BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap Tournament: Semifinal (Pajama Boy vs cakerman)

I see you embrace your queer naturerhymes coming heavy like a glacierI put you in the bottom caste like I was your creatorLike Scrooge McDuck I got cubic acresof cash but I still use manual human laboryou still being here to rap is all because of a favorI paid to you because I liked your rap flavorbut ever since then you've only gotten strangerLook here pajama boyI diss your grandma and rust you up like an iron alloyyou've got an Alabama IQ so you act rough, cowboyTalk of hurricanes so you think that you're like illinois but more like atlantaread between the lines if you missed the joke like a phantomyou're an edgy pre-teen who sits during the anthemand takes the fact that you live in a free country for grantedand who constantly has anger in his heart because his forehead's slantedfirst round feeling out so I won't hit you like a planetthese freestyle rhymes always coming hard like granitewhy does it seem every time we battle your brain stops working like a PC that met a magnetyou're a trump supporter that believes the devil is hispanicso cool I'm the iceberg smacking the titanicyou little a$$ kid an upside down cross isn't satanicbefore you provoke me further just know I'm Yellowstone volcanic
Rap Tournament: Semifinal (Pajama Boy vs cakerman)

If young metro don't trust you, Imma shoot chu(treble entrance)So far you've had a real easy tourneyBut you're leaving this bjtch in a gurneySlow mode poser thinks he's rapping quick?Mofo joker got me laughing, quit!yeah, yeahYou think I'm playing, but this aint a gameYou think I'm faking, but I'll go insaneI'll find your address, then drive down yo laneBullets flying like rain in a hurricane...You see me pull up, pumped up from cocaineYou scared to look up, gun aimed at o brain...I see you on knees, screamin please in vainI give it a squeeze, porch has a red stainIt's yo end dayYou got it off easy fighting mc9Thinking your bars are God? Well they can't beat mine!I'm JimShady, aka Pajama BoyMy bars fuckin' vibrate like yo momma's toy
Rap Tournament: Semifinal (Pajama Boy vs cakerman)

Give me a break, your freestyle is barely above average You just simply can't sit with the top rap mavericks! You've reached your prime and can't seem to get past it, Your raps nothing but placid, so I tend to skip past it There's a road block that keeps you from being fantastic, And you can't get past quick, so you'll always be a trash hit. Your rap is mediocre at best, and shows no emotion You're just a weakling joker at crest who somehow keeps floatin' yes You see, the rhyme density I got is most excellent And the way they line up seems to be so heaven sent News flash: "store" and "section" don't go together By now I'm sure these voters gotta KNOW I'm better. You know nothing about me or my family So cut it with those jokes cause they are bland to me I can tell by your Round 2 that I've got you panicking By Round 3 the voters will be certain I AM the king. .................. I'm quality over quantity, you're barf over vomit I laugh hard when you post, thinking you got it You're rap makes no sense, mine's crafted with logic But hey, thanks in advance for the Elo in my pocket! PJ Boy out.
Parental authority only exists through possession of capital and property ownership.

A parent is not under any code or obligation to not (and righteously so) lay a whooping down when the situation warrants. Fear of physical reprisal stacks up pretty well in parental authority, quite literally anyone smacking around a kid that wasn't theirs gets a quick stop at county on the way to state. Few people will recall a time when that crushing sense of guilt or worry of a spanking was put down as the cudgel of authority. Secondly, similar to aspects in the first premise, a parent is under no compunction to actually educate their kid. While this is not resources or capital, it goes to the responsibility of a parent, to which the authority is then derived. Kids, simply put, don't know anything. That is what a parent is for, and generally, that is what kids are looking for: role models, and validations of their assumptions, or correction if needed. Children, and by which, I mean children of all ages, crave a structure to their life. This is a desire for equality, rules to be followed, and a heirarchy to be adopted. When the absence of such a structure is made aparent, kids will even make one up, with no reason! Something I am sure we are all familiar with: the floor is lava. Kids don't need a reason to play, but this imaginative creation of rules gave all present the ability to function in recreation, and gauge how their actions or the actions of others might work with consequences, it implicitly created an authority, even if there was no figure behind it. Parents fill this void, by an authority demonstrating itself, it becomes the role model for which the child strives to be, or learn from, or in the worst cases, use as a cautionary tale later in life. Time has given validity to this: not always was capital or property available to parents. Tribal and nomadic families of yore had no such contrivancies in which to lorde over their progeny, the sands were always shifting, the game always needed to be chased, and the new additions to the tribe would be poor adults later if the example of their parents was not followed. The parental authority in this instance (and what carries on, I feel) is that the authority is derived from mutual understanding of protection, affection, and validation. None of these are property dependant, and no bank account can purchase.
Parental authority only exists through possession of capital and property ownership.

Thank you for accepting. I've heard parents say to children over and over, "I'm your parent, do what I say". That saying is completely invalid. Ultimately, any control, authority, or power that parents have over children is NOT a result of "God given" authority or "deserved respect". Instead it is because the parents own the property and assets that the child needs to survive comfortably. The government reinforces this mode of ownership because generally the idea is that most children will not be able to efficiently own property or assets, therefore the government forces minors to go through the parents in order to personally own titles and assets(unless of course emancipation takes place).
David Gilmour Is A Better Artist Than Roger Waters

"David Gimour gave us a Grammy winning album called the "Division Bell"." Yes Division Bell was mainly driven by Gilmour. But wait I already have SIX of the biggest Pink Floyd albums created by Waters. You only have One. Not much going for you there pal. "It is a classic and Pink Floyds stunning 1990's debut without yet again, Roger Waters" 1990's yes, when Pink Floyd were way past their time.(70's) The Division Bell was a good album but it was nothing new. "This proved that Gilmours song writing ability is every bit as great, if not better, than Waters himself." Gilmour can write good albums. That's granted. But Waters has written WAY more albums. Something my opponent hasn't even adressed. "He has had a much better solo career " What? Where is the proof of this? This is just based off opinion. I've shown that Waters went as far out of his style to create a CLASSICAL album. This is not subjective opinion like my opponents claims. It is very rare for a rock musicion to write a classical album. "Waters basically was sour about the production choices and direction that the band was going in." Evidence...? "He is uninspired, dismal, depressive, delusional." For a Pink Floyd fan, I'm surprised how little respect my opponent has for him. However his assertions are baseless. He does not support it whatsoever. "His creativity is not as thorough and vast as Gilmour." Gobsmacked. If Waters creativty is not as "thorough and vast" as Gilmours why did he create so so many more of Pink Floyds music including all of their top three albums as well as creating a classical album whereas Gilmour sticks solely to rock? "His voice was also dubbed by another English artist on the song Have A Cigar." And Gilmours wasn't chosen either. Maybe because neither Waters or Gilmour had as fiiting a voice as Roy Harper for that particular song, but my opponent acts like Waters can't sing when the fact is he sings many times such as in The Wall where his voice is heard on actually allot of songs such as "Mother" and "One of my turns". "Again. Roger Waters is the lead singer and good writer." Ok, now my opponent is claiming Waters is the lead singer. It does not appear to be a typo so I gladly accept my opponents statement though I'm not sure why he would make it. ___Well that's sweet that you attributtid "On an Island" to your "dear and sweet" Rogue, but I'm not quite exactly sure how that is relevant..... Why you should vote con:My opponent ignores the vast majority of my arguments as well as droping a whole lot of his own,I have proven that Waters wrote the vast majority of Pink Floyds music including their three most populer albums, "Dark Side of the Moon," "The Wall", and "Wish You Were Here". This alone proves my point I think. My opponent only uses his subjective opinion to support his claims that David Gilmour had a better solo career where-as I have shown that Waters was way more experimental and went as far as creating a classical album.
David Gilmour Is A Better Artist Than Roger Waters

Again. Roger Waters is the lead singer and good writer. But single-handedly David Gilmour has more depth. He has a vary vast array of musical talents. And he can play the piano too. This man is the backbone of Pink Floyd. He has stood the test of time, and his solo projects are incredible. Mihalis is one of his signature tunes, as well as No Way Out Of Here. He had another release a few years ago titled, "On An Island". This was my tribute to my dear and sweet Rogue. * Remember that song. Yes, I know that some of you do. It gave you a very eloquent view of this Man's conscious mind as he has a whimsical, colorful, and melodious track which is not only complex, but state of the art. He is never cheap, or uninspiring. He is still hungry for great songs, and it shows as he is now the sole producer an writer of his pieces. David Gilmour is the best and greates member of Pink Floyd. Period.
David Gilmour Is A Better Artist Than Roger Waters

David Gimour gave us a Grammy winning album called the "Division Bell". It is a classic and Pink Floyds stunning 1990's debut without yet again, Roger Waters. This proved that Gilmours song writing ability is every bit as great, if not better, than Waters himself. He has had a much better solo career and was called by Rolling Stones magazine, one of the greatest guitarists of all time. Waters basically was sour about the production choices and direction that the band was going in. He is uninspired, dismal, depressive, delusional. His creativity is not as thorough and vast as Gilmour. His voice was also dubbed by another English artist on the song Have A Cigar. On that part that says, Which Ones Pink and Have A Cigar Youre Gonna Go Far. The record producers decided that it would be better to have someone else do this instead of Waters. So again, he did not do as much as you think. He had quite a few people sing over his lyrics because his voice did not always fit in. True story my friend.
David Gilmour Is A Better Artist Than Roger Waters

Roger Waters always added more depth to the band because of his voice, poetic flow, emotional content, and intellectual philosophies. He is a very deep, thoughtful, and colorful being. His guitar abilities is said to be among the best ever. Both Waters and Gilmour are part of the British Rock Band known as Pink Floyd, and are perhaps the most epic of all artists that this world has ever seen. While Waters has a better writing format for songs, he does not give you that energy that is seen in Gilmours solo efforts which have been critically acclaimed. His accolades are top notch, and his spirit soars like an Eagle especially on his album On An Island and his stunning, and mesmorizing debut which some said was ahead if its time. See this link. http://www.davidgilmour.com...
David Gilmour Is A Better Artist Than Roger Waters

MwahahahahahahahahI, The Phantom, am pleased to be debating my opponent, The Great Inferno, on this profound, important, magnituedeous, crucial, grave, fundamental, consequential, remarkable, prodigious, critical, decisive, monumental, pivotal, influential, outstanding and wandereous topic.(First!) Let us get titles out of the way. I will hereby be called The Pyrotechnic Phantom. My esteemed opponent will be as usual, The Great Inferno.I will allow The Great Inferno to go first!
Most gamers aren't really gamers.

Key words: "Not," "Gamers," "Game"Gamer- a person who plays gamesNot- negation, denial, refusal, or prohibitionGame-a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators; an amusement or pastime; the material or equipment used in playing certain gamesOne who plays games is technically a gamer of some sort. While you may rebut and say "A gamer is one who plays on the computer a lot" or something of the sort, but the debate does not specify what type or intensity of what you call a "gamer."Sources: Dictionary.com- http://dictionary.reference.com...;
Most gamers aren't really gamers.

When I see people on YouTube calling themselves, "real gamers," the first thing I usually see is hundreds of videos of them playing Call of Duty, Minecraft, and other games that are some of the first things people they hear the word, "video game." Although the true definition of a gamer is someone who plays video games in general, I see it a different way. I believe that a gamer is someone who experiments with all kinds of games, whether it's an unknown game from the NES, or even a more modern game that people like PewDiePie and Markiplier may play. Although there are some very good gaming channels out there that fit this description, such as JonTron or Game Theory, the general gamer mostly sticks to popular games that everyone will know, either from YouTubers with more subscribers than them, or from names that everyone has heard of. In conclusion, gamers definitely live up to their definition, but I would like to see more people playing other games besides the norm.
Doctor Assisted Death

Doctor Assisted Death is not only morally wrong but it is wrong in the eyes of God. If you look in the Hippocratic Oath (The Oath that medical professionals must swear to) in paragraph 6, last line it says "Above all, I must not play at God." but if you are helping someone take there life, would that not be messing with God"s plan for that person? http://guides.library.jhu.edu...
sum 41 is horrible

Green day does swear, Jesus of suburbia, boulevard of broken dreams, American idiot, and the only reason they have a musical is because they have been around longer, their music is okay and they aren't that great socially, sum 41 is. Also, just because of the album name, doesn't mean they swear, green day has been around longer than sum 41 so of course they have more awards. Also the fact that sum 41 made it to the quarter finals of MTV MMM is better than green day making it as far as they did because sum 41 was seeded last, so they were already underdogs, than they beat arcade fire, the strokes, and cold play all internationally successful bands, but still lost to Canadian band sum 41, of Ajax, let the voting begin, ad good luck Mitchell
sum 41 is horrible

Green day never swears sum 41 does have you seen their album all the good sh** like that is not swearing alex and why dont you check your arguments before you read them stop saying that. I can agree sum 41 is a good band ....... not you really think they are better than green day who have won multiple awards that are better than 4 woodies your band has won. your band is definitively better by earning those. where as green day has won multiple music awards and the now have a musical after american idiot what does your band have a bunch of woodies, great for sum 41, they are amazing .................................was talking about green day cause they won real awards ps .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Great Luck Alex you will really need it Alot good luck winning
sum 41 is horrible

Mitchell, you are supposed to be respectful during a debate, sum 41 lost to the foo fighters' white limo, the 3rd catchiest of all time was voted by the entire world, they are very succesful, green day isn't as successful, seriously, green day is not that great a band compared to the success of sum 41. They have many awards, more than green day, don't swear in every song like green day. Sum 41 is a much better band, and we are debating sum 41, not green day, Mitchell put some effort into your last one, good luck
sum 41 is horrible

sum 41 is a great band with international success, almost one a 2012 grammy, has won 4 junos, multiple woodies, multiple kerrangs, their song fat lip was named 3rd catchiest song of all time, their album all killer no filler went platinum in canada, usa and the uk, their other albums were also successful, face the facts Mitchell, sum 41 is better, and if they aren't, what band is better in their genre? well, which one?
Euthanasia is Wrong in All Ways

I understand that in some religions and countries it is prohibited to end your life, but it is better to give people a choice so that if it is legal, and the patient wants to go through with it, it can happen. I think that regular day-to-day doctors and nurses should not be a part of the euthanasia process, due to what you mentioned about feeling like a killer due to guilt. Euthanasia should only be done by either very high level experienced doctors or a vetted third party professional who will have more control on how they are affected by the process than normal doctors/nurses. I agree with the fact that most doctors/nurses are against the notion of euthanasia, but at the end of the day it is 100% the patient's decision and the doctor should not be having the final word. Doctors cannot force anything upon the patient, for example a patient can reject cancer treatment and doctors have to respect their choice; euthanasia is no different in this context as it is up to the patient and if the doctor cannot accept it another more experienced professional should take over. Medicine is an ever-changing discipline and new medicine is always being developed, tested and implemented in hospitals all over the world. The human spirit will not be dampened as euthanasia is not a cure, just a way of humanely ending suffering. Perhaps within the near future euthanasia will hopefully not be needed at all due to having cures to major illnesses like cancer and HIV ready and available to give to patients, but for now whilst there are people who are nowhere near cured and have little or nothing to live for euthanasia is possible for a worst-case scenario to end their pain. Furthermore, where would we be if humans were not allowed to interfere with life? Medicine would never be developed and defibrillators would not be allowed to be used as we are interfering with human life. Why are dogs allowed to be put down humanely whilst humans do not have such a dignified way to pass away; do dogs have more rights than humans?
Euthanasia is Wrong in All Ways

Even if a person wishes to end their life, it would be ethincally awry to ask a doctor or nurse to administer the lethal injection. In many countries it is seen as a violation of elemental medical ethics and the sole purpose of being educated in medical studies, as all people in health care profession have chosen to help find new medical ways to save human life. In 2002, 3299 U.S. cancer doctors were questioned of their opinion and willingness to perform Euthanasia on patients. The organisation performing the exermination were the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The results shows that among the doctors, only 6,5 percent supported Euthanasia, and 25 percent supported physician-assisted suicide. The organisation made similar research ten years previously, and compared to the data obtained back then, there has been a decrease from 22.7 percent percent in support to 6,5. Many doctors had the oppinion that by using Euthanasia, they would be no better then any other killer. By accepting Euthanasia, there will be no meaning in trying to actually save anybody because we simply decide to kill the patients since it will appear as the easiest way out the pain. In the future, one of the major issues will be the lose of faith in human life. Humans should not interfere with life and has, by religious means, no right to end it.
Euthanasia is Wrong in All Ways

First of all, while I agree with some of your points, particularly the one stating that there may be an accidental misjudgment on behalf of the patient whether the euthanasia goes ahead, that is not enough to completely criminalize it. If a patient has been living years in one bed in one room in one hospital, there is nothing that you could do to make him/her feel as though they have a bright future. Sure, you can wait for a cure but that will take a lot more time to be developed and then passed on to the general public, and if healthcare is very expensive it will be difficult to pay for in families of low income. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that it will work, it might just raise the hopes of the family and patient only to let them down further and slump deeper into depression. The miscommunication is an important factor of deeming it reliable, as it is possible for a family to opt for euthanasia against the will of the patient, and to that I have to say there needs to be a rigorous system in which the full intentions of both the patient and the family are understood. In cases where the patient cannot speak, it can be done by telling the patient to swirl their eyes around for a yes and to shut their eyes completely for a no. This is not ideal but it is needed to gauge a response from patients who cannot speak. If a patient is deemed to be in a state of total paralysis and in a state where they are not happy about their future and current life, why make them suffer for longer than it needs to be. If it is completely clear that there is no possible way to cure them, they should have a choice in whether they want to live or not. We are not in the same position as them and should not judge their decisions as it would only affect their own life, not ours. We are not devaluing their lives, in fact we are giving them a choice and respecting it. Why should you have to suffer for years on end, only to grow old in that state and die after years of suffering, seeing your family crying everyday at your bed while you can never say a single word to them ever again. The mental pain that would create would drive anyone to seriously consider ending their life. Euthanasia is not meant to be a first choice quick decision. It is a calculated last resort to someone's life and if we're all going to die a t some point why make some people endure so much unavoidable suffering until they die suddenly, shocking friends and family. They should be able to have a dignified death and it gives them a chance to communicate last words or wishes to their loved ones and put an end to their suffering. Sorry for the long answer, I am supposed to debate this topic in my Spanish exam so I am just want to practice conveying my ideas in English before translating it later on.