product they are advertising is in any-way misleading, nor are they the ones to blame if the product is indeed misleading in some way. If anything the company advertising the bad product are also trying to mislead people by using a celebrity endorsement to dupe people, making them double responsible for screwing over consumers.
america always try to cheat with other countries to be at no.1

america only wants to maintain its strength and so does every country wants.every country is considered a sovereign state but its her duty to protect its interests and sovereignty. if america interfere between pakistan's internal matters she also give them economic support.the major part of the pakistan's economy comes from america including the warfare materials as far as past activities are concerned ,its totally futile to discuss 'em now. during einstein's period there was no concept of patents so it doesn't matter if america stole their technology. THANK YOU
The Existence of God is Impossible

Introduction I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for presenting his rebuttals. I would also like to express my gratitude, as I am glad my opponent has not only been using the faith argument, but logical, mathematical arguments as well. I was hoping for a competent debater, and that is what I got. Rebuttals I would like to begin my rebuttals by critiquing the following statement: “While something's might have a greater probability of happening there is an unlimited probability that what was outside that singularity was God[sic].” There is no probability outside the universe, for time does not exist outside the universe. Furthermore, there was no time inside the singularity either. This particular argument is false because there was no probability. “The statement The existence of God is impossible assumes that we as humans have processed every infinitesimally ,minute piece of knowledge that is inside and outside of our known universe[sic].” I want to point out that outside the universe, matter and energy do not exist. Therefore, there is no knowledge. I am now going to discuss my opponents two points I will need to prove:a) You know everything inside and outside our universe- There is no knowledge outside the universe.- If God exists outside the universe and is a necessary being instead of a contingent one, knowing all the knowledge in the universe does not pertain to this.b) Through knowing everything you have thorough knowledge that God is illusory- I truly cannot make sense of this statement. I cannot ascertain how this connects with proving the existence of God. I will now move on to talking about my opponent’s refutations of the bible verses I quoted. Firstly, I am absolutely certain that God could not have free will, as I proved that in my initial arguments. Secondly, I want my opponent to explain to me how an all-powerful being could not have free will. If the God of the Bible is truly an all-powerful being, he would have free will, and he would not give humans a quality better than his.Finally, I will talk about the following statement: “God exists outside of time and thus sees all. Since God knows everything past,present,and future he knows what he will do.” A being whom is not time-bound could not possibly see what he will do in the future, as there is no past, present, or future outside of time. Conclusion In conclusion, I would like to thank my opponent for assuming this debate with me. It is now time for his final rebuttals and his conclusion. Once those have been put forth, this debate will be in the hands of the voters. I look forward to reading his rebuttals.
The Existence of God is Impossible

I apologize that I presented my rebuttals early. Now onto the nitty gritty. Again since you have specifically stated that those who deny facts deny reality, outside of that singularity that our universe came from we have no scientific evidence to understand or prove or disprove anything that was. This impasse births the fact that anything could have been outside the singularity. Since we use science to approve or disprove subject matters everything is a possibility. While something's might have a greater probability of happening there is an unlimited probability that what was outside that singularity was God. Even if that likelihood was .0000000000000000001% it still had a chance of happening. God existing is not impossible because we have no way of knowing everything. The statement The existence of God is impossible assumes that we as humans have processed every infinitesimally ,minute piece of knowledge that is inside and outside of our known universe. There are things we don't know and things science cannot prove or disprove which means that some things have the opportunity of being very,very possible. Unless you can go ahead and prove that a. You know everything inside and outside our universe and b. through knowing everything you have thorough knowledge that god is illusory, the possibility of God is incredibly possible. Now onto the free will argument let me address those bible verses with the main mission of Jesus "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17 Jesus didn't create any new laws he just fulfilled the prophecy that was the Old Testament. The issue of free will doesn't correlate to God being a God. You use the free will basis to help assist your overall argument. As you stated earlier God is omniscient meaning all knowing. God exists outside of time and thus sees all. Since God knows everything past,present,and future he knows what he will do. If he didn't he would be wrong and thus not omniscient. For this reason God does not have free will. I
The Existence of God is Impossible

I accept My first act is to limit the debate strictly to the existence of the Christian God Defintions: God-(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. Impossible-not able to occur, exist, or be done. Existence-the fact or state of living or having objective reality. All the con must do to win the debate is prove that there is a minute possibility that God can exist and I win. Since the resolution says "impossible" we must assume that God 100% cannot exist. We have an established order in the universe. We have life and death, growth and decay. Every living the ranging from the humans to the stars will experience a birth and death. No living thing has ever been able to birth itself and now we are left at an impasse. If our universe in itself is creation what force birthed it. We are left with many answers and many possibilities one of those being, that behind creation was a creator. God
The Existence of God is Impossible

IntroductionIn this debate, I intend to prove to my opponent that the idea of a god is not only unlikely, but outright impossible. I will be on the pro side, and my opponent will be on the con side, which means he or she will be taking the stance that God is possible.RulesI will now lay down a few rules to abide by for the duration of this debate.1. Proper spelling and grammar should be utilized at all times.2. For any websites, books, or other media you utilize, you must cite them.3. Forfeiting will result in a loss.To make this debate orderly, round 1 will be used only for acceptance. Round 2 will be for main arguments only. No rebuttals will presented in round 2. For round three, rebuttals will be stated. Round 4 will be utilized for final rebuttals and your conclusion.DefinitionsBefore starting the debate, I shall define some definitions so my opponent and I are on the same page as to what we are talking about.God: a necessarily existing being who can be described as supreme, maximally great, or unlimited because he has maximal excellence or limitlessness. God must possess some collection of properties such as omniscience, omnipotence, moral perfection, etc. To make it simple, this debate is over the existence of the Christian God.Theism: The philosophical standpoint that attests to the existence of God or gods.Atheism: The philosophical view that attests to the non-existence of a God or gods.Necessary Existence: Something existing that does not rely on any previous or external force for it to do so.Contingent Existence: Something which exists that relies on something previous or external for it to do so. ConclusionIn this debate, I am looking to debate someone who is serious about their position as Theist and who will not simply forget about this debate or be incapable of taking it seriously, which happened in my first debate. Do not accept this debate if you cannot commit to it and take it seriously.I look forward to the outcome of this debate and I wish my opponent, whoever he or she may be, the best of luck.Sources1. plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/2. dictionary.reference.com/browse/contingent3. philosophy.lander.edu/intro/necessity.shtml
Rapacious greed paired w/ constructed inequalities are the root causes for the decline of America.

It is disappointing that the instigator had to forfeit his round. I will, however, explain as to why I accepted the position of Con. It seems that while rapacious greed paired w/ constructed inequalities are, indeed, problematic and do not help the greater cause or humanitarian efforts, I must ask what keeps this rapacious greed in power to begin with. There can be no absolute or literal equality in a world of inherent diversity, humans do all share the biological condition of being human, but all the abstract things like our memory and experiences, which arguably makes our lives meaningful, can never be equal. At best, we can ask for similar rights, which we have to a certain extent. The socioeconomic inequalities, however, are self-imposed to a certain degree. If the supposed 99% wanted to start a revolution, such a thing is within the realm of possibility. History shows, however, that revolutions only instill different tyrants. For all our supposed technological progress and success, we solved so little problems than we have actually solved. Indeed, it seems we have only improved human conveniences, while introducing new inconveniences. But what of the progress of the soul? You name the root causes for the decline of America, but what of the root causes of rapacious greed and constructed inequalities? We fail to transcend the human condition, because we fail to tame our own nature. I would argue that most people are not even aware of their own ignorance; indeed, most do not know why Socrates was the wisest man in the world. The reason why every revolution fails is because people cannot transcend their own nature to revolt against even what is good, most cannot see beyond the radius of their own eyes, they fail to feel beyond their own heart, and they live as if the entirety of existence revolves around them. In short, it is the death of philosophy, the rampant ignorance and unawareness of the majority, the lack of desire to think and learn partly as a result of economic slavery, the banishment of critical thought in schools while pandering to standardized tests, the inability to empathize beyond their own condition, and ultimately, the fear of challenging the superstructure. I believe that while Pro raises good point that I mostly agree with, I do not think rapacious greed and constructed inequalities are the root causes of the decline of America. For the root cause of rapacious greed and constructed inequalities, as well as the general declination of human society, is ignorance. People are too busy trying to get by to think about why they are in such a position to begin with. And when they do have free time, most people are trying to rest, pursue hobbies and pleasure, try to share some time with families and friends. For instance, most people that call themselves democrats and republicans do not even know the current policies of either parties, except for some rudimentary skit they come across on the news.
Rapacious greed paired w/ constructed inequalities are the root causes for the decline of America.

Thanks to Pro for the fascinating topic. As requested, I will offer no rebuttals. I only ask that "the decline of America" be taken liberally, so as not to fall prey to semantics. As it is, I am understanding the "decline" to represent an abstract sense of moral, economic, and declination of other values that may be deemed relevant rather than decline in a specific category, such as "jobs" for instance. That said, I look forward to presenting my rebuttals on the 2nd round.
Rapacious greed paired w/ constructed inequalities are the root causes for the decline of America.

Debate round rules Round 1: Acceptance & Opening arguments (no rebuttals by con) Round 2: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments) Round 3: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments) My argument begins with: I contend that rapacious greedy plutocrats, oligarchs, legalized corruption in the form of lobbying and dark money campaign contributions, paired with constructed political, socioeconomic, education, and judicial inequalities are the root causes for the decline of the American middle class, productivity, and our standing in the world. (1) The author Stan Moore claims that "...instead of promoting equality and fairness, democracy in America has been hijacked by the wealthy and powerful to further their own interests..." I further assert that the interests of the plutocrat resides solely in personal power and prestige, and not for national or social interests. Furthermore, the rich power elites have rigged the systems of America by corrupting capitalism to create massive profits by working against the productivity of the American middle class. To be clear, I am for democracy, capitalism, and fair competition, and profiting from a good idea. Making a legit profit from hard work and dedication is a privilege that can't be understated. Fair profits are good, healthy and promote competition, while abject and rapacious greed is bad for everyone, especially the middle class. It's also bad for productivity and innovation. (2) Richard Cooper points out that "...individuals can become fabulously wealthy at the expense of other citizens, by securing privileges from powerful government officials--sometimes through influencing the decision-making process, sometimes through outright bribes or offers of lucrative future employment." One should never come to the false conclusion that wealthy people are simply really smart, blessed, lucky. (1) Moore, Stan. "American Democracy Is a Charade." American Values. Ed. David M. Haugen. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 5 Dec. 2013. (2) Cooper, Richard N. "Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else." Foreign Affairs 92.3 (2013). Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 5 Dec. 2013.
Golden Goose Sale promise

Mid sole cushioning and technical lacing for sure and Barbara certainly cut a dash with her impromptu performance on the trail. Back home and nicely showered and towelled and there's no let up in style or quality, Top drawer accessories and a promising evening ahead if you get my drift. She's a sensible girl though, G. G. G. Available (applicators provided) internal, External and all options are open, Say no more. Sunday morning no let up and the girls are on the road. Carbon interface and high end machines, On the flat or in the hills technical layering, It goes without saying doesn't it? Top brands top effects and they move like cheetahs. Sleek fast and sublime threeway ramifications and threeway action later no doubt, Let's leave it there. Did you mention Primrose or was it prim Rose. I think you mentioned sailing and I'm pretty certain Rose is a jolly good sailor but not altogether prim. Once again it's an all girl team and they're as fit and as active as Barbara's gang. Actually now that I think about it Primrose was the ethereal one, She was into new age music and meditation and all that kind of stuff. Certainly, Meat products were of the menu! German girls like big frankfurters and take their meat seriously, None of this mystical pussyfooting around in the Munich area. Or was that munching around the cat like area and putting a foot in it. I'm confused now. Wasn't Bob your Uncle? And I'm pretty sure Fanny was your Aunty. Now there's a coincidence, Because Uncle Bob worked in the sausage factory and was always surprising Fanny with big meaty ones. I wonder if Bob's got some Germanic D. N. A lurking in him somewhere? It wouldn't surprise me. Golly! I've never actually met gooey Den, But his reputation goes before him. Primrose would be horrified for sure and I'm not sure how prim Rose would take it either. She would have a go though, She's not one to give up easily. I suppose it depends to a great extent on the quality of the performance, If the build up is exciting enough then the end display might actually be the icing on the cake, If you'll pardon the expression. Anyway I think that' all bases covered for round two. In the kitchen and in the bedroom all nicely fitted out, Beautiful door and drawer action. Plenty of storage solutions that's the key, Especially with all those high end technical sports outfits and footwear. Work and casual wear needs to be functional and stylish enough but no need to go over the top in these departments, Basic brands with a reputation for quality will suffice, Just keep a little something exciting tucked away for those special moments. And don't forget the bedside unit top drawer, For all that fun gadgetry.