BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap battle

*WARNING half the sh-t I say makes no sense WARNING* if you want me to lose you'll have to pay me i'm goin platinum and capturing babies I be slingin' coke like it's the 80s im a woman magnet, attractin' all your ladies no matter how long I do this I'm never fading I spit controversial and get the crowds conversating I come and beat your a$s while the surgeon is operating I never slow down, only accelerating my future is bright as f-ck, illuminating lookin at you feels like gettin' pepper sprayed you're messin' with a missing pin hand grenade I'll devastate your career i'mma demonstrate I can't live with myself being in second place are you famous? My resume is heaven's way hit you and run with a California license plate you don't know what its like going from penny pinchin' to private planes residin' on a plane the sky is my domain I won't play gamma rays, spray ray he tried to pray been from Maine to Spain and now things changed and no I ain't the same Thinkin' you're gonna beat me B you're dreamin' you'll be found inside a 4 seasons with a 13 reasons why tape found in your luggage I'm a little much to stomach like a bucket of hummus or Chris Columbus I'll cancel you, make your career plummet faster than the North Korean summit when everything is lookin' good and all of a sudden once again both sides are willing to press the nuclear button you've got me p-ssed off like a demon just got summoned from a long nap by little kids makin' ruckus eat em up like chicken nuggets sh-t is kinda luscious I took a read at your bars and they gave me a little chuckle but after I drop this verse you'll be dead like Ugandan Knuckles
Rap battle

My words aren't just a dagger with a jagged edge They strike back, straight against the catholic pledge With rapid sledge, hammers coming straight down your skull Trust me, I break down your case setup like a parted wedge You try to curse, you spit a verse Hoping things will turn for the worst You try to run hoping that I ain't first But you drink water to end in thrist I'm the ultimate rapper, the sword almighty Tell me, if people don't really like me What about all the others that talk to you? Your foolish bars that you think you spew It comes out as vomit, don't pout you'll plummet Straight down the abyss and like I want it You motherfvcker, I'm the mother earth with its summits You're just a little wannabe who has nothing more than puppets So despite our history, you'll be history When this battle's ended it will only be the gist of the Feeling I get, when you think you're strong It only provides a sense of bliss to me Who needs a kiss to see? Who can wake up after death when you got NDECD The man who makes kiss-@$$ DVDs I'm slicing and dicing Blade Trinity Now who's to say my style lacks diversity When you haven't found an adversary Who you can beat in your rap anniversary Needing for your voice box to go through surgery I'm John A.Macdonald, call it a BURGERY When I'm ripping education from you like its tertiary, I'm stealing then I'm staying on DDO debating Until Cakerman comes up and starts all the hating I may not be as good as a couple of people But I'm bad enough to do crimes illegal The time's a prequel, the grime the sequel Chopping your head off with my bars like you're a seagull It's the cringe that kills, proven through despacito Or it's the casual swag, killing people in a gazebo You could use an Asus, Dell or Lenovo Hell, type through your phone, use a Vivo But you could NEVER come close to the emcee on the podium I'll make you salty, its found with sodium I'm a rapper who isn't at least named after a baked product In this battle, Cakerman is the one way more fvcked
Rap battle

alright, let me get back into the swing of things the skeletal remains of this fool still linger unethical killings while a witness points a finger I'll put down old yeller with little more than a whimper you are a cuck, but you say you're a swinger I got you trapped on the bait hook and sinker noone yells "TIMBER" when your wood falls, more like a splinter I don't rhyme with that much complexity it's more about comin' at fools aggressively I put dudes down record times incredibly hide your body in Yellowstone or Yosemite change the flow unexpectedly hit you up because you know we got alotta history styles are still shrouded in mystery you drop a couple bars think you're dissin' me but every bullet you fire just keeps on missin' me I own your whole life and charge you for a pissing fee needed a battle on urgency i was out on emergency but now im re-emergin' see? these new cats never heard of me ruin you like the Holocaust did to Germany really could murder wordlessly but I won't hurt you externally just fill you up with uncertainty my bars rule universally send you to the infirmary words stay with you eternally you're lookin around observantly scared from the absurdity your style lackin diversity I can go commercially disrespectful on purpose see wish you could be me makin' bank on cryptocurrency you'll be bleedin' internally taken away on a gurney despite adversity maybe you can admit you took this L deservedly
Video games are benifical to people of every age.

"First of all you can do Physical activities and gain more eye-coordination, for this would also help with their health. Here are some examples of how it helps people, promote healthy blood sugar levels to prevent or control diabetes promote bone density to protect against osteoporosis. " I assume you are talking about "physical activities". yes they do help and benefit all of these, I'm not suggesting you should completely replace video games with physical activity. Many video games help with this also, not all games involve you just being "lazy" as you put it. Such as the Wii fit. . http://www.acefitness.org... Games help very much so with social behavior. In many games you have to talk and communicate with other people. Many games even though they are 1 player you still interact with other AI players. Such as fallout 3 where your decisions effect the whole game. If you make choices where the one of the AI character's hate you then you won't be able to get anything from them in the future. Then there is xbox live which is getting more popular by the minute. Just in case you don't no what xbox live is. "(I assume you know what an xbox is)It is where the xbox 360 is connected to the internet and through that you can communicate with people from all over the world. You can play games with other people and all sorts of other things. You can be playing 1 player games and still be in a party(a group of people) with other people and talk to them. The xbox isn't the only console that offers this service the PlayStation 3 and the wii also do there not quite as good in my personal opinion but you can still play with other REAL people. This can lead to people playing with people from there school that they never would have talked to before. I've had this experience myself there are a few preps that i am OK with now at my school because of xbox live. . http://seriousgamessource.com... Yes if course there are a few exceptions to everything, but for the most part kids do not get angry playing video games. On the contrary they actually help calm angry kids. What i do when i have a bad day at school and i just want to hit some one in the face i go home and play a first person shooter. It relives stress and stops me from going into school with guns and shooting everyone. Video games don't make you angry with the few exceptions that there are to everything. . http://www.neoseeker.com...-/ i Have sited sources to back up each one of my arguments and have countered yours. i believe it is your move next. But how can you trust my opponent no sources and no research did he put into this. I believe he has done nothing but heard vague fake news stories. Like the Columbine for instance. The news reported that they learned to use guns from doom. When in actuality they shot guns at a gun range frequently. This is just one way they have twisted stories to try to make video games look bad there are many more.
Video games are benifical to people of every age.

First I will go over their case and then my own. He states that it helps with hand eye-coordination and also problem solving. First of all you can do Physical activities and gain more eye-coordination, for this would also help with their health. Here are some examples of how it helps people, promote healthy blood sugar levels to prevent or control diabetes promote bone density to protect against osteoporosis reduce the overall risk of cancer increase levels of HDL or "good" cholesterol -reducing the risk of developing heart disease lower high blood pressure-reducing the risk of developing heart disease. Which one would you choose to do be healthily, have good hand eye coordination, and be able to do problem solving, or be lazy and have the negative effects of doing physical activities but still have the hand eye coordination? Saying no to thins will not only help you but keep you fit and happy. Also he gave no warrants or proof of this statement so you can't look to his arguments. And what he said about them becoming more social once again he proves no way that it does. So once again you can't look to him. My case 1st agreement- Practicing violent acts may contribute more to aggressive behavior than passive television watching. Studies do find a relationship between violent television watching and behavior since studies have should that it does cause violent acts then saying that it is ok then we are saying it is ok to do these things 2nd agreement Over-dependence on video games could foster social isolation, as they are often played alone. Playing video games cases these people to become less social since all most all of them are non-social. There for more people will be less social for they will only depend on having friends in a video games and not in really life. 3rd agreement In many violent games, players must become more violent to win. In "1st person" violent video games the player may be more affected because he or she controls the game and experiences the action through the eyes of his or her character for these reasons you can't agree that video games can't be helpful. thank you also thanks for the debate it was found to research
Video games are benifical to people of every age.

Excuse me if I don't follow procedure this is my first debate and I am new to debate.org.* Video games are very helpful to people's every day life. It helps kids with there reaction times, eye hand coordination, and problem solving skills. Many games even help with kids social skills such as W.O.W(World of Warcraft) A M.M.O(Massively Online Multiplayer). There are many studies showing this. I'll site if asked. I'm looking forward to this debate, being it my first.
Video games are benifical to people of every age.

ok I would like to state about the first agurment that he made agianst my case. He says "Many video games help with this also, not all games involve you just being "lazy" as you put it." then he states about Wii fit that that is a game that helps with physical actives. That is one game one game that the gaming industry has come out becuase 1/3 kids are becoming obese, when they say that them being like this is from eating and play Videogames. So if these video games cause more bad then good then why are we will to put our kids at this risk. And if these people that i have given examples have given you and there are many more people say that more people are getting fat with videogames how can this help with you hand-eye cooridation? I don't believe it can. static.dpsk12.org/gems/dsa/Videogamesleadtodownfallofhumanity.doc www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-michael-j-breus/sleepless-kids-become-fat_b_143282.html Onto his second agrument he just keeps keeps stating all these games that he says are social well first of all you don't know who those people are you have a username. And second of all most of the games that he states are violent as i stated in my first agrument i state that violent games lead to more violence so that goes with my case. And third if you don't know who these people are how can you trust them it is just like being on the internet and you are in a chat room you don't know who is on the other side it could be you friend or it could be some werid person that could hurt you i am not saying that every person on there is going to be like that but you can never really know who is really on ther other side. and his third statment he didn't touch my agruments so those will go thru and he can't bring them back up. And onto my case he states that it make kids happy or calm them down when they play these voilent video games. Well here are some websites that prove my point mentalhealth.about.com/cs/familyresources/a/vidgameviolence.htm www.asiaone.com/Digital/Features/Story/A1Story20090310-127311.html www.mtv.com/news/articles/1507890/20050818/index.jhtml?headlines=true csis.pace.edu/~scharff/learningcommunity/studentann/violentgames.doc redblueamerica.com/truthornot/2008-04-17/do-video-games-grand-theft-auto-cause-violent-behavior-2748 there is alot more of sites stating that it does have an effect on kids. So having these kids just play violen games all day is just the same as having them all trained to kill. and for the rest of my case he didn't touch so those will go thru this debate and he can't bring them back up. You must look at whose case stood up more. Mine has stood up agianst his agruments. Also you must look at the facts i have given you countless examples and he gives you five. I have the facts to back me up and so you must look to my case mine is the stronger case.
Climate Change Is Not an Imminent Danger

Due to many problems posting arguments for the last debate, Citrakayah and I have decided to restart the debate in order to iron out the structural problems of this debate and because the computer deleted my argument. I extend my opponent the best of luck. Full ResolutionClimate change is not an imminent danger to the general wellbeing of this planet. I will be arguing for this resolution. BoP is shared. DefinitionsClimate Change: "...a long-term change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over periods of time that range from decades to millions of years."[1]Imminent: "Liable to happen soon; impending ."[2]Danger: "The state of being vulnerable to injury or loss; risk."[3]Basically, the resolution is that climate change will not significantly damage the earth in the next century or two. Rules 1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed. 3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering. 4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be posted in an outside link. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person. Debate Structure Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by pro) Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)Sources [1]: http://www.ensaa.eu...[2]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[3]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
euthanasia

My opponent may be correct in saying it is a moral ambiguity, but my opponent is not being forced to undergo euthanasia or participate in it. It is a moral question that can only be answered by the terminally ill and suffering. It is not to be decided by anybody else, not their doctors, not their family, not the law. It is a personal decision to decide to end one's suffering. I have answered all the questions my opponent has claimed to be too dangerous to be implemented. Belgium[1], the Netherlands[2] and other countries allow for assisted suicide or euthanasia under certain conditions, mostly; - An incurable and terminal illness, with untreatable suffering, - Approval from a regulatory commission and/or numerous doctors, and - A healthy mind to decide on euthanasia as approved by a mental professional. At all times, the patient can reverse the decision to terminate their life, even up to the euthanasia being administered. Devices such as a euthanasia deliverance machine[3] can be used so that the patient can initiate their own death once it is set up and supervised by a physician. Euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Estonia, Albania, and the US states of Washington, Oregon and Montana[4] where it has worked for years and is approved by the populace, recognised to be a safe and accountable way for terminally ill patients who are suffering pain from an incurable disease can die with dignity by their own conscience. [1] http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be... [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] (extra video) http://www.youtube.com...
euthanasia

wrap-up While the issue of euthanasia is a moral ambiguity at best and a legal nightmare at worst. this debate is not about the moral aspect of the issue. This debate is about whether euthanasia can be accepted from a legal stand-point. I, as con, am against the idea of euthanasia as it brings too many questions. these questions vary from its legal application to its psychological effects on all( patients, doctors, and the media. It is a dangerous grey-area and without fully being checked-out to avoid all negative ramifications which could arise, it should not be implemented.
euthanasia

Firstly, I use ">" to precede direct quotes from you, and it may be misleading if you use it when you are not quoting me or misrepresenting me. >Can any doctor in any normal situation use euthanasia as a "cover-up?" No, because euthanasia must be agreed to by the patient. There must be numerous records for the patient to affirm that they wish to go through euthanasia, and separate doctors must address the patient individually and come to independent conclusions that euthanasia is an appropriate option for a terminally ill patient. >"Can we trust the doctor". It doesn't matter whether you or I trust the doctors, it is up to the terminally ill patient to decide whether they trust the doctors. In many cases, the actual euthanasia is carried out by the patients themselves with assistance from a medical doctor. If the patient does not want to undergo euthanasia or changes their mind at any stage, they may do so. >Can any doctor who with the right intentions ups a patients [sic] intake of morphine to a dangerous level simply says it was euthanasia? No, euthanasia must be agreed to beforehand by the patient, and their affirmation must be clear and consulted with numerous doctors to determine if the patient is mentally sound to make the decision and if their terminal illness causes immense suffering and is indeed incurable. Euthanasia empowers the patient to decide, with the approval of the necessary health professionals, to decide to end their suffering from a terminal illness. It does not empower any doctors or family members to make that decision, euthanasia is simply the decision of the patient, with regulation, to determine their suffering has gone on long enough with no end in sight.
euthanasia

>can any man say it was a mercy-kill? the question is another slant against the man who administers it. more based on the level of trust you have with the doctor. Can any doctor in any normal situation use euthanasia as a "cover-up?" can we check to make sure it wasn't a cover up? Can any doctor go up to a patient, intentionally kill him, and write it off as euthanasia? It is a looming and grim phantom hanging over the issue which in most cases goes on to harm the credibility of the issue. Would the idea of euthanasia as an option discredit doctors by being an option itself? >The other issue which stands from "can we trust the doctor" is less if he really did it to "what the people would think?" euthanasia again could become a nightmare legally. Numerous cases of malpractice charges could swamp any number of legal courts. Whether or not the charges are based in reality is not the issue >Can euthanasia be an out for actual malpractice charges? Can any doctor who with the right intentions ups a patients intake of morphine to a dangerous level simply says it was euthanasia? The idea of euthanasia in courts from legalizing it could become an issue. can we allow such malpractice to be passed off or in some cases limited in punishment because it was apparently "euthanasia." any good and deceitful lawyer could lessen the charges by twisting the facts
euthanasia

Euthanasia is indeed a very complicated process, and questions on the basis of our own mortality will always be extremely difficult morally and spiritually. There are many questions, as my opponent has shown, that can prove to be difficult in answering whether or not euthanasia should be a legal practice. I will attempt to answer these questions now, providing a suitable basis for moral and ethical euthanasia. >Is it an option when a man is suicidal? You may think that people who want euthanasia are suicidal because they want to die, or you may not think that. If it is indeed suicide, it would depend on the circumstances. >Is it the choice of the man to be mercy-killed? Euthanasia is a very complex choice for those who wish to do it. If somebody is suffering and will not survive their illness, then it is justified for the person to terminate their own life to avoid the prolonging of their own suffering and the suffering of others. >Is it the choice of his friends and family? No. If a terminally ill person wants to live on, that is their decision. >Can any man say it was a mercy-kill? This depends on what you mean, again. Since it is up to the patient, the death is caused by a terminal sickness but suffering is reduced by the patient's own actions. >Can we trust the doctor? Doctors are generally trustful, but I understand your scepticism when it comes to deciding death. I would make necessary for euthanasia to have consultations with TWO SEPARATE physicians to determine whether an illness is terminal and if euthanasia could be justified from the suffering, and a psychiatrist to determine if the patient has a sound mind to decide their own death. You suggest that euthanasia cannot be regulated, but this is what supporters of euthanasia are trying to do. Currently it is not illegal for a terminally ill person to kill themselves, it is only illegal for those to assist him. Making euthanasia LEGAL AND REGULATED would place necessary barriers to make euthanasia open and safer for those who are terminally ill and suffering.
euthanasia

While the idea of mercy-killing may seem like a good idea in some ways it is not without its back draws. When is euthanasia an option? is it an option when a man is suicidal? Is it an option when a man is senile on his bed not even liable for what he does or says? Who should flip the switch? is it the choice of the man to be mercy-killed? is it the choice of his friends and family? Euthanasia isn't just a mixed bag of uncertainties in its execution but the level of trust in the act. We already have troubles trusting our doctors in many cases and charges of malpractice flying everywhere. can any man say it was a mercy-kill? can we trust the doctor? A doctor should always be a man without bias and should never kill a man out of spite. This may be the ideal but in reality a doctor will always hold some level of bias for or against his patients. any disposition towards a patient could lead to a "mercy-kill." we can not regulate the conditions behind euthanasia and it is for this reason you cannot support it