BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap Battle

Ladies and gentlemen! Thank you for your attention! Hopefully freethinker can take this crazy tension, but first I'll hit him right in the brain, with twice the power of a speeding train, he'll be losin' just like John McCain! I am a product of evolution, Only the fittest survive, So in conclusion, It looks like you're gonna die. Freethinker going extinct, Before you even manage blink, Weakness is your sole instinct. If your raps were a river, then it's a blazing drought, My thoughts are killer, and you are all out. Sit yourself down and pray, it's all you can do today, to stop the rampage, in which you are engaged. Your petty thoughts are shallow, and can't stop thinking about sex. Your skull is hollow, and not even complex. Only great things come out of my mighty mind, things that are venom to you and your vile kind, You are just too ignorant and blind, to search for and find, the fact that your'e a swine. There's more power in a single word of mine, Than all of yours combined.
Rap Battle

You're so dope, constantly smokin' weed,Can't afford the drugs, you're down on your knees, Always blowin' hard like a hurricane breeze.I pulled the pin on your grenade,and let it explode all over your face.Read the verse above if this feels out of place.Time to take your grade school grammar,Lay it on the table and smash it with a hammerI'll take your broken ego and toss it in the trash,They'll give me a nobel prize and a pocket full of cash.
Rap Battle

Your lyrics are as fun as sitting on a cactus,Nobody wants to listen to your whack tactics.Like Allen Iverson, I don't waste my time with practice,Your bars so weak I'll crush them like they're plastic.Too sinful for heaven, too graceful for hell,My ways so mysterious even god couldn't tellmy next action cause the truth is: I'm elusive,Try to get into my party but that list is exclusive.So go ahead and forfeit, you're unfit,You can't match my wit,My bars popping you like a zit.
Rap Battle

Welcome to this epic Rap Battle, where I'll slaughter you like some cattle. No no, you mustn't run! This is all in good fun! So, don't be scared of my almighty sword, In a second, you stand before the Lord. Whether its heaven or hell, We'll hear the ringing bell, and any demon that might dwell, within you will yell as he's released from his cell. Even when you're six feet underground, You shall still be found when I'm around. Brought back up just to be sent back down.
people with serious mental health problems or criminal records should be able to own guns.

"Because they are endangering people." Con How is somebody who was acquitted also know as innocent endangering anyone? Also, why should somebody with minor crimes like spray painting be denied a gun? They should be able to own a gun they have done anything wrong or have only committed minor crimes. Some jobs, like rural farming you need a gun or in Alaska. You really need a gun to protect yourself from wildlife. Some mentally handicapped people can function just fine in the peace of the country. Doing hard physical work like tending livestock. "The young men, fresh from Texas state institutions for the mentally disabled, began arriving at Thurman Johnson's ranch in the rolling hills west of town in the late 1960s. Johnson taught them how to raise turkeys and cows and perform other farm chores, then put them to work." cleveland.com http://www.cleveland.com...
people with serious mental health problems or criminal records should be able to own guns.

"even charges of which the individual has been acquitted" Wikipedia "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791," Wikipedia Why should somebody who has been acquitted of a crime be denied their 2nd amendment rights? https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...
ban islam

religion is to rely on, islam is not a religion if no one believes in it, or if its necessary for peoples survival.. which is to say it becomes inescapable to live by its rule to not die, it becomes human nature.. a bit like money, you need money to get food, without food you die religion is a race.. a race to the finish line and islam is religion at its best islam is terrorism, a muslim follows the koran.. terrorism.. one example is koran 8:12, that allah will strike terror into the hearts of disbeliever, therfore muslims must cut of every fingertip of them.. i am not religious you can accept pedophile terrorist lunacy into your heart and tell me i need to be behind bars.. and without an argument look like you do isis is a more true form of islam.. if islam got global power, non muslims would get the eye gauged out, the genitles stabbed, males testicles cut from them... and no one would be there to stop it, ever you have a very naive view point.. muslims dont think, the book does that for them.. and its all there for everyone to know about.. it dosnt change, like truth, or past or math
ban islam

The term "Islam" is not a religion, but a race. Your topic, which was 'ban islam' does not exactly state your point, but I'll take it that you are against the Islam race. So, why exactly are you against Islam. Is it the terrorist attacks? ISIS? If they are, YOU should be banned to have access to the world itself too. Locked behind bars. Movements monitored. No matter what race or religion you are, there are terrorist groups, note the plural form, sharing the same race or religion as you. Lets take America for an example. The Jewish Defense League, Omega 7, Alpha 66. Terrorist groups. Threat to lives. So is Obama a terrorist? Was Elvis Presley planning a genocide after all? Is Taylor Swift planning to kill all her fans at her next concert? Is Kim Kardashian going to take down another few towers? Yes, the ISIS group might seem Islam, but are all the members Islam? Can you confirm every single one of the terrorists are Islam, and can you prove all Islams carry bombs with them? ALL Islams. There are Islams, living in fear of ISIS, or even you. Peaceful people, trying to make a living, that chair you rest upon, the sandwich you just ate , your morning coffee, a large number of them thrive to get one of those, straining themselves to live not even a life of luxury maybe, but a simple one. A man in your neighbourhood could be an Islam. The restaurant you frequent could have an Islam who frequents it too. Any place you've been to, an Islam could be right there right now. So why? It is only a small group among this race, but why do we have such hatred to the entire race? I end my speech and await your reply to mine, repeating that once again, the Islam race should not be banned and treated fairly like the rest of us.
Gay Marriage

Arguments: Extend all arguments.Rebuttals:My opponent has forfeit, so there is nothing for me to refute.Conclusion: My opponent has plagiarized every single argument he has made. I on the other hand put forth effort and showed why same-sex marriage should not be recognized by the state, fulfilling my BoP. Therefore, arguments go to me. My opponent did not type a single word. I am the only one that has typed anything, so S&G goes to me. Pro did not cite the sources that he used whereas I did, so sources goes to me. My opponent has forfeit and I have not, so conduct goes to me. I was hoping for more effort on Pro's part.
Gay Marriage

Rebutals: My opponent has plagairized once again! Here is his source this time: . http://www.teenink.com...; The purpose of this website is to use your own writing, not let other websites do it for you. Hence, I am not going to rebut Pro's argument as the writing is not original. I should be debateing the person with the alias Littlelarge15, not another website. Arguments: Extend all arguments as Pro has not bothered to rebut my arguments.
Abolition of SAT/ACT

A study compared university admissions decisions made when only considering high school record with admissions decisions made when considering both high school record and SAT score. More than 90% of the admissions decisions that were made were the same. At the same time, the remaining 10% was greatly affected by which method was implemented. When SAT was considered, many minority and low-income student were rejected from being included in this 10%. Therefore, colleges do not need SAT scores in order to differentiate between students coming from different schools. The results of this study even apply to competitive universities with <50% acceptance rates. Moreover, an alternative would be to emphasize class rank for admissions decisions and forcing all schools to list the rank on applicants' transcripts. This compares the student to the rest of the student body in the school. Also, schools should send a profile that shows average GPA with SD, average SAT scores, and other important statistica information that would give universities a better idea about where the applicants are coming from, as well as what they are being compared to when ranked. The opposition seems to think that the admissions procedures of prestigious universities (such as that of Harvard, which he used as an example) would not function properly without SAT scores. Bates, Muhlenberg, Bowdoin, Wake Forest, Mount Holyoke, and many other prestigious universities currently have an SAT optional policy, and they are still well-ranked in university rankings and have strong academic reputations. "An easy temporary solution to that is to add 26 points to all of the female scores. Why? Because we can quantify the difference. "The exact difference is not the same every year, and the entire difference can not exclusively be explained by gender differences, though the general year-to-year trend does signify that gender bias is present. The solution proposed by the opposition is invalid. The SAT fails to measure college preparedness accurately, since scores decrease due to minority status, low-income status, bilingual status, and being female. GPA, class rank, and rigor of classes are stronger determinants of whether or not a college applicant has the potential to be successful in college. This is verified by the results of the over 740 colleges who saw positive results with an SAT-optional policy. The opponents refutations have been countered.
Abolition of SAT/ACT

Thank you for accepting.My premises:College Board, the makers of the SAT used to say that it is impossible to improve your score through additional preparation. It has completely backed off of that theory and in fact have made a business out of test preparation, selling SAT study materials. How is it possible to ethically compare two applicants when one had the opportunity to take prep courses for the exam while the other did not have the means to? Hence, this exam is biased and gives an advantage to upper class students who can afford preparatory instruction for the exam. SAT results are also used for scholarships. Universities set cut-off scores for specific amounts of money. This is clearly a violation of the beliefs of the test-makers, who state that, due to measurement error in the test, two scores must differ by 125 points before it can be deemed undeniably significant and valid. We see that accelerated programs, such as the one at Johns Hopkins University, whose primary admissions criterion tend to have a lack of minority and female students. The SAT attacks females. Although females' grades were higher on their secondary school transcripts, their SAT scores were, on average, 26 points lower (in 2006.) Studies show that this difference may be due to the test's emphasis on speed over mathematical reasoning; less strictly timed tests involving math tend to yield equal results between genders.Students who are bilingual are hurt by the SAT. Studies say that the SAT does not predict their college performance accurately, as it is meant to do. Even bilingual students whose primary language is English are adversely affected, according to studies. In 2009, Wake Forest University became the first top-30 university in the US to make the SAT requirement optional in hopes of broadening its applicant pool. Since then, its student pool has more diversity than it ever had, consisting of more minority and female students. This has been an effective policy for Wake Forest.Over 740 universities (like Wake Forest) accept students without test score submissions, and the number is growing, as admissions committees across the country realize the ineffective nature of the SAT and its inability to accurately predict college performance for many people. http://fairtest.org...SAT Wars, by Joseph Soares (2011)Thank you. I look forward to my oppositions response.
Abolition of SAT/ACT

I'm looking forward to debating with you. This is my first debate on here, so if I'm out of order in any way, please let me know. From my understanding, all I am to do in this round is clarify any terms you made that I disagree with. Terms: This sounds great to me. I'm not sure what the standard rules of debate are, but if it's being polite, you'll have no worries here. Definitions: I agree to these terms Once again, I'm looking forward to this. Thanks.
Abolition of SAT/ACT

Terms: No slandering. Standard rules of formal debate apply. Definitions: Abolition: Formally putting an end to something SAT/ACT: Standardized exams used for college entrance PRO is arguing for abolition of SAT/ACT, and CON is arguing against abolition of SAT/ACT. First argument for both PRO and CON is strictly for acceptance, setting terms of debate, and establishing definitions. Thank you.
There is/can be a True Religion

Thanks, James.First of all, sorry for taking so long and waiting for the last second to get back to you, but at least I'm here!Absolute truth is extremely hard to come by, however I agree with you that truth does exist, glad we cleared that up.I love talking with those types of people who just cannot come to the conclusion that "truth" does exist, in this reality anyway, and ends up going in circles about "well how do you know this universe really exists?" It's so much fun...Evaluating evidence would be great if there was evidence. But a lack of evidence, I agree, is not evidence for a "non-existence." You're right that truth exists. However the reason we can't use the same methods to examine or prove a "God" exists is because there is currently no observable or testable experiments we can conduct on such a "God."The difference between proving God exists and proving a tree down the block exists is that we are able to see other trees, see how far apart they grow, see what types grow where, and we can just walk to the end of the block and see with our own eyes if there is a tree there or not. I may have taken everything the wrong way, you're arguing for the "truth" about God, right? And not the "truth" that a God does or does not exist? As I am arguing that it would be more "true" that a God does not exist than does.I agree that logic does preclude us from holding two mutually exclusive or contradictory claims. One is true, you're right, so now we're arguing about which one is true.Alright I see what you're getting at. And now I see why you said for the sake of this argument, we'll consider Atheism a religion. Atheism is not a religion, as it is simply a lack of belief in a deity or religion. However if we wish to consider Atheism a religion, we can say it's the religion of nature. We don't believe God created the universe, and we have reasonable evidence to show that God did not create the Earth, and we have more sound hypothesis regarding the origins of the universe other than "it was created by God." For someone to say they believe in a religion is almost always blind faith. Sure, there are accounts in the Bible that to add up historically, however because someone wrote a book of metaphors and basically overall positive ways to live life, does not mean it makes that religion as a whole actually "true."Atheism, as a religion, is the study of the universe around us. What makes Atheism true is that it studies observable evidence and particles. We can prove right off the bat that what Atheism "studies" actually exists, as we can see it, and test it. Undesirable and unobservable claims are not thrown out the window, however the lack of any type of evidence is really the main factor that leads us to believe Atheism is more credible than any kind of Theism.Objective truth does exist. What the objective truth actually is, is a whole other story, and the difference between Atheism is Theism is Atheism has testable and observable studies.
There is/can be a True Religion

I saw this poll too, and voted opposite as you, as I can see, so I'm glad you created this debate!To clear up any confusion, Atheism is not a religion. It is the lack of religion, the lack of a belief in a God or Deity. However you did say for the sake of this argument, we will consider Atheism a religion, which I am fine with. I'm really hoping this doesn't turn into a semantics argument, and the only arguments turn out to be "can you really prove you exist?" As it would basically be Aerogant part 2. One thing though - this won't be a "God-vs-No-God" debate, but for you to assert that a knowable truth about God does/can exist, you would need to prove how you know that, and (through my experiences, I'd love if I saw something new) the only real way to do that and to get anyone on your side is to prove that God (any God) does exist.But please, I'd love to see your reasoning as to how you can assert that objective, knowable truth about God does or can exist.I'll leave the first argument to you, as you're the one who started the debate, so obviously you have something to say. Thanks, and good luck!
There is/can be a True Religion

I noticed a poll on the subject. The poller seems to be claiming that there is no one true religion. This is blatantly ridiculous. This is what the debate is about: Please Read Carefully:--:--:--- :- I assert that truth about God is no less objective or knowable than truth about anything else, and challenge Con to prove me wrong. The burden of proof is on both of us. -: Con may either just accept in the first round or accept and start his debate, but if he does the latter I expect him to keep his fourth round arguments short and summary-like as he will have one round more than me. For the purposes of this argument, we will classify atheism as a religion. Otherwise, this could easily turn into a God-vs.-no-God debate, which I am willing to do---but not right here. Remember, the point of this debate is arguing whether or not objective, knowable truth about God does/can exist. Please accept, someone! I am eager to prove you universalists wrong. There should be someone willing to debate this!!
Beyonce is the greatest performer of all time

http://www.youtube.com...Notice her performance notice the verocity and vocal ability displayed no lips singing nothing extra just raw talent im comparing beyonce to the great performers that are on record and none have achieved what beyonce has achieved ability wise either can can sing but not dance or have any stage presence ie mariah carey christina aguilera or can dance but cannot sing ie janet jackson ciara or they can sing and dance but no stamina ie michael jackson what defines the greatest performer: someone who has all the exceptional skills who ha no equal that means everything they do well and then some not they can sing and dance but no stage presence,,they can sing but can captivate and audience and do nothin but stand there because after a while no matter who great your voice is the show will gett boring,,and also not someone who can only dance but has no voice beyonce is the total package and as far as her concert dvds please read below and gag I am world tour dvd #1 one of the highest selling music dvds of all time and hightest selling music dvd in THE WORLDhttp://en.wikipedia.org... live at roseland#1 2nd highest selling dvd of 2011 not in just the dvd charts but music video chartshttp://en.wikipedia.org... I am yours whynn lass vesgas#1http://en.wikipedia.org... Beyonce Experience#1 on of the highest selling music dvds of all time 3x platinumi rest my case
Beyonce is the greatest performer of all time

Beyonce is not the greatest performer of all time. Before I begin, I will counter argue pro."beyonce doesn't need anything except a mic and a light" -Just because Beyonce can sing in some people's opinions, that doesn't make her the greatest performer of all time. A lot of people have good voices, so are they also the greatest of all time? No."there are performers who can sing and dance ie michael jackson however he lacked the overall voice that beyonce has and he needed alot of smoke and mirros and shiny costumes" -Michael Jackson's costumes add to his performance. He does not "NEED" them to put on a good show, they just make his shows more entertaining. Plus, Michael Jackson has had much more success than Beyonce. He holds the record for the most singles off one album which topped charts.Also, you did not define, so I will provide defintions:"Performer"- any musician, including the Great composers like Mozart."All time"- ALL TIME. From when music began, to now.Now, onto my arguments.First of all, Beyonce has a good voice, but this does not make her the greatest performer of all time. To earn this title, you need to bring a little more to the stage than a good voice. You need to revolutionise music, and be remembered for your music. Beyonce sings pop, but she did not start it. What about the Sex Pistols, who began the punk era? Or (going back in time) Beethoven and other great composers, who wrote music used everywhere today? Beyonce doesn't even compete with them.Secondly, Beyonce isn't that popular in the music industry. Her records don't have anywhere near as many sales as other true great performers. The population needs to almost worship her, and at the moment, she doesn't really have a MASSIVE following. Many more fan clubs are devoted to Katy Perry, P!nk, and other modern music heroes. People even make T shirts with Taylor Swift on them. Beyonce doesn't have a big enough fan base to be the greatest.Finally, we're talking about ALL TIME here. Beyonce probably won't be remebered in about 10 years time. Music trends pass as quickly as fashion trends, and to be remembered, you have to be completely unique. Beyonce is not completely unique, but just another pop singer, and while she does have a bit of talent, she is not the best.Beyonce is certainly not the greatest performer of all time.
Legalization of Marijuana

I just realized that my topic was a bit vague. What I should have said was "Legalization of Marijuana for Recreational Use". While I still disagree with medical uses, I am most passionate about it being legalized for recreational use. I strongly believe it should not be. You were right regarding the THC chemical. I have no problem doing some more research as you requested, but I hope you can respect that I feel there are better ways to handle medical problems than using marijuana. So, with this topic established, how do you feel about legalizing marijuana for recreational use? The way I see it, doing so would greatly endanger communities.
Legalization of Marijuana

I can definitely see where you're coming from, but I think there can be many different kinds of marijuana. Marijuana loaded with THC is definitely not good for you or your body, but when you take careful consideration into different kinds that can come out of doctors and or what your grow on your own, you can see that some of it can help with certain problems. I know that THC shouldn't really make a difference in your opinion, I beg you to look into it. I know that marijuana should most likely stay illegal, as it would cause problems with kids who already abuse the substance.