BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
RAP Battle!!!

So you like jiz I can see, Could it be, Your havin' oh so too much fun, Imma show you who's number one, Talkin' bout jizin' on my face, What's wrong with you man, do you really think you'll win this race, Imma show show how to rap, So stop with all that crap, I know you like to suck a cock, Ya that's right, I saw you with Brock, Yiu and him got a thing, A thing up each others butt that is, I know you want me, But you can't have it, You might as well run on home and cry to your mom, Cuz this rap is over and I just served you with an ace bomb.
RAP Battle!!!

You don't think I can dis, Well just watch this, I see you saw my pic, so what I'm from another planet, Where I come from we make people our hoes, and name them Janet What are racist, dissin all them Persians and Japs I'll break you in half the way a toothpick snaps Your the fat clown, Yeah, imma win this round You say that you'll rape and kill, does that give you a thrill You say i'l start kissin, well you'l start pissin, in your pants that is your face'll be covered in jiz
RAP Battle!!!

Do you not like dissin' or somethin', Why dn't you just run on home and eat a muffin, Did you know muffins are just ugly cupcakes, Kinda like you and me, Your just an uglier version, You know, like Japs and Persians, And what's with your profile pic, Your really startin' to make me sick, Do you think your all cool, Just because your an extraterrestrial, Boy you better back down now, Cuz Imma make you look like a big fat clown, Most of them clowns can get out of that little bitty car, Not you, Your too fat to, You say no dissin', Why don't you just start kissin', Cuz Imma dis all I want, If you don't like it then you can go home, But I'll warn you, You'll just make yourself look like a cunt, Excuse my language Please, I don't mean to tease, But if I have to then I will, I mjust might even go for the kill, Well you better step up to the plate, Cuz it's your turn to hate, Don't strike out now, Your mommy just might have a cow.
Members should be allowed to see who voted for who.

Thank you for your support (in come things). It's natural to be nervous on your first debate. It's not natural to do so well as you did though. But most of all you made your argument clear TO ME, instead of trying to destroy my argument and my character like most do. (check out dalzuga's comments in that debate) However, I stand by my argument. It is true that people could do immoral things when receiving information on who voted against them. But this would not be a concern for debate.org because people should speak their opinion without being afraid that someone will harass them. Personally, I wouldn't harass these people that voted for stevster but to a certain extent I WOULD demean them. I would point out to all members that either they are the ones who don't read debates before voting or that they are the votes that people should not consider. Hiding behind the fact that no one can tell you voted for a certain person is what leads many members to just vote because it shows that most simply don't care. "This fear would drive people away from voting on a controversial debate" 1st of all, I'd rather have less people vote if it stopped some other people from voting without reading. 2nd of all, I think that is great to show people that many times when you give your opinion, there are often consequences, but you should give your opinion anyway! e.g. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke out and he got killed for it, may he rest in peace. But your opinion is never in vain and you should make sure you speak your mind without any fear of others. (I should know, I had a 0% win ratio)
Members should be allowed to see who voted for who.

Based on a debate I had before on patriotism where stevster (my contender) had some disturbing mindless arguments, I believe debate.org should allow us to see who voted for who. One of those reasons is that I am currently losing 2-4 and I'm curious to know what 4 idiots voted either without looking at the arguments or liked to take up on stevster's bribe to "suck [their] **** clean" Also, this system would make it easier for members to recognize who is running multiple accounts in order to vote multiple times in a debate.
Abortion

Thats a good point, But when you say women make mistakes, its just what it is. If the baby has any types of negative effects, it really does not matter. A human being is important to keep in thus world no matter what type of disabilities or other issues a baby might have. Also you said that when a women makes a mistake, disabilities or other issues could happen to the baby. Well the women who was pregenat should of known the right precautions in order to have a saf pregancy. Human beings are human beings and everybody should have a chance to live.
Abortion

Abortion should be legalized because everybody mistakes and the baby might have defects that family can not support and the baby might be in pain for life with that defect. Sometimes young women make mistakes and accidentally get pregnant, if they are unprepared financially and emotionally they should have the option of having an abortion. When the person finds out the baby has a defect and the family can't support the costs to support the child or the child will live in pain for his/her life because of the defect, it is ok to put it out of its misery.
Hornets are the best team in the West.

None of your stats are defensive. The first stat is rebounds per game, which the hornets are fourth in +/-, but has nothing to do with defense. Your second argument are turnovers per game which you do not want to lead the league The hornets are last on that list of TO's per game, which means they have the least amount of turnovers in the west. Thanks for making my argument for me. And the last stat is the amount of wins when a team scores over 100 which once again has nothing to do with defense. This stat is deceiving anyways because when you have teams like the warriors and lakers who score over 100 a lot more they will have more wins in this stat. If you look at win pct. the hornets are second when scoring over 100. Next time you try to argue against me please use evidence that has something to do with the topic.
Adolph Hitler was a closet Muslim

Islam is Naziism plus Allah http://youtu.be... -In an October 9 Friday sermon delivered at the Al-Abrar Mosque in Rafah, the Gaza Strip, Sheikh Muhammad Sallah “Abu Rajab” brandished a knife, calling upon his brothers in the West Bank: “Stab!” “Oh young men of the West Bank: Attack in threes and fours,” he said, and “cut them into body parts.” Following are excerpts: Muhammad Salah “Abu Rajab”: Brothers, we must constantly remind the world, and everyone who has forgotten… The world must hear, via these cameras and via the Internet: This is Gaza! This is the place of trenches and guns! This is the West Bank! This is the place of bombs and daggers! This is Jerusalem… Jerusalem is the code word… This is Jerusalem… Much can be told about Jerusalem. This is where the soldiers of the Prophet Muhammad are. This is the grace of Allah. The soldiers of the Prophet Muhammad are here. Brothers, this is why we recall today what Allah did to the Jews. We recall what He did to them in Khaybar. Today, we realize why the Jews build walls. They do not do this to stop missiles, but to prevent the slitting of their throats. “Abu Rajab” brandishes a dagger and makes stabbing motions My brother in the West Bank: Stab! My brother is the West Bank: Stab the myths of the Talmud in their minds! My brother in the West Bank: Stab the myths about the temple in their hearts! Today, we have declared a curfew in Israel. Listen to what the Jews are saying to one another: Stay at home, or go outside to your death. They have no alternative. Oh men of the West Bank, the first phase of the operation requires stabbing in order to bring about a curfew. ----- Here is Hitler in an anti Jew speech. Islam is the great "Nazi-like" group with a negative fixation on the Jews. http://youtu.be... ----- Here is an anti-Jew sermon given by an Egyptian Muslim cleric. http://youtu.be... ----- In Nazi Germany it was illegal to be homosexual. Hitler saw it as a sign of weakness and would not stand for it within his country. He saw homosexual men as feminine and weak, unable to fight for the cause, unworthy of life. Once the Nazis took power in 1933, they intensified persecution of homosexuals. The persecution ranged from the dissolution of homosexual organizations to internment in concentration camps. https://www.ushmm.org... ----- Islam goes well beyond merely disapproving of homosexuality. The Sharia teaches that homosexuality is an evil form of fornication, punishable by death. Abu Dawud (4448) - "If a man is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death." Al-Tirmidhi, Sunan 1:152 - Muhammad said "Whoever is found conducting himself in the manner of the people of Lot, kill the doer and the receiver. -- (Muslim Countries where homosexuality may be punished by death) https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Beauty

It seems that my opponent is now trying to straw man my posisition by this statement he made."you are trying to prove that, I am saying 'there is only ugly and no beauty."This is definitely not my posisition because the claim itself isnt logical. The fact that con is even using those words is a contributing factor witch proves there is in existence such a thing as beauty and ugliness. Evidence of this straw man is from the position that was actually strawmanned. Witch I quote."It seems my opponents logic proposes that there is no such thing as beauty but only feeling. This is not true. Beauty is defined as such."Now moving on my opponent also said this," but the feeling you received when you see fire, will not be equal to George's feeling."As I stated at the beggining of this debate ones perception of beauty is subjective. But, just because beauty is subjective that doesnt give ground for the claim witch you are making that beauty is non-existent. Beauty exists but in different ways to different people.I don't really understand the rest of cons post due to spelling errors.
Beauty

dear friend you did not yet realised what i said. you just trying to defeat me. you are trying to prove that, i am saying 'there is only ugly and no beauty'. that is not true. for example, you said "fire is beautiful". also another person namely George says "fire is beautiful". but the feeling you recived when you see fire, will not be equal to George's feelig. But both says that "fire is beautiful". then your definition:- "Pleasing and impressive qualities of something [here 'fire']: the combination of qualities that make something pleasing and impressive to look at" will not same in all people. If it is same how you both can compare your feelings? If both are not equal, then how both of you call your feeligs by same word. My argument also have a hidden meaning that "I think there is no such thing as 'ugly'. ugly exists only when there is beauty.
Beauty

It seems my opponents logic proposes that there is no such thing as beauty but only feeling. This is not true. Beauty is defined as such;Beauty- Pleasing and impressive qualities of something: the combination of qualities that make something pleasing and impressive to look at, listen to, touch, smell, or taste. As we can clearly see feeling witch the stem word is feel stems from the sense of touch witch is not the only emotion that is involved in deeming something as beautiful. There are multiple emotions involved. Witch means beauty is not only a feeling as my opponent is suggesting in this debate. My opponent earlier made this point, "you thinks that the colour green is beautiful and some others not. the thing beauty to you is not beauty to any other," As I have stated earlier everyone doesnt find the same things beautiful. Though ones view on beauty is subjective beauty still exists witch is a valid reason to affirm this resolution. Besides this defeated point con has failed to make any standing points up until this round. Unless my opponent can prove majority of society doesnt find some thing in life beautiful or that a person never feels beautiful at some point in life then I see no way beauty can not exist. As e see throughout this debate beauty is proven to exist.
Beauty

you thinks that the colour green is beautifull and some others not. the thing beauty to you is not beauty to any other, and also the thing ugly to you is beauty to any other. that doesn't mean that that purticular thing is beauty or ugly. its only a feeling in mind or beyond on an individual. That is what you feel when you doing fire dance. if you oberve deeply you can find it, when you dance. there is only a state of feeling. no beauty or ugly. Thank you .
Beauty

In response to my opponent, Ugly things are based in perception. Though some things are usually considered ugly.Example being loody diarhea. If anyone thinks that is beautifll then they need a psychiatrist.What is it that makes matter beautfull?If something stimulates pleasure or appreciation in accordance with the five senses then it is considered to be beautifull.Can a beautifull thins be considered ugly by another? yes, beauty is based on perception. I think the color green is beautifull while others may see it as disgusting.As we can see beauty exists. My opponent has not proven his case effectively enough for a con vote. Since i the pro has succesfully done so i belive a provote is logical
Beauty

( Note to all. Please acknowledge that all of the instigators and contenders claims are theories unless the debater can convince the audience otherwise. )Structure of this debate1-Acceptance/(introduction)2-Positions3-Rebuttals4-Further rebuttals5-Summary/Final rebuttal/Conclusive statementDefinitions-Beauty- Pleasing and impressive qualities of something: the combination of qualities that make something pleasing and impressive to look at, listen to, touch, smell, or taste. Pleasing personal appearance: personal physical attractiveness, especially with regard to the use of cosmetics and other methods of enhancing it. Introduction Beauty is abundantly existent. As we are well aware their exists many beautiful things in this world. Though ones perception of beauty is subjective atleast one thing in life is beautiful that we perceive. I find water and fire to be beautiful. ( This supports the definition of beauty in witch something is pleasing or impressing according to the senses. In this case the sense used is sight and hearing Witch is accordingly synonymous the the resolutions key word definition. Water is beautiful because its clarity, the calming splashing noise it makes, and the simple complexity of it. ( referring to something that exists that is seemingly basic or simple but has many complex forms or functions) is something I find to have pleasing and impressing qualities witch reflects the definition of beauty and thus proves beauty exists And in this chain of logic supports affirmation in this resolution for a pro vote. Water is the umbilical cord of life that is never detached, water sustains life. At the same time it is the most destructive forces in the world. It is beautiful that something so simple can become a unstoppable force. It is beautiful that water is reflective and has a very high surface tension and that if placed right a paper clip will float on it and make it look like a solid surface. Waters simple complexity is stunningly beautiful. Fire is also beautiful. I am a fire dancer and I embrace the beauty of it. It is beautiful to see and hear fire roaring as its spinning in my hands especially when I turn the fire colors green o blue or both. This display is truly beautiful. So what is it that makes matter exist as beautiful? What drives humans to believe something is beautiful? Can a beautiful person or thing be considered ugly by another person? does the instigator(pro) present reasonable valid logic or known commonly accepted facts witch relate to the theory/claim, beauty is non existent? Is pros position reasonable When it seems impossible to not recognize atleast one beautiful thing is in fact beautiful in the world and or life? These questions will be addressed when I post my theories witch will evolve into facts next round.
The right to bear arms part 2

So, according to the technical terms of things, the National Guard is not, in fact, a militia. However, they are the closest unit that we have in this country today that resembles a militia. A militia is used primarily in cases of emergency and/or used in the defense of the country. The National Guard is called upon during the aftermath of major natural disasters, and they would be dispatched immediately if this country were to ever come under attack be an enemy. The National Guard resembles a militia in every way, the only difference is who has power over it. And even then still, state governments have the ability to control their own Guard. There is very little difference between a militia and the National Guard. My opponents only statement about his stance on the topic is as follows: "So assuming that all copies would be correct they would say that a militia would be allowed to be formed and that they shall not or anyone's right would be free to keep and bear arms." I believe there are some grammatical errors in his statement, however I will attempt my best to interrupt and refute it. It appears that "anyone" should be allowed to keep and bear arms. It is a "right" for everyone, according to my opponent. Well, a right, as defined above, is something that someone is justly entitled to. It is not justified for "anyone" to own a gun. People that should not have the right to bear arms are those who are mentally unstable, have committed the act of murder with a gun before, or those who have not received proper training in how to handle a firearm. If we follow what my opponent advocates, we would have mentally ill people obtaining guns with relative ease, ex-murders with tools to perform the act once more, and people who haven't the slightest clue on how to safely operate a firearm. This is simply not acceptable in today's society. Although it will never be perfect, and the mentally ill may obtain weapons to perform horrible acts, and the murderer may find ways to further his or her rampage with use of a firearm and those who do not understand safe handling of arms will get their hands on one, there can still be those who can own a firearm for safe practices, such as recreational shooting/hunting or means of disposing of wanted rodents. And these people may use firearms in self-defense, which is justifiable, in dire situations. In closing, my firm stance on this topic is that not all people are entitled to the right to bear arms, depending on mental stability, criminal past, and knowledge of the basic safe practices of firearms.
The right to bear arms part 2

The first thing with your argument i will contest is that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Is what was passed by the senate and house while "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is what all copies distributed to the states and agreed on. So assuming that all copies would be correct they would say that a militia would be allowed to be formed and that they shall not or anyone's right would be free to keep and bear arms. Secondly you say That the National Gaurd translates to a modern day Militia. When in fact the national gaurd is a type of army reserve and is run by the goverment heres proof from Answers.com definition "The military reserve units controlled by each state of the United States, equipped by the federal government and subject to the call of either the federal or the state government." while a Militia on the other hand is a "A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency" My sources: http://www.law.ucla.edu... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.answers.com... http://www.answers.com... Thank you for your Time.
The right to bear arms part 2

I would like to begin by defining what the term "bear arms" means followed by what "right" means, assuming we are using it as a noun, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary: >>bear arms 1: to carry or possess arms 2: to serve as a soldier >>right 1: qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval 2: something to which one has a just claim. 2A: the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled The second Amendment states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."(SOURCE: http://www.law.cornell.edu...) This can be interrupted many different ways to many different people, but today for the sake of debating, it means to me that the United States Government will allow for individual state governments to house militia's, which in today's terms means the National Guard. Each state has their own Guard, and the members that comprise the organization have the right to "bear arms". I feel that the amendment gives explicit permission to the state's militia to bear arms, as the II Amendment clearly states. In conjunction with my opponents opening statement, it appears as though he would agree with me from what I have just defined and expressed. I await my opponent's response.
Blocked Websites at School

So, in school there are blocked websites. I understand why most are blocked like porn, you-tube, games, and social media. But I'm kind of tired of it. Because A lot of classes require you to get on your computer and search up things. And during that I would experience millions of websites that where blocked so I can't complete the assignment. So, I want them to go to all of the websites they've blocked and unblock the ones that don't have games or bad things on it. It would make school so much easier. What are your thought's on this.
We as American citizens should have the right to possess firearms

The evidence also overwhelmingly shows that guns leave everybody less safe, including their owners. Results from studies show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home. The same conclusion is found in multiple studies of the data. With all due respect my debating opponent has not provided a shred of evidence supporting the claim that further proliferation of gun ownership would see a decline in the homicide and broader crime rates. I would also like to see the reference to the studies showing that in the United States mass public shootings are more likely to occur in states with more gun restrictions. Source http://aje.oxfordjournals.org...