BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Yay! Another Rap Battle!

Your "perfect verse" is worse than curses disbursed to those in hearsts You shoulda rehearsed and kept it turse; wish my time you'd reimburse Meanwhile my style's worthwhile - got you feeling like an E-pill I'll smile as they file in the aisle begging for a sequel To this a-ss whoopin; PCP - I caught you lookin' At me like "Damn this MC's for real like she's from 8 Mile" Nucca I fu-ked ya like I did ya mother - so crazy, she went senile When she decided she liked the way I ride it and ditched the penile I'm more evil and vile than those who die at witches' trials Hang you for awhile, then leave your asses ashes in a pile Cuz I bring it hard and true some say it's raw and unruly Killed you so gruesome like this battle was a Saw movie And just like that I'm on the right track as I fight back You can't crack what I pack; my attack's so macked You'd think I was the one who's black - yours is wack. .. A hi-hat? Nah, your rhymes came crashing down like a cymbal You can go to hell cuz your verse was was simple and sinful You think your rhymes are dynamic? No, you just can't spell You're sinking like the Titanic while my Word Perfect Excels Well that's swell -- Your flow's slow just like a retard You're as useless as an earmark; not worth a dime Your rap's a 7 and mine ate you like a 9 And perfection's a 10, you see, I'm an 11 - Again, you're just a 7 I f-cked you like Ron Jeremy; I'm more godly than heaven And what are you supposing about my alleged incompetence? I'm confident in proposing your head's got no common sense Yeah my girl is Vi_Very hot as hell and I like her - she's personable Say otherwise and we'll get Michelle Pfeiffer: "Up Close and Personal" And yo you wanna talk about Skechers?
Yay! Another Rap Battle!

Pitting my perfect verses versus your worthless bird sh! t is unkind I'm the dirtiest, merciless kid; it'd be courteous to call your rhymes comedic like Curly is; some mind that I'm ruining your reputation - check the equation - I'm the best in the nation; dumb rhymes like L's are the reason she's getting "schooled" the way rule-her (ruler) I thought she was better than this; she must've took a "day off" like Ferris Bueller Do her a favor and and send her to the principal's office; she's garbage - that's the manifesto 'Cuz she about to get sent home chastised like she didn't know thee dress code Aight, L, you phony, let's go, just know that your rhymes are more corrupt than Tony Rezko Your so enamored with me you did a "pop culture" battle with the dude who came after me I know the only reason you took it up it because it was named after me That isn't a good look for you; but that isn't something a lame rapper'd see That's you in case your wondering; please don't take the time to write back 'Cuz just like that I might snap and bite back; my rhymes hit harder than a hi-hat Laying you on the floor quicker like a rice mat; you gettin' played like dice craps; Chick, I'm cooler than ice racks; I might add that I may let you win a round so you don't die mad L was "buggin" me like lice or gnats, she asked, "why are you so good at this? " I replied, "I dunno, writer's knack? You got yourself into it, though; stuck in this mire bad" She can't keep up; quick to "pass out" like flyer ads; I'm getting fatigued from your tired raps This liars' bad at that make believe tough sh! t; similar to an infant the way I cough up spit Your rhymes at best are formulaic; mines are dynamic like off the cuff script Your rhymes are rustic - filled with more rubbish than a garbage can - mines are not filler You're like an Irishman the way I have you off-KILTer; you're not iller Truth is, everybody holds you in disdain like a cop killer; you're not realer Your rap activities should be illegal like a crack-rock dealer; you're not killer If I'm tripping then you already fallin' off; if I'm fly like an airplane then you already stalled and dropped This is embarrassing, I'm callin' off this for now; after I handle you you'll be saying: "Geez, does he care he's rough on me? It hurts my feelings - he's very tough on me. .. ."
Because it is a product of God's inspiration, the Bible is necessarily true.

Definitions: God- I accept this definition but, am going to expand upon it. 1. God is omnipotent (all-powerful) 2. God knows all (omniscience) 3. God is immortal 4. God is everywhere (omnipresence) 5. God is holy 6. God is just 7. God is omnibenevolent (benevolent means good) 8. God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit 9. God is perfect Inspiration- Accepted Bible- accepted Necessarily- accepted True- accept Now I'll add my own definition: The Doctrine of Biblical Inspiration (it's what we're debating)- "God the Holy Spirit so supernaturally directed the human authors of Scripture, that without destroying their individuality, their literary style, their personal interests, their vocabulary, and God's complete and connected thought towards man was recorded with perfect accuracy in the original languages of Scripture. The original languages of Scripture contain the very words of God, and therefore, bear the authority of divine authorship. " (1) Furthermore, I do not have the burden of proof because I am trying to support this claim Con, as he explained, is seeking to "negate the resolution "Because it is a product of God's inspiration, the Bible is necessarily true. "" In doing so, he is placing the burden of proof upon himself as his claims are going to be made to attempt to upend the definition a Christian Doctrine of Biblical Inspiration, while I will be supporting it. The entire debate is centered around this definition and the definition of God because since God is perfect then, according to the definition the Bible is perfect so in order to negate the said resolution they need to either prove God does not exist or prove the definition of Biblical Inspiration false. Since my opponent was the one who brought forth the definition of God they are affirming that God exists and therefore need to prove the definition of Biblical Inspiration untrue. Furthermore, I do not make the positive assertion my opponent is asserting that a held definition is false because of x, y, and z. I am asserting it is true because their arguments x, y, and z are false. A Doctrine held by Christianity as true for centuries takes presence over someone who is arguing it is untrue today.
Because it is a product of God's inspiration, the Bible is necessarily true.

My first debate, here we go! (Be gentle, please :)) So, I'd like to test the validity of an idea that recently occurred to me by subjecting it to the gauntlet of DDO. I shall seek to negate the resolution "Because it is a product of God's inspiration, the Bible is necessarily true." Definitions: God- the God of Christianity. (It is not my intention that the minor differences with respect to God between the Christian sects be consequential to this debate.) Inspiration- a divine influence or action on a person believed to qualify him or her to receive and communicate sacred revelation [1] Bible- the sacred scriptures of Christians comprising the Old Testament and the New Testament. [2] Necessarily- unavoidably, as a logical result or consequence. [3] True- being in accordance with the actual state of affairs. [4] Round 1 is for acceptance and discussion of definitions. Round 2 is for opening arguments. Round 3 is for rebuttals and additional arguments. Round 4 is for rebuttals and rejoinders, NOT for new arguments. Pro shoulders the burden of proof, as he or she makes the positive assertion. ________________________________________________ 1- http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2- http://www.merriam-webster.com... 3- http://www.merriam-webster.com... 4- http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Ben Roethlisberger is the best QB out of the 2004 NFL draft

In this Debate I proclaim Ben Roethlisberger as the best quarterback out of the 2004 NFL draft which consisted of Ben Roethlisberger, Eli Manning, and Philip Rivers among others. For the first round I simply ask my opponent to give brief introduction and state which QB he believes is the best out of the 2004 NFL draft.
IVF Debate

All though it is very sad that millions of potential people on this plant are being wasted, it might be to the lack of information. Instead of destroying the embryos or freezing them and having to pay the bill for the rest of their lives, there are several options for parents trying to figure out what to do with their embryos. The first option is to donate their embryos to other infertile couples. The embryos would for example be donated and promised to stem cell research which would help with getting rid of disease and advancing people today. The other option instead of just destroying embryos is donating them to medical research which would be a way to know that you helped contribute to the future and help to develope a new means of science. A way to let the embryos pass is by passing them in the uterus of a mother right before she begins her menstraul cycle which doesn't give the embryo enough time to develope and stop the menstraul cycle allowing the embryo to pass naturally.
IVF Debate

There are more ethical issues besides genetic screening. Because there is risk of the eggs not being fertilized, multiple must be used and often more are fertilized than the mother wants. All of the eggs not implanted into the woman's body may be either frozen and kept from life or destroyed. A study done on embryonic fertilization through IVF claims that 3.5 million embryos have been created since 1991. 93 percent of these embryos were never used. This means about 3,255,000 embryos have not been used after fertilization through IVF. 839,325 of these embryos were put into storage for future use and 2,071 were donated to other families. 5,876 were given to scientific research. This means about 2,000,000 of the embryos had nothing done with them or were destroyed. It depends on personal beliefs whether or not one thinks life begins when the embryo is fertilized and a new, completely original genetic code is made inside a living mass of cells. The belief that life does begin when the embryo is fertilized, however, may create backlash if IVF were to become commonly used, as they would see many potential lives being destroyed.. The fact that about 6,000 of these embryos were used for research raises another question, because if one believes that life starts at fertilization, 6,000 lives were volunteered to be researched on without consent or an ability to protest. The large amount of eggs that are implanted into the woman's body because of the risk of low success rate may also result in her having more babies than she wanted to have, possibly being too much for her body to handle. Sources: http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
IVF Debate

Genetic screening can be useful for IVF because it can allow parents to begin treatment and genetic modifications to the baby before it is even born allowing the baby and parents to live a longer and healthier life. At the same time it will allow for the babies to be born normally after they are implanted into the mother and normal safety precautions will follow. Another factor about genetic screening is that the scientists and doctors that do the genetic screening may force patients to sign a waiver saying they are not allowed to abort the baby unless the mother is experiencing life threading issues do to the baby. If the babies have a disease which would lead to a very early death genetic screening would allow doctors to catch the disease before its too late and solve the situation. Finally genetic screening would allow parents to prepare to pay for medical expenses by taking out loans or applying for medical help before the baby is born. This will allow the parents to provide for their children at a very early age.
IVF Debate

Despite issues with cost and medical complications, ethical implications can rise from the advances in IVF technology. Genetic screening allows the parents to see the sex of the baby, as well as whether or not the baby will birth defects, chromosomal issues, or genetic medical problems. The ability to see these about the baby things raises ethical issues- when is it okay for the parent to decide the embryo should be destroyed because of genetic factors? If the couple sees that the baby will have medical issues, they may want to destroy the embryo and others like it to prevent the baby from having to deal with the medical problems when it grows up, especially if they have a healthy embryo. In this case, the parents, if they believe that life starts when the egg is fertilized, will have to decide which of their offspring they will get rid of. Seeing that the embryo has medical issues makes any parents more likely to decide to destroy it in place of a healthier embryo than if the child was conceived naturally. In natural conception, the parents get what they get and don't have the pressure of choosing which embryo has the better genes. If IVF technology with regards to genetics continues to advance, we could be able to eventually change the genes of embryos and create "designer babies." The things that could be changed could range from eye color and gender to fixing medical issues and maybe even things like intelligence or athletic ability. Multiple issues could come of creating "designer babies," including the potential deterioration of the concept of, "survival of the fittest." This could potentially halt or drastically change human adaption. In the case of some sort of epidemic or disaster, naturally, only the best would survive. However, if we were to make it so people could choose genes that are seen as the best, there is a risk of every human being somewhat alike. In this situation, one disease could wipe out an entire country because everyone could be so alike that no one would be "strong enough" to endure and adaption or development would not work the same way as it would if there was genetic variance. On top of this, if "designer babies" became big enough of a deal, a race similar to an arms race or space race between countries could surmount of who can create the best people. This can cause an irreversible change to human characteristics. Sources: http://www.nytimes.com... http://kidshealth.org... http://edition.cnn.com...
IVF Debate

It has been used for a long time and has a safe track record. The first "IVF baby", Louise Brown, was born using natural IVF in 1978. Since then, the technology has advanced, and techniques refined in order to create safe and successful treatment. They use only the safest forms of IVF with the lowest drug regimes in order to prevent side effects such as Ovarian Hyper stimulation Syndrome (OHSS). You point about having to pay for medical bills can be avoided by signing up for organizations around the country offering infertility treatment financial aid to those that qualify. Several non-profit organizations are in place around the US that are raising money to pay for IVF. Another point about pricing for is on average, IVF costs around $12,000-$15,000 where on average adoptions in the US cost around $27,000-$28,000 and overseas adoptions cost as much as $58,000. So it is a lot more expensive to adopt than it would be to get IVF.
IVF Debate

It is true that families with infertility can have kids through IVF, but major complications can come of this type of fertilization. If the significant other of the family is for some reason is not going to be around, as you said, they still have the ability to have a baby. If the male member of the family dies, the mother can be left to face multiple health problems alone while raising her child. These health problems can include injury to surrounding organs like the bladder, bowel, or blood vessels that call for emergency surgery, pelvic infection that may require hospitalization, or maternal hemorrhage. This can leave the mother alone to recover and pay for her medical bills. In the case of maternal hemorrhage, or any other serious complication, the mother could die, either leaving the baby alone with no mother or causing it to die. Even if the father does not leave, leaving the mother and baby alone, these complications can still arise. The fact that the significant other may die only makes these complications harder to deal with, and raises the risk of the baby becoming an orphan. These health issues are statistically less common with natural pregnancies and therefore prove that IVF is not worth the risk. If a family, for any reason, whether it be infertility or that they are a homosexual couple, cannot have children, adoption is always an option. Adoption from a local foster program instead of a non-profit adoption agency can also be drastically cheaper than an IVF procedure.
IVF Debate

Some of the basic benefits to an IVF is that families with infertility are able to have kids in order to make a family. A person might undergo IVF to get their significant others gametes if they are going to die of a disease or if they are going into the military. This will allow a family to have kids even when their significant other is gone. Another benefit to IVF is that homosexual couples will be allowed to have children. They would be allowed to have kids a natural way with they help of science.
IVF Debate

IVF may present legal issues for people who decide to use it. The most common legal issue is created after a couple who had IVF done and have embryos frozen for later use decide to get a divorce. Because there really are no exact laws that define what should be done with disputes over pre-embryo ownership, different courts may decide in different ways and for different reason. A couple therefore can never really be sure of what will happen after they have IVF done if they divorce. The most common divorce issue happens when one of the parents wants to destroy or donate the embryos they had with their partner because the relationship is over or because they don't want to be responsible for a child they have no say in creating (in the present, of course - not speaking of their initial IVF fertilization), while the other parent wants to keep the embryos for other or later use or would like to have another child with their stored embryos. This creates a "status of property" dispute over who has the right to decide what happens with the embryo, and whether or not something that would grow to be a human is property. It may also create a "right to life" dispute if one of the parents wants the embryos destroyed but the other believes the embryos are alive and therefore that they have a right to life and should not be destroyed. The courts have trouble deciding who to side with in these instances because of the pre-conception agreement made between the parents before the IVF procedure and the decision of whether or not to force a parent to have a child against their will. The courts have decided in favor of destroying the embryos someone else wants and also in favor of forcing someone who does not want to be a parent to be a parent. Because of this risk of legal issues and the ambiguity of how legal cases would be dealt with, IVF can create a host of problems for the parents. In conclusion, IVF is not worth all of its risks. It can present many health issues to both mother and baby, can produce ethical complications over genetic screening and the destruction of embryos the world is not yet ready to deal with, can leave a mother in a situation she doesn't want to be in, or can create legal problems between parents that are especially hard to solve. If a couple truly wants to be parents and cannot have children, there are other less risky options including adoption. Source: http://www.babymed.com...
IVF Debate

The reality of the situation is that IVF is allowing families that aren't able to have children the possibility to have them. It is taking the embryo from the mom or a donated embryo and mixing it with the dads sperm or donated sperm to create a fetus which is then put inside the mother that will have the baby naturally. The embryos that aren't used for the mother can be donated or saved. The donation process can consist of donating the embryos to a medical foundation where they can be used to help advance science or then can be donated to another family in order to help with them start a new life. Besides IVF is a lot more expensive than adoption and quite frankly it's a lot fast to deal with IVF and their doctors than it is to deal with an adoption agency. IVF is the way of the future and eventually it will be a normal thing to the every day society, but it has to start somewhere.
IVF Debate

To add to health issues that mothers and their babies face because of IVF, multiple pregnancies can have negative impacts on the human body. Again, because the success rate of IVF is not always 100%, multiple eggs are fertilized and, commonly, up to 4 can be placed in the womb. Some of the embryos can fail to survive, leaving the mother with only one baby in her womb at the end. However, all the embryos can survive resulting in multiple pregnancies, putting the mother at risk for complications ranging from not serious to life-threatening. The less serious implications include early admittance into the hospital or unnaturally induced birth because of hypertension, diabetes, or other conditions. The more serious risks include higher risks of miscarriage, higher usage of cesarean section intervention in the birth process, and higher mortality rate for mothers (2/25,000 for twins or more children being birthed compared to 1/25,000 for just one child being birthed). The baby can also suffer from being in the womb with other babies, the biggest issue being prematurity and the vast range of complications that come with it. A study found that at least half of all twins are birthed prematurely or before 37 weeks at a low birth weight. Twins are also six times more likely to die in their first year of life than babies in the womb alone, and the risk goes up as more embryos survive in the womb. 40%-60% of IVF babies from multiple pregnancies are transferred to neonatal centers about 12% spend around 4 weeks there. This means there are health complications with the baby, and also will result in expensive medical bills for the parents. Other risks include disability (7.4% of twins), congenital malformations (6.3% of twins), respiratory ailments (8% of twins) and more. Of course, these numbers apply to triplets and quadruplets and the risk rate probably increases. Research has also been done that suggests that parents of multiple pregnancies have a more difficult time raising their children, correlated with their difficulties regarding infertility. Therefore, IVF, because it can result in multiple pregnancies and bring harm to both mother and child, is not worth it. Sources: http://www.oneatatime.org.uk... http://www.azfertility.com... http://www.oneatatime.org.uk... http://www.oneatatime.org.uk...
Religion is becoming a business

Rebuttals 1. "Think of the religious leaders who were tortured or have died for their faith" As you said, they were tortured and have died for faith. These days, none of the officials are that brave. Furthermore, the goal of conversion is not to spread their God's message, but to get more clients to sell their products. 2. They are but deluded believers. 3. You have skipped a number. 4. "Look at people like Mother Teresa and Hindu and Buddhist teachers, who live in extreme poverty. Buddhism itself is based on rejecting material wealth." As I said, these people are of the past. Furthermore, the laughing Buddha is one example of a business product boosted by Buddhism. 5."...." Josh Beckett, a high-ranking Druid priest. Mere religious propaganda to encourage believers to buy their stuff. 6. Pope Francis- 'Money has to serve, not rule" Even he agrees he needs money to serve him. Many religions ask for donations outright, and have donation boxes in their place of worship. While some claim it is for charity, others use it for their personal profit. Con hasn't managed to rebut my points that religion has a growing business aspect. While con may argue it doesn't overtake faith, faith is but a tool for religious officials to make sure their client is blinded and unquestioning while he buys their products. Religion has been corrupted. It's not just about praying anymore.