BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap battle practice 3

You're speedy. Wow. I'm pretty speedy too. There once was a man of no fun, named NDECD1441. He thought Shakespeare was old, he's really quite bold, but he spoke in an idiot's tongue. There once was a man of no fun, named NDECD1441. He's a big honking turd expelled by a bird, and I've left him sorely outdone. There once was a man of no fun, named NDECD1441. He's a mean pool of vomit expelled by a comet, and humor? Ha ha. He has none. There once was a man of no fun, named NDECD1441. He has a black and white shot, where he looks like a snot. Funny? Not at all, son. There once was a man of no fun, named NDECD1441. he thinks WILL.I.AM. isn't a stupid canned ham, and his I.Q. does not weigh a ton. There once was a man of no fun, named NDECD1441. He came here one night, from a cemetery site, and his bandages will be undone. There once was a man of no fun, named NDECD1441. He thinks he will win, to that I give a grin, for this debate is only half done.
Rap battle practice 3

Spitting in old english but Frank ain't no Shakespeare You cry when I'm around, so scared you can taste fear I was wanted for being great but now my name's clear I'm rapping spitting fire around you hearing my mates cheer I doubt I even have to rap to let the people know you're a jerk Don't mess with me I'm soft but I can go beserk This rap battle ain't nothing compared to me I'm every good thing you could never be I read this 10 times but still can't find the rhymes Is this going to be like the other times? That I fight someone who doesn't know what they're doing? Who to be killing, destroying and suing? Well I believe so, you don't need to be kind I found many things you couldn't find If you ever thought you could mess with me I'm a dragon, read the D.
Rap battle practice 3

I accept because I'm bored as Hell. Here goes. Thou art a foul mouthed and sickly man, who imposes thy faults upon others, and doth not know the world that thou art in. Thy filthy chamber pot! Thou art, in fact, not one, but twice a chamber pot. Filled with the loathsome feces of the most detestable human refuse passed down from generation to generation. Thou art a fiend, sir. twas your kind who have started all wars and brought about the downfall of nations. I pity thee, sir, and hope that God Almighty can save thee from the burning pitchfork of Satan. Thou art a far greater villain than Macbeth and more devious than Hamlet's scheming uncle. I pity thee, sir. Truly, thy art a piece of garbage, swept up after being dropped from uncaring hands, then burned in a monstrous furnace, larger than Dublin. Fool! Thy buttocks hang from thy body, like a pair of limp muffins. I detest myself for daring to speak to one so wretched as thee. Charlatan! Dost thou not see your grotesque flaws? Imbecile is the one word which describes a man such as you. Have you no pity for those who are tortured by your presence? Ah, of course not. You hath not a brain. Which takes me unto my next topic. Your abundant stupidity. Your head has no brain, and your eyes seethe with malicious hate. You wear a triangular cap, which signals to others your low personality. I pity thee, sir, but not with empathy, for that would be too kind.
James K. Polk is one of the best presidents ever.

I'm going to start out being very brief. James K Polk in my mind, was not by any means a 'great' president. His involvement in the Mexican-American war was a bloody one, what he did was presented as very unconstitutional, he had invaded Mexico without any clear reason in order to expand land west. Mexico, who had only received their independence from Spain only some time ago, owned parts of California and New Mexico. The Missouri Compromise had driven Polk's pro-slavery government to expand west below the line, annexing Texas, which had joined as a free state, which Mexico had clearly mentioned earlier to keep their hands off from. This caused increased levels of tension between the US and Mexico which Polk used for his own advantage of creating a war, he sent Zachary Taylor along with a band of US troops well deep into Mexico's territory in order to provoke a war, which, by the way, had worked perfectly for him, Taylor and his men got ambushed, and Polk got his excuse to run off to congress and prove that Mexico fired the first shot. How is this in any way a president upholding the constitution? He had used dirty means in order to keep in play with the North, his actions contributed to the eventual invasion of the natives in the North, his invasion of Mexico did not assist the South greatly to stay on par with the Northern states, as only the annexation of Texas brought a change, as there were not many settlers who even moved through the areas at the time. Abraham Lincoln himself criticized Polk's blunt actions and his violation of the constitution. America had only ever battled the Native Americans earlier, and most of the public did not even support before or during, that a war with Mexico should have occurred. I will leave it to the proposition now to put forward their stance, as I do want to hear your argument during this debate while not putting forward too much early on. Good luck to you.Sources -Abraham Lincoln's speech regarding the Mexican war -http://www.animatedatlas.com...
Death Penalty

1. If that death was executing a murderer, then he deserved to die. The state is not a murderer. They employ executers. Execution is moral, murder is not.2.No. How did you come to that conclusion? It is not wrong to execute murderers for murder.3. Lecutres don't work on drop out criminals and evil murderers.4.Murder has always been a crime in societies so murder has never been welcomed by any government in the world.5.Yes it does. Harsh punishments and blame can deter people from doing certain actions. While the death penelty should not exist for all crimes, it should exist for murder and a few other serious crimes.6. The death penelty and a strong military are beneficial because they are based off a good ideology and they save more innocent lives then they cost.7. An eye for an eye is a moral ideology that makes sense and saves more innocent people then it kills.8. Why do you lump all forms of killing in the same group? There are different types of killing.9. You get justice.10. Both testements must preach non contradictory messages in order for them to be legitimite. So how do they both be correct? The New Testement (NT) says that Jesus came to fufill the law, not to abolish the law. This would mean that Jesus did not want to abolish the law for Christains. This means that he supports the Old testemant (OT) which talks about justice, which is logic and moral driven and carried out by 3rd parties who have less bias. When Jesus said "turn the other cheek", he was telling people to not let emotions judge their vigilantic actions. The judicial system is not vigilantic nor emtional, so they are justified to carry out punishment according to the OT and the NT.11. This bullet point is confusing.12. ?????????????Good debate. I think we both learned a few things as a result of this debate.
Death Penalty

1. What I showed you is death, relating to what we are talking about. And forgiveness that citizens fail to achieve. 2.Guess your certain about being a killer3.it worser is no one lecture them4.It's just on your mind. Killing was just accepted into this world ever since. 5.Blaming a crazy person doesn't make anything better6. Yes but what can I do7. I guess your not conscious about the eye on eye's immorality8 Killing isn't bad? Okay I understand you9what can you get on being cruel? 10You base on Old testament. I base on New testament11 because they killed an innocent, what ,even government does that how come they're still alive 12 we taught the same thing. with what you are standing for you are saving no one. I lost, my main goal here is to change your mind. It's nice debating with you.
Death Penalty

1.Oh haha search 'beheaded man' on a google engine and 'church forgave a killer' 2.But still there's an issue claiming the statement that 'killing is right 3. We will not reward them, we will teach them 4. And the Executioner feel what its like to be a killer. 5. They got anger issues, that's it. If we kill them, we also got anger issue. 6.Yeah sure, you win in number 6 but i still disagree with it 7. What philosophy do you think death penaly base on? Eye on eye. What do you think is eye on eye? Vengeance. The only falacy is thinking 'vengeance and killing is justice' 8..I don't see the government as a good handler of murder rate anyway, they only add up to the 'killer rate' 9.What, I sympathize with the murder by fixing their mental health. I also sympathize with the victim by removing their anger with the victim and gaining peace between them . How about you? 10.I despise that religion who don't love their enemies. 11. I have understand the difference of murder and execution. Murder is 'killing'an innocent while execution is 'killing'an inmate 12. Even ectopic pregnancy? 13. You're always welcome. You can ask me anything14. Am I convincing you?
Death Penalty

1. It's a beheaded man bro, look at your own risk.death penalty is doing what you can see in this image https://www.google.com...:2. Right i admit, there's dfference. Murder is the act of killing innocent. Execution is the act of killing a killer but there's no difference with procedure which is killing, both executioner and the killer is guilty for killing,guilt always exist since killing is always wrong. 3. What, it's just the duty to provide for their citizen including the prisoner. It's the government's problem if the citizen lack of survival (poverty). Death penalty is'nt the right solution for this issue. And you know what, Punsihment don't solve anything rightly, it just cause us to hurt each other. 4. Don't worry, I don't have a book that command me to kill. If the murderers kill because of lack of education then lecture him , that's how you solve problem.5What, since you do violence then you have accepted it.6. Yes the military is our advantage, their intention is right but not their action (killing). but yeah, who am I to say this now that I don't have another solution to protect people. 7. Jesus said to turn your left cheek and do not repay evil by evil and he did not do vengeance when he was attack so nope, He's not teaching people to do vengeance or eye on eye. Executors hate killers, there are hatred inside of them, they don't have compassion nor mercy for them. 8. We ( anti death penalty supporters) care both for the victim and murderer. If we only care about murderers we would only want them to live but no, we want them to be rehabilitated and to regret what he did to the victim then change his ways and be a citizen, that's how we want to deter another murder, by changing his mind. We accept that the victim is dead but won't accept that another person will die because of that incident..9. In order to reduce killing, stop death penalty. We don't stop killing if we kill you know. 10. I know, South Africa's restorative justice need to improve. By the way, Japan just counted the illegal killing not their own killing11. So Christians should preach more on jail then?13.you already did base your decision on anger. The victim is killed , you want the suspect to experience the same.14.Nice, i only want the abortion to be restricted but no completely abolish since there are still pregnancy complication that really risk mother's life15. As i had said before bro, yes maybe they deserve death but no one has the right to be a killer. 16. It's not the most moral for executioner feel guilty with their job. It contradicts the idea of 'for a humane to kill a human is wrong' , 'ending other's people lives is wrong" and "do unto others the way you want to be treated"PS. You bold things by clicking the 'B ' at the top of the draft box before you type the words you plan to bold. Click it again to not bold the next words
we all agree

One cannot steal food if no food exists. I'm still not sure what that means. If you don't have food you should go to the grocery store and buy more like normal people. There's no reason to steal.As for the rules of nature, my opponent still hasn't given a list of rules.So far all I can do is continue to explain how his analogy is nonsensical and keep asking for a definition of the rules of nature. I have literally no ground to debate on because the resolution is not defined at all.
On an all time NBA team LeBron James would be the starting small forward

Looking at the great small forwards throughout the history game, Lebron James is no where near some of the NBA's all time greats. Lebron currently is ranked 20th on the all-time scoring list and is still behind Dominique Wilkens, the Hall of Fame Small Forward. Lebron's pedigree is no where near that of Celtic Legend Larry Bird. Bird, who Fox Sports named the greatest small forward of all-time, has three NBA titles and three straight MVP awards. Bird is also considered one of the game's greatest shooters. Lebron James has much to prove before he his an All-time NBA Great. http://espn.go.com... http://www.foxsports.com...
i am a highly formiddable debater- despite many poor stats

Looking at the resolution of the debate it says, “i am a highly formiddable debater- despite many poor stats.” When you look at the word despite it traditionally means looking past something. So because you did not clarify your resolution I thought that’s what it meant. “you define formiddable as 'causing fear" etc, and then go on to state reasons that you do not have fear.” Because you did not define terms I thought it was my place to. You define terms to make sure you both members of this debate understand what this debate is about. “i also asked for someone with knowledge of how the stat system worked. who can say why the percentile is so high, when the ELO and win ratio is so low. stuff like that.” The equation for elo calculation is: W = winner's original ELO L = loser's original ELO D = change in ELO D = 100*(W+9L)/10W When you take a debate and you lose your elo goes down, the more debates you lose the lower your elo gets. Because you’ve lost 223 that would be the reason your elo is 1,101. “it looks like you are heading in the wrong direction, and vioalting the t erms of the debate.” I’m sorry that you think I have violated the unsaid terms of this debate. If you would like you could define terms and put down rules and we might redo this debate.
i am a highly formiddable debater- despite many poor stats

"but i'm mainly interested in focusing on the stats" actually the debate called for looking at the stats only. as i said above in quotaitons. also, you are creating a strawman as your means to win. you define formiddable as 'causing fear" etc, and then go on to state reasons that you do not have fear. if you defined formiddable as something more objective, we could have been focusing on percentile v ELO etc, as was the defined focus of the debate. i also asked for someone with knowledge of how the stat system worked. who can say why the percentile is so high, when the ELO and win ratio is so low. stuff like that. it looks like you are heading in the wrong direction, and vioalting the t erms of the debate.
i am a highly formiddable debater- despite many poor stats

I look forward to debating this. I will be defining formiddable as the misspelling of the word “formidable” meaning: [1] causing fear, apprehension, or dread. Some synonyms of formidable are [2], [3]: alarming, dangerous, frightening, ghastly, hair-raising, horrendous, horrible, horrifying, scary, terrible, and nightmarish. Today I will be looking past her status (as this debate calls for) and through her debates and showing you why all her debates are not at all scary. This debate will be based on personal opinion as it is called for. I await Pro’s case/ [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3]http://thesaurus.com...
i am a highly formiddable debater- despite many poor stats

if you look at my percentile ranking, im 99+% ranked. it's so high, that you can count numberically, that i'm just under 100th place in the ranking. in a realm of thousands upon thousands, that is not bad at all. if you look at my ELO and win ratio, you might conclude that perhaps i aint so great. i could get into reasons why those are so low, given my laid back nature, but i'm mainly interested in focusing on the stats. also, to be honest, i'm looking for someone with knowledge of how it all works, to tell me why i'm wrong, or misguided. cause i dont know enough of how it works. i do see that ELO says it considers rankings of opponents etc, and i'm low on that. but i wonder if that's included in the percentile, cause i've done some great debates with extremely formidable opponents.
Tragic events are just that, but are also necessary

Before I respond to my opponent's conclusion, I need to address the arguments that were untouched by pro. Pro did not contest my definitions, my establishment of who the burden of proof lies on, my rebuttal, or my constructive. As per debate rules, this implies consent to each of these claims, and allows for me to use all of these claims as commonly accepted knowledge, since no attempt to dispute this was made. My opponent's conclusion can be simplified into three basic claims: 1. Tragedy can serve as a wake-up call. 2. Tragedy is inevitable. 3. Tragedy can remind us of its inevitability. However, each of these claims has a significant flaw. 1 was addressed in my constructive speech as point #2, which, was consented to in the aforementioned way. This means he does not contest to the logic I proposed, meaning his assertion holds no water. If someone pays close attention to these cases, a wakeup call is unnecessary. This is the reasoning I am referring to here. 2 needs to be proven, as my opponent accepts that burden of proof. He has not met that burden, insufficiently supporting his case. Tragedy could be removed in the future, which is an alternative which must be disproven for his claim to be held. However, in the interest of fortifying my bastion, I will also provide a response to this claim with the assumption that it is proven. The only thing that can be implied from this is that it will happen . This can not be directly linked to necessity, as sociopathy, rape, and psychopathy will also happen, yet few would claim they serve any purpose, let alone are required to fulfill that purpose. Thus, the correlation can not be drawn. 3 falls into the same category as my list in constructive, as a tragedy is not required for this. If a would-be tragic event, such as a school shooting being stopped before a causality is created, were to occur, it would lead to that same end, rendering a tragic event useless. On a side note, just to remove this from the table, this scenario is not a tragic event, since its premature end would elicit happiness, which does not fit with the definition. The rest of his conclusion shows that tragic events can be useful. However, as I established previously this does not meet the burden established by the resolution. The constructive speech showed how no alternatives to mee this same end could be used. Conclusion: Because my opponent has not met his burden of proof, did not attack my case, and has no points remaining after my rebuttal above, I urge a con vote. I thank my opponent for this debate. The topic was filled with profound depth and was an exceedingly enjoyable idea.
Tragic events are just that, but are also necessary

Tragedy is necessary for many reasons, one large one is the following; catastrophic events are not only wake up calls for those that witness it, but also serve as a reminder that tragedy is inevitable, and we will never be able to stop it. However, we can use the past, and learn from these events to prevent ourselves from suffering from a certain mishap twice. Pain is inevitable,even when humans are not in the picture. There will always be balance, for every grand success there is a dramatic failure, for every sunny day there is a rainy one. It is up to us to learn from this, or allow these destructive forces to consume us. We cannot stop it all, but we can stop it from happening twice before a new evil needs attention, the choice is yours.
Tragic events are just that, but are also necessary

I will allow for my argument to stand for this round, since I do not wish to take advantage of this forfeiture. It seems distasteful to me personally, as I am oblivious as to its cause. Therefore, I will not bolster my own case. However, I do wish to debunk my opponent's argument, as this is the first time I have had the chance. I am unsure as to the rules for forfeiture, but halting a case because of this seems insufficient to me. My opponent has used 9/11 as an example of how tragedy can be used effectively, but has not shown how it was the only way to achieve this end, which, as I established earlier, is the bar the resolution sets. This end could be achieved by carefully observing the individuals, sending them to have a psychological study done on the men who would hijack the planes as part of a test to ensure they were mentally sound, which, in a position where the lives of numerous people could rest in their hands, should be seen as compulsory. Avoiding this tragedy and achieving the same result could be accomplished with a little foresight.
Tragic events are just that, but are also necessary

I apologize if my conduct was received in a negative light by the Pro side. I simply wished to ensure we had a consensus as to what our terms meant to avoid equivocation and ambiguity. I have no intention of insulting my opponent. Merely to clarify what we are debating. However, if voters are unconvinced that I bore no ill will, by all means, penalize me for improper conduct. With the word necessary implying an absolute, as per the definition which has not been contested, the existence of alternative must be absent. If something is true in all cases, there must be no case in which said statement is not true. This signifies the necessity to show how tragedy is required in any way shape or form. Does this condition exist? I will use the possible methods in which tragedy is useful, in order to see if none have other solutions. 1. Shifting perspective Tragedy is useful in altering perspectives by providing empirical data for observers and researchers in furthering human knowledge. However, the practice of psychology can lead to this deeper understanding as well(1). Through the careful study of individuals with noticeable mental disorders, the nature of these disorders could be ascertained without tragedy. 2. Raising awareness Tragedy can help to alarm society to sordid issues. However, awareness can be raised merely through testimony from those with difficulties or their loved ones or through the involvement of psychiatry or loved ones when a reason for concern(2) is shown. Tragedy is unnecessary here as well. 3. Valuable Lessons Tragedy can teach us many lessons which can be put to good use, such as informing us as to the necessity of many of the studies mentioned previously. However, it can not be used even here, as philosophy predates them all and, as the study of personal views, can be drawn upon to explain many esoteric worldviews, such as anti-natalism. With this, I have removed many classic objections from the table. If my opponent wishes to give other reasons which would create this necessity, he is welcome to. From what I have gathered through composing this list, tragedy is an occurrence which happens when society overlooks details. This implies that tragedy is only necessary with a government riddled with flaws, needing desperately to change, and with only those willing to cause massive destruction are they able to open their eyes. However, this is by no means inescapable. The fields of study which I have provided above show how we can circumvent dilemmas with thought. They have no absolute necessity My constructive speech has now concluded, and I now pass the baton to my opponent. As per debate rules, I have not attacked his case, as the second post is generally not meant to allow any sort of rebuttals. Again, I apologize for my faux pas from earlier. Sources: (1) http://www.sciencedirect.com... (2) http://www.acolumbinesite.com...