BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Epic Rap Battles of History: The Joker VS. Batman

Oh Batman, it's seem as if you've forgot, that it's your fault that I am who you are not. My white skin is because of you, same with the hair. It is something you have done to me which I cannot repair. My insanity that is as dirty as a profanity is because of you, too; if it wasn't for you, Gotham's crime level would be in the few. Half of gotham's villains are basically your fault, and you're the reason my sanity is at a halt. You're the reason I fell into that acid tub. But the games have just begun, bub. Take it away, two-face!REMEMBER BATMAN, NEXT ROUND ROBIN OR ALFRED WILL RAP, BUT NOT YOU.
Epic Rap Battles of History: The Joker VS. Batman

I see you make a rhyme, but no rhythm, which leads me to believe that you're going through a schism, but you may just have to take a step or two back, and allow me to deliever this lyrical slap.I'm serious because you've become a real menace, attacking innocent people and paying no penance. You have no fear because you're a twisted maniac, although your insanity is nothing against a brainiac. Every day, you kill just to provoke a fight, but you'll soon find your butt handed to you by the Dark Knight.You're a sick man messed up in the mind, where your sanity went, I can't find.Crown Prince of Crime? More like the Fresh-Prince of Bel-Air, not surprising, with that mop you call hair.This battle was over before it begun! My rhymes are sending you on the run, and when it's all said and done, we'll look back on this day, and see that I won.
Epic Rap Battles of History: The Joker VS. Batman

Why so serious batman? You're looking quite furious, with your high-tech toys and your young, geeky fanboys. You say you use fear, but all you've given me is cheer! You talk with a scratchy voice and that may be your choice, but doesn't cause anyone any pain, 'cause they're still wondering if you really are Bruce Wayne! You often arrive in a big, fancy car, however often you spar. But just for me, "do you wanna know how I got this scar?" I am the Killing Joke, but you wear a chilling cloak. They call me the Clown Prince of Crime, but you probably don't have the time, to come up with a good rhyme.
Epic Rap Battles of History: The Joker VS. Batman

Why So Serious, Batman? This is a rap battle. Because we are the same, Batman. We ate both just FREAKS. But I wouldn't kill you. What would I do without you? FIRST ROUND= ACCEPTANCE Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight? WELL YOU WILL HERE. No vulgarity, Bats. We both know how much I hate that. You may use your wonderful toys here. By toys I mean rhymes. IF YOU HAVE ANY! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA YOU GET AN ASSISTANT IN THE 3rd ROUND: Mine will be Two-Face. Your's is Your choice! How wonderful! HAHA. But you may only pick out of these: ROBIN or ALFRED.
Avatar the Last Airbender: The Perfect Nation Combo

Interesting question and look forward to the debate. * I am assuming that I will argue against your answer that the Fire/Water nation would be the strongest alliance to conquer the world. Instead I will argue that the Fire/Earth nation would be the strongest alliance to achieve total domination. For simple reasons including (1) The Earth kingdom and Fire Nation already rule over a majority of the land. This being said it will be easier and take a shorter time to conquer both Water tribes and Air temples due to the fact these nations are confined to a small isolated regions of the planet. http://www.google.com... (2) The Earth Kingdom combined with the Fire Nation and its technology would blend a perfect combination of defense and offense. As already witness in the first episode of book 1, the Fire Nation has decimated the Southern Water tribe and destroyed the Northern Water Tribe in episode 19, book 1 (since during this debate we are forced to disregard the Avatar) (3) This leads to the earth kingdom to fight and conqueror the 4 air temples. By superior numbers and resources the Air Nomads would quickly and easily be defeated by the Earth Kingdom. Thus the Fire/Earth alliance would be the far superior alliance.
Avatar the Last Airbender: The Perfect Nation Combo

Alright, I love Avatar the Last Airbender. When it comes to the show, I analyze almost every aspect of it. Recently, I began to ponder "What if the Fire Nation allied with another nation, thus allowing the alliance to conquer the world?" Then it hit me: Find the best combo to achieve the most things with a diversity of abilities. My answer to the best combo: A Fire Nation/ Water Tribe combo My opponent will be arguing that their combination is better that the Fire/Water combo I am supporting. Here are the rules for the debate: 1. I ask that my opponent have an extensive knowledge of the show, and the abilities of the different nations. (The show, not the movie) 2. The abilities, strengths, weaknesses, and powers must have been used in the show. No theorectical abilities. 3. Showing links for the episodes would be nice, but it's ok if you don't post them. Just keep in mind that I will check for the abilities you list. 4. The Avatar cannot be counted in this debate. That would simply be overkill. Good luck to my opponent and I look forward to seing his combination.
Mozart - the greatest creative genius in history.

I do not dispute the greatness of the artists you mention + Bach especially and Beethoven to a lesser extent, but your obvious ignorance of Mozart's music renders your argument mostly void. If you take the trouble to listen to Mozart's great works as suggested you will not only enrich incalculably your understanding of his unique genius but agree with my point. Some quotes by other great artists, thinkers: Mozart is the highest, the culminating point that beauty has attained in the sphere of music. - (Tchaikovsky) Mozart makes you believe in God because it cannot be by chance that such a phenomenon arrives into this world and leaves such an unbounded number of unparalleled masterpieces. - (Georg Solti) Mozart encompasses the entire domain of musical creation, but I've got only the keyboard in my poor head. - (Chopin) What gives Bach and Mozart a place apart is that these two great composers never sacrificed form to expression. As high as their expression may soar, their musical form remains supreme and all-efficient. - (Camille Saint-Saens) The most tremendous genius raised Mozart above all masters, in all centuries and in all the arts. - (Richard Wagner) Mozart is the greatest composer of all. Beethoven created his music, but the music of Mozart is of such purity and beauty that one feels he merely found it-that it has always existed as part of the inner beauty of the universe waiting to be revealed. - (Albert Einstein)
Mozart - the greatest creative genius in history.

Counter Argument #1 Well the Pro has yet to give any counter to why Leonardo Da Vinci is not the most creative genius. Mozart wrote music which was of his time. There were many other composers at Mozart's time so it was no feat writing music. Leonardo Da Vinci came up with ideas that would not come to pass for hundreds of years. In those times a car or a helicopter were not even ideas. He was also a great artist and writer. He wrote The DIvine Comedy (Dante's Inferno) and painted the Mona Lisa. Leonardo Da Vinci was hundreds of years ahead of his time. While Mozart wrote music. Leonardo Da Vince made are, inventions, and books. Mozart made music. Beethoven or Bach could be compared to Mozart but not Leonardo Da Vinci.
Mozart - the greatest creative genius in history.

I greatly admire Leonardo as one of the 3 or 4 greatest artists but creatively he does not match up to the incredible range of Mozart's genius. If you have not seen or heard any of Mozart's great works i.e. the 6 great operas + concertos, requiem etc.. then you are hardly able to comment or be aware of the man's unique genius. I used to teach Art History and was an examiner for Cambridge University so I am fully cognisant of Leonardo's and indeed any of the other great artists works - Raphael, Michelangelo, Rembrandt principally. Mozart's art encompasses like no other (Shakespeare possibly excepted) the human condition in all it's many facets and richness. Try 'Don Giovanni' an opera often regarded as the pinnacle of the repertoire.
Mozart - the greatest creative genius in history.

Opposing Argument #1: Mozart is indeed a good composer however he is not the most creative genius in history. Mozart is good a good composer but this does not make him the most creative genius. The first time I heard of Mozart was in 7th grade music class. The point is that if he was the most creative genius in we would have heard of him more. Mozart can compose good music granted but this is just one creative attribute. Counter Argument #! I believe that the most creative genius in history is Leonardo Da VInci. Leonardo came up with ideas and creations that would not be created or even thought of for hundreds of years. He came up with ideas like the tank of the helicopter. 10 things Leonardo Da Vinci: 1.The Ball Bearing 2. The Parachute 3. Ornithopter (flying machine) 4. Machine Gun 5. Diving Suit 6. Armored Tank 7. Self Propelled Cart (car) 8. The Future City 9. Aerial Screw 10. Robotic Knight Conclusion: All of these ideas took lots of creative thought and these ideas were not invented for hundreds of years. Mozart is a good composer but no the most creative genius in history.
Mozart - the greatest creative genius in history.

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart stands as not just the greatest composer in history, but more than that the greatest overall creative genius. I make this claim by pointing to his unique and incredible range of work. His untimely death at the age of 35 still left the world with a treasure of creative riches, which saw his music express like no other composer, writer, or artist the complete human condition. His operas, concertos, orchestral, choral, chamber music explore every facet of the human psyche. Only Shakespeare and JS Bach whom Mozart praised, come anywhere near his level of greatness. He also perhaps more than any other composer understood and appreciated the female nature in a way both deeply perceptive and far ahead of his time. Consider the sheer beauty and depth of of his many female characters in the operas but also in his concertos where you witness the amazing dialogue and sensitivity especially in the wonderful 27 piano concertos. Certainly Beethoven unfortunately lacks this sensitivity and appreciation, perhaps explaining partly his clumsiness in matters of the heart. Richard Strauss: " I cannot speak of Mozart, I can only worship him" This quote and numerous other quotes from other great composers (Haydn, Mahler, Schoenberg, Brahms, Wagner, Bernstein, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Schubert etc. etc..) as well as from many artists and writers. says it all.
Resolved: the United States Government's War on Drugs should be continued in it's entirety

Thank you, THEBOMB, for starting this debate as part of phantom's tournament. I will start the debate with a single contention, although I will likely add more in the next round. For now, this will suffice: 1-. Unconstitutional There is no provision in the United States Constitution that grants Congress the power to regulate drug production, intrastate drug trade or any drug usage. Therefore, the War on Drugs is for the most part unconstitutional, and should therefore not be continued. I shall now allow my opponent to respond and form some contentions of his own. Good luck!
Resolved: the United States Government's War on Drugs should be continued in it's entirety

Pretty self explanatory. Pro will be arguing for the resolution, that the War on Drugs should be continued. Con will argue that the War on Drugs should be stopped.The biggest term which must be defined is the War on Drugs. Pro and Con shall be limited to the domestic war on drugs.As agreed upon (there is a more expanded definition in the comments):"The War on Drugs here refers to the set of drug policies of the United States government that are intended to discourage the production, distribution, and consumption of illegal psychoactive drugs."If my opponent wishes, they may begin this round as they are advocating a major reform to the status quo. But, either way, burden of proof is shared.
Batman Can Beat Superman In a Fight

I, Pro, will show Batman is capable of beating Superman in certain scenario(s). Con will have to show that there are no valid scenarios in which Batman can beat Superman. The debate will most likely take the form of me posting a scenario with justifications for its validity, followed by my opponent attempting to provide refutations to the validity of the scenario. The only specifications as far as scenarios go is that it is Batman versus Superman only, neither side has people providing aid during the fight. Additionally, I can't do far-fetched scenarios where I just bend who the characters are. For example, I can't say, "In my scenario Batman is able to shoot lasers out of his eyes, because hey, that's the scenario.
Is this a great postmodernist poem

My opponent's definition of "postmodernism" is the definition of "modernism", which postmodernism specifically goes against and distances itself from. "Modernism Characteristics Impressionism; subjectivity; stream of consciousness Reflexivity Lack of objectivity; fixed narration Blurring of genres Blurring of distinction between “high” and “low”" This, from . http://shrdocs.com..., itself took it from: From a literary perspective, the main characteristics of modernism include: 1. an emphasis on impressionism and subjectivity in writing (and in visual arts as well); an emphasis on HOW seeing (or reading or perception itself) takes place, rather than on WHAT is perceived. An example of this would be stream-of-consciousness writing. 2. a movement away from the apparent objectivity provided by omniscient third-person narrators, fixed narrative points of view, and clear-cut moral positions. Faulkner's multiply-narrated stories are an example of this aspect of modernism. 3. a blurring of distinctions between genres, so that poetry seems more documentary (as in T. S. Eliot or ee cummings) and prose seems more poetic (as in Woolf or Joyce). 4. an emphasis on fragmented forms, discontinuous narratives, and random-seeming collages of different materials. 5. a tendency toward reflexivity, or self-consciousness, about the production of the work of art, so that each piece calls attention to its own status as a production, as something constructed and consumed in particular ways. 6. a rejection of elaborate formal aesthetics in favor of minimalist designs (as in the poetry of William Carlos Williams) and a rejection, in large part, of formal aesthetic theories, in favor of spontaneity and discovery in creation. 7. A rejection of the distinction between "high" and "low" or popular culture, both in choice of materials used to produce art and in methods of displaying, distributing, and consuming art. From . http://www.uni-muenster.de...Neither are about postmodernism. Moreover, "blurring genre" is about making prose, that is, pieces without metrics, more like poetry (sounding as if there was one). This piece is not even postmodern, as it holds to a varying metric. To the second point, I never said that the play does not contain poetry. Free verse is of course a form of poetry. I deny that it has free verse (that is, I claimed that there is a metric), which is evident to anyone reading the poem. I simply hesitate to quote amateur pornographic work onto this site. However, to take a mild segment:"To enter in this shadow-land of mine,If he must forget the utter Summer’s shineAnd all the daylight ways of hand and brain :Here is the white moon ever on the wane,And here the air is sad with many a signOf haunting mysteries, — the golden wine"In this extract of a monologue, a metric is obvious, rhyme is obvious, there is an obvious purposeful elaborate lexis, and therefore it is undoubtable that this piece is not postmodern, but instead archaic, modernist at best.
Is this a great postmodernist poem

you say "Blurring genres is not postmodern, and no credible source will agree to this. go here to see all the references that say postmodernism is the blurring of genres https://www.google.com.au... qoutes from Defining Postmodernism ... fixed narration; Blurring of genres; Blurring of distinction between "high" and "low". It rejects rigid genre boundaries and promotes parody, irony, and playfulness For a number of postmodern theorists, the blurring of rigid generic Postmodernism, on the other hand, is about rejecting boundaries, blurring genre distinctions,. etc etc you say " Nor is the play a poem. " you did not say if free verse is poetry if free verse is poetry then the work is poetry thus underming your point about thr fourth wall
Is this a great postmodernist poem

simple please state yes or no to this question is free verse poetry if yes then address points below you say "No. Simply put, none of what my opponent says has been proof of it being postmodern." i said this work blurrs genre thus making it a postmodern work you said "The breaking of the fourth wall (in the play) is a traditional element of plays, which though in a poem would approach postmodernism," i have pointed out that based on what free verse is this work is poetry if free verse is poetry thus undermining your point about the fourth wall and by your own admission makes the work approach postmodernism
Is this a great postmodernist poem

No. Simply put, none of what my opponent says has been proof of it being postmodern. Not only does most of it not take place, but none of it makes it postmodern. Postmodernism is "the incredulity of metanarratives". I'll make it explicit again: use of rhyme, use of metric, use of archaic language, use of fourth wall, are all old fashioned techniques commonplace in plays, and therefore it is not postmodern.
Is this a great postmodernist poem

you say the play is in metric there is no metre in the rhyming bits if there is it is by pure chance all that can be said for the rhyming bits is that it is rhyming prose you say "The second point again assumes that it is a poem. It's not a poem. It's a play. It explicitly says "one act play"" yes the work says its a play but it can be argued a play in in free verse you say it is not a poem but it fulfills what free verse is if free verse is poetry then this work is poetry the publisher points out the Miltonic effects but only to point out the postmodernist take of the work ie blurring genre you say it is not a poem but it fulfills what free verse is if free verse is poetry then this work is poetry thus undermining your point about the fourth wall
Is this a great postmodernist poem

To address your first point: it is a one-act duologue play, where both actors speak in varying metrics. The only difference between this botch Pygmalion and Shakespeare's plays is that Shakespeare doesn't have as much control as his actors. In that regard, Shakespeare is at least unique in breaking from the common dictation of stage direction by contemporary and modernist playwrights. The existence of a metric in a play is nothing new: in fact, it is archaic. Postmodern playwrights would haughtily challenge the existence of any metanarrative or rules of writing a play. Barth's great example of postmodernism, Lost in the Funhouse, challenges the entire existence of linguistic rules, such as the existence of themes and "a great question to be answered". Where is that in this piece? It conforms to traditional language and order. The second point again assumes that it is a poem. It's not a poem. It's a play. It explicitly says "one act play". It follows the traditional themes of characters. It states the stage setting. Even the publisher notes its use of "archaic words" and "inversion of word order" and "Miltonic effect", referring to the 17th century Milton. The work is unapolagetically archaic, and undoubtedly poor.
Is this a great postmodernist poem

based on definitions of poetry/free verse point i) postmodern -the blurring of genre - is the text free verse or prose is the poetry poetry or free verse this work blurs these terms thus point 2) is the work a play or is it a poem ie is it all written in poetry ie free verse or is it all written in prose this work blurs these terms your point about the forth wall falls down if the work is a poem in free verse
Is this a great postmodernist poem

There are multiple reasons why this isn't a great postmodernist poem, and they hinge upon the fact it isn't postmodern. Also, it isn't a poem. It's a one act play, so straight off of the bat this is necessarily wrong.However, it's clearly not postmodern: it conforms to traditional transcendental signifiers to organise discourse of the masculine against the feminine, it conforms to traditional rhyme schemes which do not challenge any preconceived notion of how poetry ought to work. The breaking of the fourth wall (in the play) is a traditional element of plays, which though in a poem would approach postmodernism, in a play is simply traditional.It is simply erotic imagery which conforms to masculinist constructs, with only a floundering attempt at meaning hidden by the attempt to use words such as postmodern without truly understanding or appreciating its meaning.
Donald Trump is the worst candidate

My opponent did not do anything to prove that Donald Trump would be a good president. 9/11 is one of the most important dates in US history. Donald Trump confused a very important day(9/11) with a store(7/11). How could he do that! Even if he has short term memory or something, Trump could have at least corrected his mistake later on! Many other times he said it correctly, but why didn't he say it correctly that time?
Donald Trump is the worst candidate

Donald trump would be a bad candidate. He has no political experience, is racist and sexist, and doesn't explain things at all! He said he will replace Obamacare with "something terrific", like what? When he says terrific, it may mean horrible! He doesn't explain how it will be! China is one of the United State's major trade partners, and Donald Trump's stance on trading with China? "Listen you motherf*cker, we're going to tax you 25 percent!" China is a very important country to the US, and China would be outraged if Donald Trump actually follows through. Here is another quote from Donald Trump. "I will build a great wall " and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me " and I"ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words." How will he make Mexico pay for that wall? Mexican President Vicente Fox said multiple times "he would not pay for that f---ing wall." Mexico is our 3rd biggest trade partner, and over 2 million people's jobs are related to trade with Mexico. Trying to get Mexico to pay for the wall would put 2 million jobs at risk. Donald Trump doesn't really have a plan for that(or anything)! If you take a look at the Republicans' political experience, Donald Trump is one of the few that has none. Cruz, Rubio, and even most of the other long-shot candidates have some sort of political background. That's why Donald trump would be an inexperienced and bad candidate. And, Donald Trump is both racist and sexist. He thinks all Mexicans are rapists, is a friend of Ku Klux Klan, and called women fat, pigs, dogs, slobs, disgusting animals, and so on. In 2007, he compared women to architecture. He also called all women gold-diggers. He made many more sexist and insulting comments to women, and also many racist comments about Mexicans. There is a Donald Trump sexism tracker. Here is the link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk... This is proof that Donald Trump would be the worst president if he wins, worse than any other president in history.