BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
rap battle

What are we to think? Pro quit, man that stinks. He's not on the brink, I came and he sank. Pro molesting old ladies in the rain, surrounded and flanked. smash his head with a fish and a tank, stabbed with a rusty shank. By Wu-Tang, the bring the rukus gang. Pro's like....Duh....drawing a blank. Ohh...no..did he faint? If I was getting cocky with you, would you know? Nah, Pro is to much into porno, in limbo, talking mumbo-jumbo. lost in the cosmo, no where to go, busted and broke. Pro is just a joke, a fumbler, air-baller, in the clutch he chokes. He ran into the bully, now he's against the ropes, he can't cope. I see him at the preschool looking to grope. Can you believe it? Now thats just sic. Pro trippin'. Old ladies and children, he needs prison, cage with admission. Leave the burners on in the kitchen, leave'em not breathin'. Spittin', like Sasquatch, be kickin', Pro get stomped and a beatin'. Opponents beleedin', He's a girl, fire, smoke's what he's leakin'. I spit fire, making it hott, shake the spot, can't be stopped. Opponents gettin spanked, caught in the madness. I'm a savage, when I ravage, soak- boil and eat Pro like cabbage. It sadness, this battle has been silenced, giving it a heimlich. In the brain of Hanibal, the Cannibal, Not even half full, I'm cruel. Another round, Thanks crowd, Pro I doubt, can hang, round 2 in the bank.
rap battle

It's my go, Ohh Yess, smack this rope in the gap and flex. Time to through up a hex, see if I can get the full effect. Pro in his Candy bed, talking about sex, he needs to flush. Its high time I run this bus, So pro just needs to shut it & hush. Pro is nothing but bluff, Save his breath for huff-n-puff, before Moby Dick gets snuffed. You made the mistake not knowing who you was beefin with, Got your mouth slapped, Bent over and tapped, without a cap, Pro's manhood has been sapped, Got that rear quick, tramp stamped, Do you know who you with? Made you say it's better than a biscuit, you had no problem wit it. Double-knit with my tool-kit. The Little kitty had claws, Oh dear, Oh gosh, He hopes no one saw. Oh, Lawd, to late you squawed. Candy is dandy, But liquor is quicker, Thats the picture. And I deliver, like a zipper, when Im in the mixture, my words will make you shiver. I dont need any applause. Just shut your jaws, act stunned stop and pause. Pro's long-round 1 was very sweet, Step on it with my stinky feet. It is clear he is beat, no comaprison to me. My feet smell like tabacco and molded books, I think I got Pro pretty shook. And when he objects I’ll use my mace, spray every last drop in his face. Dress him up in tight lace and hand him a pencil case. So good they can’t ignore me, pop up and bite'em like a flea. I am not suggestable to any plea nor have any weak pity. Send back to him quick, while he is gagging from my sh*t.
rap battle

opening arguement is for rapping along with closing arguement Get in bed like I'm at war Make your vgina more than kinda sore i'm hung like a dinosaur sh*t, your hymen tore you're busted, you never grew up like a Toys R Us Kid I'm well adjusted like jock strap crotches bang my old teachers while the preschool watches met a slow girl, i was fuking her fast had some tight old pusy and got stuck in the past I molest old age, grab the best old babe in a breast hold babe is you chest cold, babe? are those boobs or goosebumps? hey, sugar tits, can a pimp have two lumps? measure my hard prick, whatever the night i use my dik as a yardstick to measure my height i'm healing myself got a hole in my pocket and i'm feeling myself i'm like wu tang your art's cookie cutter like a Warhol soup can the rapper who can destroy mere humans fuk your facelift fuk your played whip i built a space ship to ride in while you're cruising earth i'm owning all the aliens who emcee in the universe the ten best rappers is a list of me I exist to be the greatest rapper in history built a time machine from Flava's clock and a saddle taught Plato to rap and then kicked his a*s in a battle I'm best rapper alive who gets mistaken for michael cera everywhere that he drives fuk michael cera, you weren't so superbad when i was riding you around rodeo yelling who's your dad?
rap battle

Pro says he's ballin', its more like fallin'. While he is on the ish, I think Imma call it. He's hangin' with asian babes at UCLA. But I think He just admitted to being gay. Nothing to say, dumbfounded, leave it where it may. He said he was amazin' but I think its more like fakin'. Who's the phenom? No not you, that place is takin'. Im the assassin, the predator, the type to leave you missin'. This rap pushes to far, all the way past mars, its so hard. Pro wanted to start but he cant go, that wasn't smart.This has been closed down for the crown. Just one more round and my opponent will go down. No more clowns, or FF'D rounds, riped him to shrouds. People just die, thats how I ride, driving me out my mind. Get yours, gorge, forge your seed, beware what you leave. This world traps, spooks waiting for you to fall in their laps. Society ain't free, we diseased, rich taking it while we sleep. I cant believe it, i know I just cant sit, driving me to madness with it. Am I all there?, I could flare, dont be scared, just beware. Imma winner, trainer like billy blanks, jigging past Pro with fakes. We see what he got next round, Hit'em back next time with that sound.
The earth is flat not spherical

I agree that relatively, the earth is flat, however my opinion changes as you change the perception of 'relative'. (I look around, it looks pretty flat, but the higher I go, the less 'flat' it is) I do in fact endorse that the earth is a 'globe' shape - hence it being called the 'globe'. Utilising definition 2 from the following link : . https://www.google.com.au... 2. a spherical or rounded object. "orange trees clipped into giant globes" synonyms:sphere, orb, ball, spheroid, round; More verbliterary My belief and understanding is that the earth is indeed an object that is being exerted by massive amounts of internal force, which we have named as gravity, Mass will naturally attract to the center of this force (Which is coincidentally caused by a large amount of mass), This mass has no 'back' that we are aware of, thus it will form as any floating mass would, into a 'ball' - the ball is loosely to describe that while it may have massive mountains and gaping crevasses, in the whole scheme of the shape, it is considered round. My beliefs are not that the globe shape is solely NASA's attribution to the world, simply they have reliable consistancy in their imagery from their satellite positions. I have proofs that scholars, philosophers and "heathens" in the past have come to the same conclusion far before NASA, which is that the globe is 'round' (to use the term loosely). I otherwise agree to your terms there, and will accept satisfactory Youtube videos - with a few rules of my own. Videos to be accepted must fall within these terms : 1. Keep it short - I myself, am willing to watch a 3-8 minutes of video on youtube, I hope you understand that voters have even less incentive than I do to validate videos. 2. If the video is longer, as they do - I request you give us a good time to watch from, so we can get your message, without the whole 25min - 1 hour long video's I have seen you post. (Say "from 24:33 to 31;00") Other than that, I am happy to watch and validate whatever you want to send me :) Passing back to you to make your arguments.
The earth is flat not spherical

I am absolutely positive the earth is relatively flat, rather than a ball or spherical shape. My opponent is sure that NASA is telling the truth, and that the earth is spherical. My opponent and I had this debate when I first entered DDO, and it turned a bit uncomfortable to say the least, leading to a tie. I'm hoping my opponent can prove the ball to me, none have convinced me so far. May the best man win. Any source may be used until said source is proved to be false or unreliable. I will be using some YouTube videos to support my argument, voters may not use this against me. I feel that YouTube can be considered a credible source if the information can be verified. For example if I post a NASA or other space program's video showing their errors, this should be credible evidence that NASA or another space program is not a trustworthy source. However, if i were to post a user made video containing some information that anyone can verify, it can be credible information. Good luck to my opponent. No semantics con will be arguing against the flat earth theory. This does not mean there are not hills and mountains, it just means it isn't round, or pear shaped, or apple, or oblate, whatever mainstream science claims now.
The earth is flat not spherical

I hope this time that we can settle the matter, and be convinced either way. I'll jump right into my argument. ContentionsC1. Distances sightedA "mirage" was photographed (1) from Michigan overlooking Lake Michigan of the Chicago skyline, a span of 60 miles, which should be 2,400 ft below the supposed curvature of the earth. When we look at the heights of the buildings in Chicago, we find that The tallest building at 1,450 ft is the Sears tower. We should not be able to see ANY of Chicago from Michigan, just as the weatherman says. Now before you go agreeing with the whole bs mirage thing this idiot blames it on, think to yourself what an actual mirage looks like, always inverted, mirrored, partially opaque, and generally distorted, Google some images of actual mirages. Conditions are perfect indeed. This is not a mirage. There are many instances of long distances being seen, and this is something that anyone can confirm, and is empirical evidence of a flat earth. C2. No movement detectedAlbert Einstein said: (2)". .. I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment. .. The supposed movements of the earth has never been detected. How can the world be a ball flying through space, spinning, wobbling, etc if we can't measure it's movements? Has anyone ever felt as if they were spinning around on a giant ball? C3. GyroscopesFor years, pilots have depended on simple, mechanical gyroscopes to produce an artificial horizon. Gyroscopes maintain a constant axis relative to that which it is started to space. This would be impossible if they were travelling over a ball. The more distance covered, the more the gyroscope should roll back. For example,a plane taking off from North America headed to China, when arriving at it's destination, should have an upside down artificial horizon because it has rotated 180 degrees. Besides the fact that modern astronomy says we are spinning, wobbling, and revolving in a spiral motion at preposterous speeds. Would gyroscopes even be reliable? What's more, experiments are being conducted with gyroscopes over long periods of time and no movement was discovered at all. If the earth spins 45 degrees in 3 hours, the gyroscope should roll against this supposed spin. Since electronic gyroscopes are relatively inexpensive, and anyone can perform this experiment, this can be considered proof that the earth does not move, and is hardly an oblate spheroid. (1) . https://youtu.be...(2) . http://photontheory.com...
Should gay marriage be legal in all states

First without the government being involved in marriage there would not be marriage because there would not be anything binding the two people together so you wouldn't have a true marriage. Second we would have twelve year olds getting married and divorced like thirty times a day so this country would be full of crap relationships and we also would have a rise in divorce rate. Third your belief that we shouldn't have the institution of marriage has nothing to do with this debate and no one asked what your plan is for if we don't because it is extremely flawed and not well thought out. We are talking about the fact that America practices legally binded marriage and the fact that we don't allow gay marriage in all parts of our country. So your argument is off topic to begin with but I still proved it to be unethical.
Should gay marriage be legal in all states

I don't believe marriage should be legalized. This isn't just gay marriage this is any marriage. Marriage should be neither legal or illegal. My opponent already agrees that the government messed up when it came to being fair with marriage laws. Why do they get to decide who does and doesn't get married anyway? The government can't be trusted. They already try to legislate in a way that attempts to subject people to their preferred moral code. Civil unions Once we take marriage out of the hands of government, we can have the government enforce all types of civil union contracts. People could still get married it just wouldn't be recognized by the government. In order for my opponent to win this argument he needs to show why legalizing marriage would be preferable to the government getting out of the marriage business. We've already seen that we can't trust the government with this issue. Let the people from civil unions and they can privately marry and the government can't discriminate against them based on a person's sexual preference or other factors. Conclusion My arguments actually address every issue my opponent brought up, without legalizing marriage any kind of marriage at all. Remember the definition of legal I gave. Privatizing marriage in this manner would give homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals. While keeping the government out of the bedroom.
Should gay marriage be legal in all states

The definition is based on the current laws that are in place and can be reformed. The meanings of words are constantly changing. Take the word epic for example the original meaning of the word was a long narrative poem but it now defined as something that amazing or of great stature. The same can be done to the word marriage. Also in America we have The separation of church and state and the thought of gay marriage being immoral and wrong is based wholly on what the bible says and that is involving religion with politics.
Should gay marriage be legal in all states

Here is a few definitions we might need to refer back to multiple times. Legal 1. permitted by law; lawful: Such acts are not legal. 2. of or pertaining to law; connected with the law or its administration: the legal profession. 3. appointed, established, or authorized by law; deriving authority from law. http://dictionary.reference.com... Marriage I won't define this. I'm sure we'll have to get some semantics out of the way concerning this. Most dictionaries actually define marriage as between a man and a woman. The first definition when you type -define marriage into google, says it's between a man and a woman. So if you say 2 people of the same sex should be married than it's an illogical statement. It would be like saying " I should purple the round triangle". It's just gibberish. Anyway I accept the debate. Good luck to my opponent.
Macroevolution is most likely true

First of all, thank you Bodhivaka for hosting this debate. I too will end this debate with closing comments and no new arguments.The argument at had is very simple:Is Macroevolution true?1) My opponent has accused me of arguing semantics, but knowing what Macroevolution studies is of primary importance. Remember that "Evolution is "The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, genetic drift, migration, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation." These are all characteristics of living creatures, and given the scope of evolutionary theory, life must also be defined..." Macroevolution studies and seeks to explain life, but both PRO and CON agree that LIFE CANNOT BE DEFINED BY SCIENCE. This statement leads to one important conclusion:"If Macroevolution seeks to explain something it cannot understand, how can it possibly be true?"One very simple example of this:Imagine that your algebra teacher sought to explain algebra when he or she didn't understand it. You can take comfort in knowing that your algebra teacher is doing his or her best in studying it, but would you trust this person to teach you algebra?Of course not. Similarly, given that science cannot even define life let alone understand it, and evolution studies and seeks to explain life, how can you possibly consider that evolution could explain life to you? How could it be true? If evolution is not true, how can macroevolution be true?2) Another simple argument against Macroevolution being true:Ask yourself whether or not Macroevolution will be the same in 10, 50, 100, 500, or 1000 years as it is today:"Like what it studies, Macroevolutionary theory will evolve, implying that it will experience death and rebirth. Whatever it is today, will not be what it will become in the future. It may not even be called "Macroevolution". How can something that does not stand the test of time be held "true"?"Theories change all the time as new information is discovered; that is what makes the theory scientific. We discard what is proven false, and add new information that HAS YET TO BE PROVEN FALSE. Macroevolution is a scientific theory. If macroevolutionary theory was true, then why would it have to change?3) My opponent attempted to pull out an encyclopedia and define macroevolution, hoping that by merely defining it then it "is most likely true". However, PRO failed to consider that "Science seeks objective truth, but is itself NOT TRUTH." Albert Einstein said this about the pursuit of truth:"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.""The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science."[1]Albert Einstein knew that science makes no claim about knowing the truth, but instead that science stands in awe of its mystery. Macroevolution is science. Macroevolution is not truth.Again, I ask the voters, is macroevolution true? I vote resoundingly no. [1] http://rescomp.stanford.edu...
Macroevolution is most likely true

I have presented herein observable, testable, and falsifiable scientific evidence which strongly supports the idea of macroevolution; my opponent has not debunked this evidence; rather, he has simply employed semantics to distract voters from the evidence (something which was expressly forbidden in the rule of this debate). Furthermore, my opponent has attempted to shed doubt on the evidence I've provided by introducing the doctrine of fallibilism (the belief that no one can know anything for certain). Although I myself subscribe to fallibilism, in a debate setting such as this, our goal is to reach a definitive resolution through the employment of convincing arguments and evidence; to that extent, I urge voters to decide the winner of this debate based on who you believe has presented the most logical and convincing case. If all debates were subject to the semantics and strict adherence to fallibilism that my opponent presents here today, we would never make any meaningful progress. We must exercise our powers of reason and logic to the fullest extent humanly possible when deciding upon matters such as these. The resolution sought to be achieved in this debate was "Macroevolution is most likely true. " To the extent that humans are capable of determining truth through empirical evidence, I believe I have presented a stronger case than that of my opponent. I encourage you to choose science over semantics.
Macroevolution is most likely true

Ultimately, I believe my opponent's argument can be summarized as follows:1) Evolution seeks to explain life2) We do not know what the correct definition of life is3) Therefore, evolution cannot explain life and is thereby falseIn my opinion, this argument should be completely disregarded, as it ultimately boils down to nothing more than a semantic dispute concerning the word "life", which directly contradicts the first rule of this debate -- no semantics. Obviously an acceptance of evolution necessitates the presupposition that we exist, that life is real, and that we possess a general undestanding of what life is.In any case, seeing as how evolution is a matter of science, I believe the scientific description of life is sufficient for the purposes of this debate. According to science, organisms exhibiting all or most of the following characteristics may be considered alive [1]:1. Growth2. Adaption3. Metabolism4. Homeostasis5. Reproduction6. Response to stimuli7. Cellular compositionLet it not be forgotten that the question being considered in this debate is not one of science's ability to explain life (despite the apparent effort my opponent to make it such); rather the question being considered in this debate simply concerns the probability of macroevolution being true.We could enter into endless philosophical discussions concerning life, reality, and knowledge; however, this is a scientific discussion, not a philosophical one; therefore, I urge the voters to ignore the semantics, consider the scientific evidence, and to vote PRO.________________________________________________________________________________________________[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Macroevolution is most likely true

In this debate, I will be making the positive claim that macroevolution is most likely true; as such, the burden of proof will rest on me.________________________________________________________________________________________________The debate will be structured as follows:(1) Acceptance(2) Pro arguments, Con rebuttals(3) Pro counter-arguments, Con rebuttals(4) Closing statementsMoreover, for the purposes of this debate, both participants must agree to the following definitions:*Theory: The scientific terminology for a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. [1]Evolution: The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, genetic drift, migration, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation. [2] Macroevolution: Major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa. [3]Species: The major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species. [4]Furthermore, in addition to accepting the above definitions, both participants in this debate must agree to the following rules:(1) No semantics(2) No plagiarism(3) No new arguments in the last round(4) No arguments in the comment section(5) Any desired changes to the debate must be agreed upon by both participants before acceptance from Con.________________________________________________________________________________________________[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.biology-online.org...[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...[4] http://dictionary.reference.com...*The definitions seen here may vary slightly from their original state as presented by the sources listed. Such modifications were made to accommodate the purposes of this debate, or to otherwise improve the original written meanings as I saw fit.
Hockey is harder than soccer

This is a rather vague topic for debate. Harder in terms of physical demand on the body? Harder in terms of the development of technical skills relative to the sport? Harder in terms of preparation needed to be successful? For example, hockey is a much harder sport in terms of hand-eye coordination, but soccer is much harder in terms of foot-eye coordination. In regards to all definitions of "harder," my central argument would be that neither sport is necessarily harder than the other. The difficulty in all aspects of any sport differ from player to player. Sports, in general, come easier to some than they do to others. That is why you see all different levels of competitiveness in all sports. Anyone, I hope you can elaborate on your position, otherwise this will not be much of a debate.