BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rapp Battle Omega

Your bars are very transparent, You're see through The L I gave you in our first battle was just a preview I roll with big dogs, I got a Cujo crew So, Bring your buddy but just in case dude won't shoot Me and my gun spitting sh-t like a 2 on 2 What I rap is of value, Forget the sh-t you spew F-ck a classic, A L is what you got. I bet yo crew feel em It's a wrap (rap) it ain't jazz when I give you that smooth feelin' You want this tech, No? See where the moves get him So the kid ain't bout to dance when y'all hear "Ooo kill em" No pumpkin head, When I show you that this pump can move When I give him the peace (piece), I ain't chunkin' deuce I'm from Texas, Bounce back before I dump and shoot Just admit your defeat and move on, Lets make a truce You should put down your gun cause you don't spray right Once I swing and tap you that's it, No play fight This my home court, Pack your bags and take flight Cause I make all my opponents eat clips (eclipse) cause they light (daylight) Your turn. (Explaining bars in comments for voters so they can understand. Hopefully people vote! )
Rapp Battle Omega

Round 2, This time try and insult me. I wanna make sure that I leave this rap battle feeling salty. Now let's get down to business your rhymes are just faulty. Plus too general in general they need to involve thee. I'm totally meshing, My words are exceptional. It's truly refreshing, Like hot water and Epson salt. I'm permanently pressing on victory cause I'm stepping tall. Conversely your rhymes belong in a trash receptacle. I don't rhyme about drugs and pimping, I'm rhyme about violence and logic. Because they both are practical and there's no way to dodge it. My double tap completely induces you in the area I lodge it. Be it religion, Politics, Science, Nature, Hedgehogs, Or vomit. I'll go out on a high note, Like the final fermata I'll milk it until the end cause I'm a Prima Donna. While I'm writing letters to my home like it's Camp Granada. And when I finally finish, The curtain closes on your brah
The Bible should not exist and is not the word of god.

The bible doesn't teach that women that they are subservient to men. The Bible says that women should be loyal to men (if they are married). The Bible never states that "wifes being subservient to there husbands". And the Bible never can be corrupted. The people that teach the religion that are corrupt. Like the pope for instance. No one back when Jesus was born was the pope and the Bible never states that the pope is head of Christianity. People that weren't listeners to the Bible use it as a way to have power. The Bible I have is called "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures" and the website to find the religion that uses it is http://www.watchtower.org...
The Bible should not exist and is not the word of god.

People who desire power corrupted the teachings of christianity only slightly... enough for them to gain power. the idea of christianity is good in theory but just like communism can be easily corrupted. my argument is that the cannon did not exist during the apocolistic age and was only put together after the death of jesus and anyone who knew him or the apostles. You cant respond to my statement by saying " well the teachings are good" because not all of them are... like wifes being subservient to thier husbands. i for one treat woman with respect, not like slaves. you also cant use parts of the bible to counter my statement saying it is false, because if i believe it is false why would i change my mind based upon parts of the book, which i do not believe in.
The Bible should not exist and is not the word of god.

But the bible tells so many magnificent things, then how could an power hungry leader write that kind of stuff? The bible always have ways to teach you and way for you to do good. The Holy Spirit is 1. the spirit of God. 2. the presence of God as part of a person's religious experience. From http://dictionary.reference.com.... It proves that it can descend to people and the bible even says so. In 33 A.D the bible shows that the holy spirit was descended to 3,000 people and they started speaking other languages. Preaching is god's will and the preachers (Jehovah' Witnesses) have done that. And in the last round, I said that God chose his people. And now he uses other preachers to send his word by the holy spirit.
The Bible should not exist and is not the word of god.

Ok, i do feel that the original writings may have been well intentioned but, we do not have the originals. what was there to stop the creators of the cannon, not the writings themselves, to change the wording, one example is the way women are treated in the bible. evidence shows that in the early church women were treated as equals not like later on in church history and even now. the priests who may have changed the wordings were the only ones who could actually read therefore making it easy, very easy, for them to change the words and destroy or hide the originals. Like ive stated before the writings within, somewhat, arent always wrong or evil, just the way the cannon was conceived reeks of corruption, which was very very prevalent in the church during that time in history. are we to believe the same clergy men who overtaxed the peasents. slaughtered many, raped women are to be thought to have been inspired by the holy spirit... rubbish
The Bible should not exist and is not the word of god.

I think you feel that bible was written by men but it was God who told people that he chose to write the Bible because God can't write the bible but his holy spirit was sent down to the people he chose that followed him to be his "authors" making you believe that people really wrote the bible. And how can people write such magnificent things and if they did, why write it and say its the word of God? They could have just wrote i and say it was them how did it.
The Bible should not exist and is not the word of god.

The Bible did not exist at the time of Jesus Christ it was in fact put together out of many different books by a bunch of power hungry old men interested only in thier continuing dominance over the illiterate peasentry. So many christian writings of the time were left out and the bible portrays woman in a worse light then even the romans. I refuse to believe a god who teaches equality would have a book in his own words teaching sexism.
Human Propensity to "Sin"

Greetings to my opponent and all viewers. Have fun and good luck in the proceeding rounds. Right, now to express my argument; it is the belief of many that humans are not inherently good, but instead possess the hereditary propensity to "sin." I will advocate this viewpoint. Firstly, we must establish that "sin" exists in religious (and secular) moral and ethical standards, and thus this can't be debated in the argument. Dictionary.com defines "sin" as follows, "transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam. 2. any act regarded as such a transgression, esp. a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle. 3. any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time." While this debate is foremost about the propensity to sin over being morally sound, "Original Sin" is correlated and will likely be integrated into the debate at some point. On another note, I see no reason why Biblical references should be excluded from the debate. Having stated that, I will briefly assert a few points and then allow my opponent to introduce the retaliatory argument (that the human is naturally "good" rather than "sinful"). ~ To begin, I will select a verse from the Bible which seems to indicate that humans are inherently sinful, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2. God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? ... 17. But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you." (Romans 6, verse 1, 2, 17).* I would say then that the Bible is clearly announcing that the human is filled with sin and prone to contravene the law. As another example, one can see that those who haven't received any moral upbringing are not wonderful model citizens - upright, true and virtuous. Rather, these individuals are crude and culpable. I will utilize the pirate, as an example. Many of these men were cast from the dregs of society, and they hesitated not to plunder, rape, loot, destroy and kill - even among themselves. If the opportunity is there, will not one of us at certain times fall to lust rather than upholding the law? There is not one individual among us who can tell us that they are morally perfect - never having committed a misdemeanor or unjust act, never having cheated, lied, stolen etc. I think I shall leave it there and wait for my opponent. Thanks for accepting, in advance, and may we have a most enjoyable debate! Cheers * http://www.biblegateway.com...
Science vs

I never stated there was no explanation for the Big Bang. I was simply quoting my opp's claims and then refuting them. I just didn't use quotations. Anyway, My opp still failed to answer many of my questions. The one he did answer, he did not have adequate enough an answer. This is how atheists operate. But this is unlike anything I've ever seen. He totally skips over my questions in favor of pulpit preaching and low level college lectures. Not to mention his grammar and spelling have been pretty bad too. My opp essentially conceded my points by never once attempting to refute them. His speeches, while somewhat informative, fall flat. his science is self refuting as you just simply cannot have a book without an author. That is what atheism, science, secularism, etc. claim. It just makes no sense.
Science vs

My opp has switched from preaching to lecturing, and thus SORT OF debating. He seems to have half answered one of the questions I posed to him, so I will give him credit for that as much as I can, which is not alot. Let's talk about a few key points that are worth mentioning from his last round: The earth is a perfect size. The earth is located at the right distance from the sun The Moon is the perfect size and distance from the earth for it's gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides, Water is colorless odorless and without taste and yet no living thing can survive without it. The human brain simultaneously processes an amazing amount of info The eye can distinguish among seven million colors. All this he seems to just be stating yet in the very first sentence, he states he will be "arguing for both sides". He says there are many different examples of God's design. I'm not arguing there. However, I am SUPPOSED to be arguing for God. My opp is not. He has defeated himself. Next: Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light. The universe has not always existed. It had to start... what caused that? SCIENTISTS HAVE NO EXPLANATION FOR THE SUDDEN EXPLOSION OF LIGHT AND MATTER Of course they don't! The argument is self defeating. SOMETHING would have had to cause all that to happen. That something: God Points 3 and 4 are basically the same. Everything is programmed a certain way, and operates by uniform laws of nature. You cannot find instruction, precise information like this, without someone intentionally constructing it. Exactly my point. My opponent seems to agree with me now. In my opp's final point he totally takes a born again Christian stance. He totally abandons his atheistic stance and there is no point to the whole debate now. He does not have any justification for this socalled role play of being the born again Christian role. It baffles me. So my opponent has half answered, maybe just a third answered the question of how does an atheist account for existence. there still are four questions left: 1. How does the atheist account for rationality? 2. How does the atheist account for morality? 3. What reasoning does the atheist have for needing to disprove the existence of God? 4. Where in the bible does it state that God is a physical being? Honestly I have little hope that my opp will answer any or all of these questions in the final round
The Bryan Mullins Logic: Christmas Is A Big Distraction For Murder, Christmas Should Be Ban

People who do not believe in Christmas are not killed in any country that I know of. Now, there may be one or two instances where a HIGHLY radical Catholic or Christian killed someone for not believing in the holiday, but instances like this, if there are even ANY, will be extremely rare. Christmas should not be banned because it's good effects far outweigh it's negative effects. Families are brought together where they can settle there differences, and the community comes together and has a sense of brotherhood. In some cases, Christmas has helped save lives. Of course poor people can get nourishment especially on this holiday, but let's not forget the Christmas Truce in 1914, during the first winter of WWI. British and German troops laid down their weapons and met in No Man's Land to exchange cigarettes and play a few gams and just hang out for a little between war. Pro has posted a meaningless video with 2 views that has no evidence whatsoever.
The Bryan Mullins Logic: Christmas Is A Big Distraction For Murder, Christmas Should Be Ban

Since in this rant video: Bryan Mullins says he is proud that the fact that churches are slaughtering America's children has been proven and the Christmas is a big distraction for murder. Christmas cartoon icons like Rudolph The Red Nose Reindeer, Frosty The Snowman, and Santa Claus are truly big distractions to distract your kids into believing lies and to distract children from the fact that churches are slaughtering America's children for not believing in it. Dancing toys and women sexualizing themselves like the female dancing toys that sing "Santa Baby" is also one of their distraction techniques, singing, caroling, and kissing under the "mistletoe" are distraction techniques too. Christmas should be banned because we should not have to be slaughtered for not believing in it.
Ex-felons who commited minor crimes or crimes at a early age should be allowed to vote

Fair points that my opponent had to say about my case. But now I will have to do the job of proving them wrong. 1. Broadness of a felon My opponent gives the usual things an ex-felon could do. Though he makes the case that after they have done there time in jail they learn there mistake. I agree with that statement, but my case is to help young kids not get into crime. What is more important the 5.83 million ex-felons, or the 74.8 million minors learning that doing drugs, and alcohol is cool. 5.83 million people need to be an example to the 74.8 million minors living in America. It is about the new generation. Focus on the right now, instead of the past. We can get them financially secure, but they have to serve as an example to our minors. 2. Taxation without representation My opponent tries to make the claim that there debt to society has been served in jail, and it should be a right for them to vote. I respect that my opponent is trying to protect the 2% of America, but I am trying to protect the 74.8 million minors that can get in trouble with the law. Lets try to decrease the 5.83 million Americans to 1 million. We should have these ex-felons as examples to the larger demographic. We need to protect the 74.8 million minors. We need to focus on the right now. We need to focus on the greater benefit of the 74.8 million than the 5.83 million Americans. 3. Ex-Felons go back to jail His argument in a way helps my case, because he is saying that this is a way felons can actually help themselves. We should give them jobs, but we shouldn't give them voting rights because they could be put up as an example. 4. Benefits of ex-felons voting My opponent said that countries do well if they let ex-felons voice there opinions. Ex-felons can voice their opinions anytime in America. Maintaining our status as a free country has nothing to do with the resolution, therefore it is invalid. My opponent also said the returning there vote can integrate the criminal system. I said earlier in this argument that they still have the power to voice there opinions. They can create awareness about how tough it is in prisons. But they should also serve as an example to the 74.8 million minors who might commit a crime. It is truly the greater benefit for our society. 5. Racial felon disenfranchisement laws/ racist voting My opponent tries to make the case that there is discrimination against minorities. I totally agree that there is discrimination against minorities when it comes to the prison system. That is why I have been trying to stress through out this whole case that the ex-felons should serve as an example to our new generation. I think, and my opponent can correct me if I am wrong, but I think he is trying to say that giving these rights back to them will fight discrimination. He also stated that these ex-felons come from poor neighborhoods. That is exactly why we should have ex-felons as an example to the poorer neighborhoods. We should teach these neighborhoods the consequences of their actions. It will serve as a greater benefit for American society.
Ex-felons who commited minor crimes or crimes at a early age should be allowed to vote

Intro: I am going to try to stress a utilitarian view of America, and how we can benefit from these punishments on criminals. America needs to focus on its new generation which is growing up in a ever changing world. America's new generation needs to learn that it can't just break laws, and think it is okay. We can let ex-felons start to teach everyone from there neighborhood, through there county, through there state how hard prison is, and to the people above there twenties that your voting rights will be taken away. It is for the greater good for America, and that is what I am going to try to stress in this argument. I will like to go by the same definitions provided by my opponents. 1. Minority 5.83 million Americans out of the 300 million Americans are not allowed to vote. This is actually 2% of the American population that my opponent is fighting for. This is where I would like to stress the word Utilitarianism. The greatest benefit for the greatest number of people. Children need to learn the value of breaking the law, and the consequence for breaking the law. Lets try to decrease the 5.83 million people that 1% of the American population. 2. Voting Rights is irrelevant 56% of violent felons are repeat offenders and 61% of all felons are repeat offenders, partially because we"ve given them no choice. It is not the case of voting rights, but it is the case of companies not hiring them. We should prioritize companies hiring them, than voting rights. It is not the voting rights that we should take into priority, but there jobs. We should first make them get financially secure. 3. Lessons We should focus on getting America's children to learn the consequence of breaking the laws. There should be downsides to breaking laws. It would be for the greater benefit of America. We should teach the new generation not to break the law. http://felonvoting.procon.org... http://geekpolitics.com...
Ex-felons who commited minor crimes or crimes at a early age should be allowed to vote

Crime-an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law. Utilitarianism- The greatest benefit for the greatest number of people A lot of people would think that I am being close minded in believing that ex-felons should not be allowed to vote. Well I am here today to prove that I am not. These children need to bear the punishment of their actions. Better not, they need to be the face of the consequence of crime. I think we can all agree that crime is a horrible, unethical thing to do in a society. But we need to convince these children of it too. These children should know that there privileges will be taken away, and there voting rights will be taken away. I am looking at it from a utilitarian view. This will be the greater benefit for the new generations.
This house would make physical education compulsory

Ok, firstly, you are simply copying arguments word for word from other websites. Plagiarism at its finest. I hope voters will take this into account. Another big point I want to bring to the table is expenses. With the recession in the United States and schools having to make education cuts, physical education should not be the primary focus in expenditures. Schools would be forced to pay to - buy/maintain a gym - pay teacher salaries While I am not saying that physical education is a negative class, there are better ways that the schools funds could be allocated, because it is indeed a "school." Also, there are quite uneven results when looking on the effects that PE has on children. Many children find some sports uncomfortable and believe that they cannot perform on par. This is damaging to self-esteem and it is much worse when there is an apathetic gym teacher who allows bullying of the kids who perform sub-par. Thanks for hearing me out fellas.