BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap Battle 5 Cheesedingo VS Lannan

Ain't no one tell you to not to count you chicken before they hatch,Cause after this debate you'll wind up with an eye patch,You won't even see me swing this hatch,B*tch this is over, set match.Hell you think your so tough but you get beat by Chris,You think you got me beat, but you your sh*t ain't worth p*ss,Appartenly you never faced somebody from Kansas,I'm like the weather in Kansas, on fire, freezin', and by the end you'll be sayin' God help us,You think your sh*ts cool,B*tch it ain't even worth my stool,Man you ain't going no where and do the whole world a favor and drown yourself in a pool,Cause, man, you know this sh*ts a jewel.They say gingers have no souls,But you better watch out for them holes,Cause I kicked the devil's @$$ and now he ain't sh*t just like a mole,No one can stop me, just kill yourself, pills in a bowel.See since I run hell ain't nobody around,See if you don't be watching yourself I'll be draggin' you down,Your loosin' so bad that your dead grandparents, upon you they frown,Yah, that's right my sh*ts making you depressed and puttin' you down.Your move Cheesedingo.
Rap Battle 5 Cheesedingo VS Lannan

I don't think your prepared to loseI'll break your heart like Taio Cruzsoon you be passin' out like you drinkin too much boozei'll be gettin' all the cheers, you gettin' all the boos.I just won't stop like Alaska's SnowingSoon the towel is what you'll be throwingI'll cut you like this lawn i'm mowingsoon my mind isn't the only thing you'll be blowingSo just give up while you have the chanceMy sick rhymes got you in a tranceYour rhymes you'll probably need to enhanceThere is no way you will advanceYou'll see my d!ck is sweet like honeyIt shines so bright, you'll call it sunnythis aint no joke. You think i'm funny?I'm not Lil' Wayne but I am Young moneyI'll keep it short for a first round just to get things warmed up and started. Your turn, Lannan!
Rap Battle 5 Cheesedingo VS Lannan

Well, This guy says she gots what it takes to take me on. WE SHALL SEE.RULES:1) Offend your opponent. That is the way rap is. If you can't put up with that, don't accept.2) While offending your opponent is necessary, try not to take it over the top and go out of your way to make your opponent feel like sh*t.3) Be good at rapping.First round is acceptance ONLY.THAT IS All.CHALLENGE OF THE CHEESEDINGO!!!!
The Government Should Subsidize the Arts

Definitions:The Government-Can be federal, state, local, etc. Any form of government.Subsidize-Provide financial assistance toThe Arts-Music, literature, theater, etc.Rules:1. First round is acceptance only.2. Second round is for opening arguments only.3. No new arguments in the final round.4. No kritiks or semantics.5. Shared BOP.6. Violation of rules results in automatic loss.
The Government Should Subsidize the Arts

Nature of Subsidies: This should be fairly obvious, but it’s worth stating. The government’s only source of revenue is taxation, which primarily comes from the people. This means for the government to subsidize art, there must be a tax imposed on the people. Also, it should be mentioned that due to the fact governments typically spend a lot, they often have budget deficits. In the long run, budget deficits are bad for a country’s economy due to higher debt interest payments. (1) Let the People Decide: As mentioned, it is the people’s money that would pay for art subsidies. Hypothetically, let’s say a 1% income tax is used to subsidize an orchestra. To keep the math simple, we’ll say the average person makes about $50,000 per year, meaning they’d have to pay a $500 tax to subsidize said orchestra. However, what about the people who wouldn’t attend the orchestra (which would most likely be a wide majority)? In this case, the person would likely have no interest in funding something which they will never go to and they’d likely rather have the $500, which could be used to spend on something that the person actually wants or needs. Seeing as governments typically want to and are expected to maximize people’s happiness, it would make the most sense for the person to decide themselves what they spend their money on, as opposed to forcing them to spend part of it on something that they may never watch, look at, experience, etc. Economic Burden: Economically, art subsidies would cause quite a few problems. One of these is simply having a higher deficit, discussed above. This is especially problematic as many countries (developed countries especially) have high debt:GDP ratios, so spending on non-essential items should be restricted. (2) Another problem is that it would require higher taxes. Higher taxes take money away from what could be consumer spending and put it into something that is not guaranteed to turn any sort of profit. Finally, one has to consider the opportunity cost. Tax money spent on art subsidies could be spent on other things, such as infrastructure, welfare for the poor, education, etc. Regardless, there are many services which will help more people and would never occur without the government. However, art would continue to live without the government and most art does not add anything to anyone’s lives. Art is Subjective: This is the most important point. No one can objectively determine which form of art is superior and worthy of government support. For example, I may see a certain song to be very well done art, but you might think it’s trash. Unless the government subsidies every art form, whether it be a high level pianist or a top-charting pop star, it is unfairly choosing what can be considered “good” art. Sources: 1- http://www.economicshelp.org... 2- http://www.tradingeconomics.com...
Worldwide Organic Food is a bad idea

I agree that it is healthier (only by being richer in nutrients), but not beneficial. Each year our crops are genetically altered for the following predicted season, and region. Without this we couldn't guarantee a good growing season. We can create plants that grow during drought, or years of too much rainfall. Because of this we can create crops that will grow in places they normally do extremely bad, like desert regions or regions known for flooding. I will list why organic farming and foods are bad on global scale 1. Organic foods have fewer turn over compared to conventional farming. In other words the produce less crops. Which means less food worldwide. 2. Organic foods cost more. With people pinching pennies as it is, it makes it harder to buy healthier foods. It's a choice between produce and processed. And a lot of families cannot afford the difference to supplement their diets correctly. 3. Because in some areas there is a higher demand for organic foods they have to look further then the local organic farm. This means more transportation costs. Plus allot of the imported comes from places that don't regulate what they call organic, like China. http://www.organicconsumers.org... 4. It takes more time and therefore cannot be produced on a massive scale. They need to be tended to more (example: weeding) 5. Organic foods spoil at a much quicker rate and therefore cannot be transported to far away regions that have a lack of food. So it would raise world hunger. 6. If they have a bad year it would be a disaster. Great Example: The Great Potato Famine of Ireland. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...(Ireland) 7. The pesticides kill things like roundworms, and help to deter plant diseases that can cause you to loose your entire crop. The help control invasive species, and help protect us from disease causing pests. Overall the pros outweigh the cons when it comes to today's commercial farming methods. I look foreword to your response.
The War on Drugs

I believe the war on drugs is beneficiary as despite what my opponent has said, imagine what would happen if we stopped the war on drugs, the problems would practically ten-fold. Drug cartels would become even more powerful and rich then before due to all their merchandise reaching their desired location with nothing to stop them. People would start supplying drugs in both the US and mexico, meaning the US would have both an external and internal struggle. These two problem would result in lower drug prices due to more supply, meaning more people with access to drugs then before and more people to rehabilitate, resulting in damage to the US economy and an even bigger prison population.
The War on Drugs

This is my first debate so I hope to have an intellectual and mature conversation on this site. Yes, I am against the War on Drugs that the United States has fought the past few decades. Allow my to explain a few reasons on why I think so. 1.) The war on drugs is a huge reason on why the United States has the biggest prison population in the world. It has not helped rehabilitate much of the population of the United States at all; it has only incarcerated more people which has scarred their records thus they become more trapped in such a lifestyle that got them incarcerated in the first place. 2.) Since more people in the United States are getting incarcerated for acts involving drugs there is less people in the United States willing to supply it due to the risk of imprisonment. This leaves more demand to go towards the suppliers in Mexico which in turn encourages these foreign suppliers to smuggle drugs across the border (there could be other criminal acts done but in general I'm just going to mention smuggling). 3.) Since these suppliers from Mexico get more demand, they in turn get more income thus more power and influence in their territories in Mexico. The more this occurs the more powerful these criminal organizations become in the drug trade and as criminal organizations in general due to income that can be used for anything deemed necessary by and for them. I believe that all the War on Drugs has done is make the situation worse off. Here is my idea of a step in the right direction... If it can be executed right, a social program for drug addicts would be more appropriate and probably more effective than simply locking them up after violations of probation. The social program can consist of continuous probation and rehab programs that the individual would eventually have to pay off in currency or community service. If payment in currency is decided yet not completely payed off, then community service can be done to pay off any remaining debts to the state. If the individual keeps the same cycle of drug use going, they're at least funding the state one way or another instead of costing the state money by being imprisoned. Drug use will always be their choice whether incarcerated or not but deeds such as community service may change their life for the better instead of being locked up. Plus, the community service would take up their time of being able to make money elsewhere to support their drug habits and they're only repaying debts to the state. To me, this seems like a start but definitely needs more refinement. I look forward to a reply, thank you for your time.
Old Spongebob (PRO 1999-2005) is better than New Spongebob (CON 2006-now)

I honestly don't care about spongebob. It is a mindless stupid cartoon that depletes brain cells. There is honestly not much of a difference between old and new. It is just a cartoon. A time waster like this argument. I know i am being mean and i am sorry but I don"t care. A spongebob argument can only last one round because there is not enough to put in.
Old Spongebob (PRO 1999-2005) is better than New Spongebob (CON 2006-now)

I don't care about your stupid rules. This is debate.org. No rules! Spongebob is good but the newer ones are better. I am not going to back it up because it is obvious. Your Grammar is horrible, you have mixed up words everywhere. " This is a argument" is bad grammar. You are being such a hypocrite. You say that i am freakin out but i'm not you are. Its just spongebob.There is no need to get all flustered. Just argue about spongebob not my stupid grammar flaws. If you were to have a group of people pick out their favorite episodes, there would be some new ones and some old. i agree that the old ones are good, but the new ones have just as good of episodes. BUT, ONE OF MY 'PET PEEVS' IS THAT THERE IS NOT RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWER HERE, IT IS TOTALLY OPINION OF WHAT ERA U LIKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I AM EXPRESSING MY OPINION. YOU ARE TRYING TO GIVE FACTS AND STUFF AND GOING OVER THE TIME. It is not needed.
Old Spongebob (PRO 1999-2005) is better than New Spongebob (CON 2006-now)

You know what? That's your problem. This is Debate.org, not Opinion.org. The point of an argument is to back up your opinions with reasoning, and don't you dare tell me I'm a nerd and that I can't legitimately prove the older ones are better. This is a ARGUMENT. That's the whole point. So you're attacking nerds by saying only people living in their parents' basements care about reasoning in arguments; LOOK AT OTHER DEBATES! People do the same thing. This is a debate, and if you don't want to follow my rules, don't join arguments like this. Don't join debates because you are "sorry" for me. You are the one who should be aware of what you get into. Don't you know how arguments even work? You're making a big deal out of this, not me. You are automatically switching the topic, and didn't even come close to making any sort of argument. You are being a total douche. There are tons of debates that have nobody join. Consider that it could be better cause most people prefer Old Spongebob, and thus, they agree with me. Now you're just plain insulting. People like you frustrate me, don't join a debate like this if you don't have want to follow rules. And how can you be so sure nobody would've joined, can you PROVE that, or is it just another opinion of yours. There are "nerds" who don't live in their parents' basements, for your information. In fact, a lot of people don't live elsewhere because they are uneducated and can't get a job. All I did was rebut your argument like I was supposed to, rather than verbally attacking your type of people. People like you would spend time in their parents' basement as well. You don't have to research, just explain argument the claims you make if possible. Please, for gods sake, calm down. I have debunked enough of your claims. Don't respond to me another insulting speech, you will just embarrass yourself. Oh, and by the way, you go on about my "sorry debate." And could you do better? Your argument was non-existent. It doesn't matter what the debate is about, what matters is how it's presented. The debate states that CON is for 2006-2015, not 2004-2010, if you haven't figured out already. You have to be aware of what you're arguing about and how to do so in the rules, so this is all on you, not me. The fatal flaw you have is that since you state that my arguments are too long, you probably don't have even read the whole thing. That means you are very lazy, thus, not even attempting to refute my claims. As a final conclusion for my rebuttals I must note that: -CON is now verbally attacking me -CON didn't back up his/her argument -CON had subpar grammar (I have made a few, although I don't have errors in every sentence) -CON switched the topic -CON didn't come up with any rebuttals for the actual debate -CON equivocated The only thing you can attack me about is some of my grammar errors. But everybody has a little bit of them every once in a while, you have at least one in almost every sentence.
Old Spongebob (PRO 1999-2005) is better than New Spongebob (CON 2006-now)

Bruh, I'm not some nerd that goes to comic cons and stuff. I don't really care enough to go actually research SONGEBOB. Btw, u saying that everybody talks about characters like u do, ONLY NERDS WHO LIVE WITH THEIR PARENTS BASEMENT DO! Man...i just like the 2004-now spongebobs a little more than the older ones...it doesn't mean that if a older one comes on tv, I am not going to watch it, I will. I don't give a crap on your "rules". I just joined this debate because I felt sorry for your sorry debate...NOBODY ELSE WOULD HAVE JOINED, plus I like SpongeBob...soooo yeah. I'm gonna be serious here...their is no possible way that u can legitimately prove that the older ones are better. It is a total OPINION! It's like saying that chocolate cake is better than vanilla...ok, I don't give a crap...it YOUR CHOICE!!!
Old Spongebob (PRO 1999-2005) is better than New Spongebob (CON 2006-now)

Woah....that is way too much sh*t for SPONGEBOB. I MEAN...i was reading like to first paragraph of your argument and I was like ok...but when I saw that u wrote a 200 page essay...i was all like, "ain't nobody got time for reading this sh*t". I'm just sayin...i like SpongeBob, and the 2004-now era is not terrible... I mean you are going to run out of idea for SpongeBob some time. This era has produce some of my favorite episodes...thats all. I dint want to get in like a fight about it...its SpongeBob. But I can agree that it is an opinion thing... There is no right or wrong answer.(btw...i don't give a sh*t on whether I have good grammar or not...and two, I meant the SpongeBob movie...and you know, the one episode with the tan surfer dude that plays the drums and the big wave eats him....it might be called the big one or something.)
Old Spongebob (PRO 1999-2005) is better than New Spongebob (CON 2006-now)

I can believe that it is safe to say that the early spongebobs were not as good as the 2004-20010 era. the early early one were just not as good because of the bad resolution and the cheesiness (at first!!!!) it started really to become popular in the 2004's and that's were the great ones came out...like the band bubble bowl one and the suds episodes. but however, the newer (2005-2012) ones are not any worse, they have actual produce some quite good ones such as the krusty krab 2 episode and the surfur dude episode. though I do agree that the one made in the 2014-2015 are very terrible and they should be playing more of the all-time classics.
life after death

I do not believe we are spiritual beings because that concept is against what scientific insight has shown us. Humans are animals, and we are entirely powered by our brains. We essentially are our brains, and we know this from years of intense study into neuroscience and advances in technology. We know which parts of the brain control reasoning, which parts control movement, which control consciousness, which control processing etc. If you don't believe me I'll link to a site when I've finished. The brain needs oxygen, if it doesn't get it then it dies. If the brain dies then everything you are stops. As I've said, we are our brains so when our brain dies, we die. Put simply humans are just brains walking around in a suit, when the brain is gone then the human is gone forever. So that's why I try to enjoy the one life I have as much as possible. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu...
President Obama has doubled the deficit

I will just use this last round to give my closing argument/statement. To my opponent: I would like to thank you. Your arguments and the beginnings to each round tell a lot about you. I respect your opinions and would like this to not be our last debate. In goodsportsmanship, if you win or lose, good debate and hope to do this again soon. Thank you. To the voters: First, I would like to thank you all for following our debate and would encourage you to vote; for if it is either my opponent or I it would be greatly appreciated by both of us. We are in tough times. If it be by your wallet or by your job, this election matters. It matters because would we want a a man who loves deeply, can create jobs, faith in the military, grow the economy quicker, and more, or do we want a repeat of the next 4 years. Now I know this had nothing to do with my debate, but as I have shown through my arguments the president failed to cut the deficit in half and that matters. It matters because all of you have to deal with it, whether it be by your job or wallet. It matters. When you vote, consider this. Consider your job, family, wallet, faith when you vote in this election. Now in this debate vote who clearly won. Also remember what I said and remember that video. So please vote "pro. " Thank you all and please vote. Have a great day or evening.
President Obama has doubled the deficit

Thank you for your argument. I will be adressing my opponent on the topics he covered in exact order. 1. The national budget is not calculated by calendar year, but by fiscal year. First I never implied that the budget is covered from January- December. I was just tating the facts through the fiscal year stated by the CBO. 2. The National Deficit (not the national debt- there is a different*) has been reduced under this president by about 8%. my opponent claimed that President Obama had an 8% reduction in the national deficit; my argument was that from 2010-2011 FY the national deficit doubled. As of 2011 the national deficit was 1.1 trillion dollars. [1] In the presiedent's campaign he said he would cut the national deficit in half. From what we've seen that an 8% cut has been made there is still a small sign of deficit recovery but not one to be noted. He did not cut the deficit in half during his first term. [2] 3. In order for the national deficit to have increased by 100% during the term of this president, it would have had to have reached a staggering $2.38 trillion in any given calendar year. I will be the first to admit it the deficit has not been run up that high, but the deficit once more has been running for the last 4 years in the trillion dollar range. I will reiderate my point that Obama said he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. [2] 4. New federal spending under Obama is lower than that of any president in a lifetime. The fact that my opponent believes this is completely upsurd. I would like to go into Obama's economic record for a moment a show his spending: 1. The stimulus bill which added $787 billion, which added to the deficit. [3] 2. The cost of Obamacare has increaded from $940 to $1.76 trillion. [4] 3. The cost of Libya was $896 billion. [5] 4. The surge in food stamp use, which logically would add to the deficit and would have to make the president put more into his welfare budget. [6] Those are just some of the policies he has put in place that have increased or stabilized a trillion dollar deficit. To say that Obama has pent less than every president since Eisenhower is false. My argument is still the same as before: President Obama has stabilized the national deficit by adding more people to welfare and putting 2 wars on the credit card. I would also like to affirm what Obama said where he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. As of right now my opponent says 8%; I believe that is still very far away from 50%. [1] http://www.cbo.gov... [2] http://www.youtube.com... [3] http://www.factcheck.org... [4] http://news.yahoo.com... [5] http://abcnews.go.com... [6] http://www.weeklystandard.com...
President Obama has doubled the deficit

Now I am arguing that President Obama has raised the debt with his policies. There is no doubt about it that Obama's economic policies have hurt the nation. For this debate I will be using: www. cbo. gov/ and www. bls. gov/ Resolution: President Obama has "doubled" the deficit due to his policies. President Obama has doubled the deficit by adding unnecassary programs to the budget. Such programs such as: Stimulus Bill, ObamaCare, and clean energy have added to the deficit. According to the CBO (Congressiona Budget Office) President Obama's budget would add more to the national debt and deficit; increasing the national debt to nearly $18.8 trillion dollars by 2017 and adding $675 billion dollars to the national deficit. According to the president's budget he would have $695 billion dollars of unnecassary spending that he could cut, but he doesn't. In this instance I believe that President Obama's policies have doubled the deficit because in 2008 the national deficit was $438 billion dollars. With Obama's policies we have increased the national deficit to nearly $1.1 trillion dollars. Something is wrong here. My opponent wants to say Romney was inaccurate, but with a record like this I would say that Romney hit the nail on the head.