BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Brooklyn (pro) vs Queens (con) rap battle

(intro before next rhyme)That was pretty hard, but I got some rhyme for you "Friends"-watching mother--ckers in Queens.You say you guys had the world fairBut that was so 1939, the guys behind it are losing hairBrooklyn is the home of the hippie and urban revivalBrooklyn goes so hard that it would kick Flash Thompson's as-holeand his buddies are typical Queens wimpsthey got their ---ses beat by Bushwick pimpsWe got Bushwick, Williamsburg and Bed-StuyQueens, what's the matter? You high?We gave the world the greatest comedy, "Seinfeld"You gave us the lame a-- "Friends." What the hell?Some beat down, lame-8** piece of s--t show"Seinfeld" is the s--t and it's dopeYou guys got the weak KKKBrooklyn was the s--t then and it is todayI see Queens, I get the drop *gunshots*F--k around with Brooklyn and you'll get poppedwith one to the eyeand your girls stolen tonightWhy is it that most guys in Queenstend to be Klansman or mangina queens?I rip the streets of Brooklyn like the elevated trainsFrom Bushwick to Williamsburg, I bring the painThat's why Jerry Seinfeld and Larry DavidThink Queens is a steaming pile of KKK s--t
Brooklyn (pro) vs Queens (con) rap battle

Haha you fool! Half your people can't afford wool! Welcome to Queens! Hate to spill the beans, but Brooklyn is just a ghetto you might be retro, but you have a dirty metro! Then again who needs a metro when there are airports?LGAJFKOops I forgot!Brownsville makes your crib rot!Astoria, Jackson Heights, Fresh Meadows, Flushing brings up a new king around the square! Always remember, which borough held a World Fair?
Brooklyn (pro) vs Queens (con) rap battle

(intro)Brooklyn's in the houseJerry Seinfeld's old hood's in the houseBushwick's in the houseSunset Park's in the houseEast New York's in the houseBensonhurst's in the houseCarol Garden's in the houseF--k QueensWack-as- lame SOBsWe gave the world "Seinfeld"Now we fascists are about to raise some HellWe're the Nazis ripping the streetsWith dope lyrics and hardcore beatsMussolini G with the beatdownI'll blast you're wack "Friends" borough to the poundWack, KKK, Lutheran boroughBrooklyn is the borough that's dopeI make all the Queens girls come to meBrooklyn gave birth to the hardcore GsWith my tomboy pal Jamsine in the mixHere ready to f--k Queens' s--t up
Brooklyn (pro) vs Queens (con) rap battle

Why am I wasting time with this sh*t? All you do is keeping saying "Bushwick"? Though I'd say Bushwick looks like Bullsh*t! Your rhymes are so weak that I forgot! I can take you down faster than Vietnam did Pol Pot! But that would be an unecessary overkill! Instead I will puch you down your Cyrpess Hills, and ship out all of your skills so you won't dirty my rocks and rills! Chinatown? Williamsburg? Greenpoint? Sounds more like Manhattan minus 60 points! At least my neighborhoods are dope! At least my people still have hope! And all of us actually have soap! Your hood ain't appealing Michaelangelo painted my ceiling You can't beat Flushing just like how Peter Parker is winning!
Brooklyn (pro) vs Queens (con) rap battle

You can't handle the power of the G, huh?Brooklyn beats Queens anytime, sonThe "Seinfeld"-loving, rhyme droppin fascistYou hatin' cause Brooklyn is the downright s--tLarry David and Jerry Seinfeld can drop bombs on your --sQueens trying to outdefeat Brooklyn, how sad (lol)With beats so hardcore, the Queens chicks will say, "Hey where is Brooklyn at?"I'm the king in this mothaf--king Brooklyn jamFirst I'll find the Queens Klan's a** and blast themfrom Bushwick back to CopenhagenWhere their KKK a--ses came fromYou can't f--k with the Brooklyn Gs, son!I'll knock you out on the docksThe biggest Bushwick motherf--ker on the blockI'll kick your "Friends"-watching a-- to the poundI'm the hardcore rapper, and yo, I'm out!Yeah! I wanna give a special shout outto my tomboy homie, Jasmine for having my backfor my friends from Bushwickto my home hood of Borough Parkto Chinatownto Bushwickto Williamsburgto Greenpointto Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David, yo for keeping it real with your comedy, bros lmaoto the 5th avenue Catholic Churchand to you mother---kers from Sodahead I forgot, you ain't ever did s--t for me anyway, GET YOUR QUEENS A&*ES OUT!the BOMB S--TTTTTTTTT!
Relative Poverty

Sometimes, I catch myself in sadness, thinking about issues in my life, ranging from friendships to school to not spending enough time with family. I then remind myself that my neighbor's mother is terminally ill, that one of my best friends has a propensity for mental breakdowns, and that people around me are generally in true predicaments. The third stage of my vicious cycle of mental gymnastics is becoming upset by the fact that I classify my own problems as insignificant compared to others'.There are people in poverty, hunger, squalor. The longest I've gone without food was a day, for a religious fast that I could afford to pay for in nutrients and fats. I have seen video clips of projects to bring food to the hungry— to my disgust, some of those interviewed explained that they ate dirt or even excrement to stop hunger pains. While this example borders on beyond extreme compared to my own circumstances, the point remains clear: my problems are incalculably small compared to others'. A question arises: Are my personal problems irrelevant because there are people in worse states than I? And with the previous, question, again I ask: Do I have the right to feel unsatisfied with my life in an upper-middle-class suburb with one of the best schools in the USA? Am I allowed to feel depressed without having to remind myself of the misfortunes of others?My personal belief is that I can complain about life without my every negative thought being earmarked as selfish, irrelevant, absurd.Thank you, and I hope you side with the Pro side.
grammar

Grammar is very important, for instance, I had to read your round two argument twice to understand it. Grammar's also very useful, if you are going to write a formal letter or email to some one and they can't understand it because its got poor grammar then he might not know what you are saying. If they write back to tell you they can't understand and messed up the grammar it may be to hard for YOU to read. My point is that grammar helps us to all understand each other.
grammar

Again, you have failed to use proper grammar. And again, your argument is a sentence long. You have named one test where you need spelling, that is it. One instance in the entire world that you can argue about were you don't need grammar. This almost sums up the whole debate. We need grammar in test, letters, e-mail, debates, blogs, the internet, wiki', books, social media, english, speech and so many other things. All you can name is a spelling test. I thank you for the debate.
grammar

Again I can not understand you, you are using bad grammar in a debate about grammar. I can't rebut your point because it doesn't make sense. Con quoted "nice point but still some people don't know how to use it and some people grammar doesn't come to mind and only questions and spelling when needed". I believe you meant "nice point but some people don't know how to use grammar and sometimes grammar doesn't come to mind and only questions and spelling when needed in tests." However, I am going to rebut your point how you said it. You stated that some people don't know how to use it. I have no idea how to use "it" either. You also stated that "some people grammar doesn't come to mind", I'm not sure what "people grammar" is but it sure is irrelevant to this debate. After that you stated that that "only questions and spelling when needed". Needed when? During a road trip, during a dinner, during a cricket game? I'm not sure what you were talking about but it is irrelevant to this debate. Grammar does matter during a test, you tried to say that only questions and spelling comes to mind. You can use correct spelling but you must use correct grammar to answer the question. For example, say you are asked the question: How was your day? you could answer with good grammar- It was good thank you, how was yours? Or you could answer with bad grammar- Good it was thank you, yours was how? That is about as understandable as your debate, the point is, if it's a casual or formal question grammar is necessary and should be used for understanding.
grammar

The special ed people should still care about grammar, just because your not good at it doesn't mean you shouldn't care and just give up on it and confuse every one. There is a level of slang and bad grammar that can be understood easily, this is fine as long as you use your bad grammar when it doesn't matter, however, when you are doing a test it's important to use good grammar. Also, if grammar didn't matter then i could barley debate with you or get technical on what you said and the mistakes you made.
Abortion is wrong

Finally, my opponent and I have come to the same conclusion. What makes a human a person is a consciousness. I agree that if a person had no consciousness then he would not be a person. This would, of course as my opponent asserts, imply a soul. Sadly, I can take this only one argument at a time I will not argue this as my opponent assumed. My opponent clearly states as quoted from his previous argument so apparently, consciousness must be "zapped into" the new human at some time later. Exactly when is unclear". He says that when this happens is unclear so I would make the assumption that he nor anyone else for that matter knows. He justifies abortion by saying that a embryo does not have the brain power to "hold" a consciousness. He is also stating that I agree with this statement. On the contrary I would posit that, as I said before the mind and the brain are not the same. Although they are closely intertwined the mind is separate from the brain. Again, this would suggest a soul and even religion but I will focus on what is at hand. I do not agree that a fetus has no consciousness and never said that I did. I am saying that you do not require a large brain or even a brain to have a consciousness. This fact is shown by the many heart attack/ near death experiences. The person is claimed clinically dead but is revived. Many stated that what happened to them wasn "out of body experience". They saw themselves in third person view. One lady even knew that there was a tennis shoe on the roof of the hospital. Sure enough when they checked there was. How cold she have known that being clinically dead? I am not suggesting God or a soul but I am stating that a fetus/embryo does have a consciousness and does not require the brain power to have one. That would be like arguing that if a computer got the brain power of us it to would get a consciousness. This would not happen which would suggest what I am saying. There is no formula or rock solid evidence for this meaning we will never come to a solid verdict on the subject. If you consider you do not need a big brain to have a consciousness then my opponent does not know when the embryo/fetus will actually get a conscious. Considering this it could happen before abortion so you would be killing a person. We do know that nothing changes when it is born, there is no flash of light. Logically I would posit since it does not gain a consciousness at birth then it would gain one at the very begging because it does not make sense that it would just randomly gain it sometime in the womb. It makes more sense. My opponent also speaks of miscarriages. This is tragic and does not answer our questions about life but proves nothing for abortion. It is how the world works. I enjoyed the argument and learned much. This would be my first time on debate.org so I apologize for any grammar errors that made what I said confusing. May the best man win.
Abortion is wrong

Abortion. It is the killing of unborn baby's. In this debate I will call it the fetus. Killing a fetus is murder. You would not kill your friend if you coulld not take care of him. All humans are born with the inatwe trait of intelligence. Humans are sentinel beings. We can think. A fetus si still a human being meening that it is sentinel, it can think, it is alive. If you saw a baby alone, on a dark cold night would you not take pitty on it or would you kill it? Abortion is the worst scapegoat I can think of. The fetus is alive. It fills the qualifications for life: it has a metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and cell reproduction. Can life be human? I believe so. the facts clearly point to it. A fetus is of human beginnings and was caused by humans so therefore it is human. Also, this fetus is unique. It has its own DNA that it will keep for the remainder of its life, It has its own characteristics like eye color and even skin tone. It is unique. There has be no baby born like him before or ever will be again. to except the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a mater of taste or opinion.. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contension, it is plain experimental evidence. (Jernoe L. LeJeune) You were once a fetus. Before the first month a fetus has a nervus system so it can feel and even control movements. By the end of the month the cerebral cortex ( controls thinking and the nervous system) is developed. Consequently brain waves are being sent out. All qualities of a sentential being. By the second month the fetus is able to feel pain like us. This is also the time when most abortions accur. The pained expressions on the baby's faces, The known ability to feel, and the current methods for abortion = pain for the fetus. It will only get worse the longer the fetus grows. Just because woman, even those aware of the circumstances, will do it any ways does not make it right. We should not allow them to choose if it fits there ethics. If that happened World War 2 would have been good and the Germans would have been right. Woman should not irresponsibly put themselves in the position to get pregnant if they could not suport or car for a baby in the first place. I look forward to your response.
tornado our hurricane

Well first of all, tornadoes mostly effect the USA and North America, while hurricanes effect many parts of the world. Tornadoes go up and down and in one line. They can usually be predicted but so can hurricanes. Hurricanes bring HUGE amounts of rain and storms. It is unclear what your side is, so I'm just listing facts right now. This is my first debate by the way. I'm mostly doing this for experience. Aaanny way It also depends on what level. For example a category 5 hurricane is more dangerous than a F-1 tornado. Any way yeah this is my debate.
Should the Burka & the Niqab & Chador be banned in Australia / America / England

Banning the Burka & Niqab & Chador in Australia & Allied Countries is important to keep society safe from radical extremists, and a minority of people that want to change the Australian way of life. Although Australia, is multicultural, Islam is a religion they say that is of good, if it is so good why do they dictate to other people that are not of their culture or belief that women should cover up.On 14 September 2010, the French Senate overwhelmingly approved a ban on burqas in public, with the law becoming effective beginning on 11 April 2011. When the measure was sent in May to the parliament they said "Given the damage it produces on those rules which allow the life in community, ensure the dignity of the person and equality between sexes, this practice, even if it is voluntary, cannot be tolerated in any public place. The ban is officially called, 'the bill to forbid concealing one's face in public.' "It refers neither to Islam nor to veils. Officials insist the law against face-covering is not discriminatory because it would apply to everyone, not just Muslims. They cite a host of exceptions, including motorcycle helmets, or masks for health reasons, fencing, skiing or carnivals.
Should the Burka & the Niqab & Chador be banned in Australia / America / England

"Freedom of religion, as long as it doesn't impose on others. Islam is not a religion it is a cult." Definition of religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. Definition of cult: small religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous http://dictionary.reference.com... ISIS or Al Qaeda can be identified as a cult. However, Islam is a much greater religion and only a minuscule amount of Muslims actually committed terroristic acts. Therefore Islam is a religion. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Men do not force women to wear the Islam Burka & the Niqab & Chador in the Western world, it is their own choice. Since it is at their own choice, it is crucial to recognize the freedom of expression regardless what the reason may be. Keep in mind that in this case the reason is harmless. "Biggest threat to the world is Muslims" Pro failed to read my argument. Muslims are hardly accountable for the terroristic threats. Wearing a Burka & the Niqab & Chador does not mean there is a terrorist. Pro's argument is mostly made up of delusion Also, Pro has terrible conduct for Muslims. I am not spreading Muslim propaganda for I am not Muslim, and I am simply debating a subject which is in regards to equality. It is their wish to wear the Burka & the Niqab & Chador and they shall bee able to wear it as long as it does not threaten others.
Should the Burka & the Niqab & Chador be banned in Australia / America / England

Freedom of religion, as long as it doesn't impose on others. Islam is not a religion it is a cult. Muslim men want there women to wear it, if not sure Muslim women should take the garbage off, or are they pleasing there men and wearing it because of culture, cult , and the exploitation of women. The biggest threat to the world is Muslims, they are no good, no good made up religion which is a cult. Would it please Muslims to change all women to change into that cloth, then turn the west into the culture of Islam, nope I will take the western ways anytime, not the sicko garbage of Niqab, Chador, and as for the Burka well you see the face but everyone will identify the Muslim, if that is what you want to present then sure go ahead, see how life will be in the west, and keep with your minority of Muslim cult creatures, keep segregated from our way of life, and see how you go. It is a fact the terrorism is coming from Muslims 2015 will continue to be watching you all that represent the Muslim community. I see you all as a threat, your sisters/brothers/fathers/mothers/children, you are all targets for war. Which does exist today. You are wrong to say I ban everything who are you referring too, me myself, look at the heading simple! simulate to our way of life and stop preaching to the public that we should change for your Muslim way of life, yes the government will continue to ban, and the sooner the better, keep an eye on all Muslims for terror attacks, look at the news on all the young Muslims leaving Australia and going to fight for Isis crap, your cult is not peace it is war.
Should the Burka & the Niqab & Chador be banned in Australia / America / England

C& R.1 Freedom of religionThe women should be able to express their opinions and their religion in a way that is harmless and this is exactly the case. Stripping their right over a miniscule cause that does not affect them is not-and never will be a justified reason to suppress their ideas and theological views. Furthermore, the clothes are not segregating them, it is at their own will to wear these. It is their own theological view, and they can wear it as long as it does not affect anyone else. C& R.2 A miniscule amount of terrorists are Muslims. Most of the acts of terror by muslim are by men 9/11, the train bombings, and most of the threats are by men, so how can you suppress women? In fact, Want to guess what percent of the terrorist attacks there were committed by Muslims over the past five years? Wrong. That is, unless you said less than 2 percent.For example, in 2013, there were 152 terror attacks in Europe. Only two of them were “religiously motivated,” while 84 were predicated upon ethno-nationalist or separatist beliefs. (1) By my opponents definition, we should ban everything that caused a threat, and strip other people’s right that had nothing to do with such threat. We should ban cars, knives, houses, chairs, toilets, sneezing, etc etc etc Which of course that logic is wrong.1. http://www.thedailybeast.com...;
Should the Burka & the Niqab & Chador be banned in Australia / America / England

I respect you have your view, like I have mine, yes freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, as for terrorists it is proven around the world, that some terrorists do happen to be muslims, women and children are taught to fight in there countries, the koran teaches hate. If you are saying men are the main terrorists then sure they would be, because they rape woman, and train then up to fight. How can you be so sure that a man can't dress in a Burka, Niqab, Chador to do acts of terrorism. Yes the cloth muslim women wear, gives an identity, however when it comes to identification of a person, there should be no barrier of race, or religion. All people should be responsible. This cloth muslims wear is segregating them from the wider community, who will see them as muslims, and anyone that does not agree with the Koran teachings will never accept this. You can't breed and teach your ways of life to others to train people to believe in your muhammad . In western countries we have freedom, we don't believe in covering up for piety sake it is bull. How you dress does not make who you are. If you love this cloth so much go back to your original countries, and fight there, stone each other, and read your Koran rubbish. I have seen your book it is absolute brain washing and evil.
Campaign Ethics

My opponent contends that is is her firm belief that money could be better spent. First, firm belief is not a very good source of evidence. Second, that has no ethical implications. If I go eat at Subway, my money could probably have been better spent. That does not mean it's unethical to eat at Subway. It simply means it wasn't the very best use of money. There is not some ethical duty to do the very best thing possible with money. Note that my opponent also conceded to most of my points. My opponent then states that money used for campaigns should not come from the government or from lobbyists. First, like I said last round, it is very difficult to split lobbyists from individuals. There is no justifiable way to say that lobbyists or special interests should not be allowed to donate money to a candidate, or that a candidate should have some ethical duty to not accept such money. Speaking out against lobbyists and special interests may sound great, but it doesn't make any sense. If an entity wants to donate money to a campaign, then why should they not be allowed to do that? My opponent then points out that campaign money could be better spent on helping the general public, leading to less people without homes. First, note that we have people without homes because there are not enough homes for everyone to have one. Second, like I said at the beginning of this round, just because there is a better use for the money does not mean it's unethical to spend it any other way. That will be all. Thank you.