BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
DDO Member Themed Rap Battle R2: Airmax vs Geo

Rap Battle r2 Alright Airmax, time to get in your place My raps are so slick they don't leave a trace And it looks like the POTUS bout to lose the race 'Cause Geolaurate is out here setting the pace This rap battle has gone on for far to long Airmax didn't have any time for a song I'd say I won, but that would be wrong We all know it goes with you- Votebomb I'm rapping harder than"steel More satisfying than veal Spittin out rhymes meant to appeal Call me a criminal, but this battle's a steal I've got more flow than the waves So start digging some graves For your dead arguments this melody saves I'm like a composer manipulating these octaves All you haters go over to a new web page My raps are like wine, they get better with age So much lyrical ownage it's hard to gauge I want to see your face when you lose contorted with rage Now let's talk about my political role Angry, white, and anti-gun control I'm an enemy of the state, whoever has control On these forums, I'm the anti-government troll Honestly Airmax, I don't even care who's the best I'm sending a message to all people oppressed My purpose is clear, and you may have guessed I'll talk about conspiracy theories whose truth I attest 9/11? A plot, engineered by the fed Boston? A lie placed up in your head Sandy Hook? Because of Obama people are dead It scares me so much I don't get out of bed When I meditated the voices told me one thing I'm the lord of all rappers, the lyrical king Theres a bite to my words and these verses sting Not even you are prepared for the onslaught I bring I'm rolling in my element Rappin fast but elegant Remaining relevant Do I need to be spellin it? You're spillin it I'm killin it My raps are sick, they illin it You're goose is cooked, I'm grillin it I go like this against my haters all the time If beating on you is bad then I'm committing a crime I'm fast with a verse, quick with a line It's time for DDO's president to resign Alex Jones is my main homie All you losers claim to know me Your anger only serves to grow me And nothing you can say will throw me Airmax, let's make this brief I'm not about to Fail to the Chief Your boat has sunk, it hit a reef So I'll leave you there to whine and seethe So here's the grand finale, one more verse Rational's rhymes were bad, and yours are worse I'm death to my opponents, a living curse Now vote motherfvckers, and put Geo first
Rap Battle Challenge (Cont.)

P*ssy? I'll take five with a side of fries, "toughie." Oh, me a p*ssy? You better a look at yourself wussy. Prostate cancer? The hell you thinking, it's cause is masterbatin'? At least I got a b*tch- you just alone, hidin' in a ditch. Prick? That lyric was so dumb it made my brain sick. Control stick? I guess thats what you call yo boyfriend's d*ck. Boy, Shel had more p*say than you could dream cuz' he worked for Playboy it will seem. My mom? Let's be honest, she wouldn't take you to the prom. Hepatitis B? What about you f*ckin your boyfriend's D? Lickety-split? Face it boy, you been in nothin' but the pit. Geeze- I didn't realize I went all out with the vulgarity. Either way, good luck friend and have a good couple days! Let the battle continue.
Rap Battle Challenge (Cont.)

B*tch. You heard me, B*TCH! When I'm done with you, your brain'll need a stitch Look man, I'mma just be blunt, Since I'll be smokin' one while I'm f**kin' your mother"s c*nt. You like The Giving Tree? The one by Shel Silverstein? The one who looks like a prison escapee? That sh*t'll give you the STD hepatitis B, p*ssy. Callin' yourself "Negotiate"? Motherf*cker, no deal's gettin' you to home plate, It'll be yourself whom you'll frustrate, After that b*tch gave you cancer in ya prostate. Alright, gotta end this lickety-split, And hand to you a toothpick to clean out your prick, You know what, you little dipsh*t lunatic? For this battle, I have the control stick!
Rap Battle Challenge (Cont.)

Pro B****? You don't know the meaning. The time y'all know y'all be on the floor pleading. Think I'm nothing but a whipper snapper? Well, s***! You just a shoe tapper! Bro, I'm at your grave, so here, I'll give you a wave. Wanna see what it read? Fine, just don't come crying to me. "This is the way- Dragon5 lay- Forever resting here with no one to say." Something about calling me a b**** then wishing me a good week made me laugh. Anyway, no problem. Good luck next round, and thanks for accepting the challenge!
Rap Battle Challenge (Cont.)

I may be new to the web Debate, but I'll have my means to celebrate. You may be asking- why so smug? It's becuz' I bout to beat this fug. So the question's this- will you accept the battle or feel remiss? The choice is yours- just make it fast- cuz' I got chores. (4 rounds: Acceptance => Battle => Battle => Conclusion. The time for reply has changed to a 72 hr. limit ( 3 days). If you have any questions feel free to let me know, man. If you wish not to accept, I will understand. Either way, have a great week!) Since this is a repost to continue, let's just copy n' paste our first two rounds.
Filtering On School Computers

I accept this challenge and will gladly take the con side on the topic of allowing schools to filter and block certain websites. My questions regarding to the debate are as follows: -What criteria are we basing the filtering of certain websites off of - Is this a certain age demographic due to certain age levels being exposed to different material, or is it the universal topic - Can we add questions following our rebuttals and introductions as a cross examination? I look forward to hearing your side of the debate and hopefully persuading the audience to repeal filtering of websites by schools.
The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts.

Frankly, it would be fantastic if the American people felt this way. But the truth of the matter is, most don't. A recent Gallup poll shows that most Americans say we should NOT interfere in the affairs of Syria. Another thing is that country comes before world. The leaders of the US have a larger obligation to their own people than to the people of others. The US is too weak right now, and they have no money to fund another war. I know this was a short argument, but to sum myself up: The USA is too poor to do anything externally right now.
The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts.

Does the United States of America have a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts? My opinion is yes. I would like to look at this through three main issues, or contentions. Contention 1 A person has a moral obligation to help someone in need of aid. If I was walking down the street, and I saw a small child getting abused on the side of the street, I have an impulse, a little voice in my head, telling me I need to help. Let us say that I was too weak to help the kid, so I decided to refrain from helping him. Does that all of a sudden stop the impulse in my head shouting at me to help? of course not. this is very simple. Lets say I wanted to go to Disneyland, but I didn't have enough money to go. does that stop me from wanting to go to disneyland? no it does not. it is simply not arguable that there is a voice shouting at me to help the kid getting abused on the street. Contention 2. The united states has a moral obligation to help people in need of aid. The same thing can be applied to countries. Multiple philosophers have said, a country is of one mind, one body. Because we are a completely unified body, the same argument can be applied to countries as well as people. So the United States has a moral obligation, an impulse that urges the United States to take action. it is for this reason that the United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international affairs. Contention 3. This is the side for you Whether you believe that the United States should or shouldn't get involved in international affairs, this is the side for you. Again, the resolution doesn't state what the US should do, it just says the United States has a moral obligation. The key is this, the united states has a moral obligation to help any country. that is not deniable. however, the us also has a moral obligation to keep its people safe. No matter which obligation outweighs the other. both are there in summary, the united states, just like a person, has a moral obligation to help countries. it doesn't matter whether the Us should, or how big the obligation is, it just matters that they do. thank you
The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts.

To the contrary of your arguments, I do not believe that the USA has a moral obligation to help anyone. Your little stories, I believe, are inaccurate, as it states things on a much smaller scale than how it actually is. It is not correct to compare the affairs of countries to the affairs of normal people, i.e., Tom, Smith and Joe. The USA has no moral obligation to assist people like the people of Syria, Iraq, or Afghanistan. In most cases, the USA was asserting its own beliefs upon the people of these places. They didn't want those policies, nor do they now. The 'moral' obligation here is not to assist those across the world, but rather to assist your own people. The only situation in which the USA is in any way obligated to intervene, and that includes MORAL obligations, is if it is of benefit to the American people. The reason the USA intervened in wars like World War I and World War II was because it was in the best interest of their people. They joined World War I because if they did not, there was potential that they would eventually face invasion themselves. They joined World War II because the Japanese bombed them, and they had to intervene to prevent any of their own people from getting hurt. They joined the war in Afghanistan because they needed to kill Bin Laden so that he couldn't execute any more plots like 9/11. They initiated the war in Iraq because Sadaam Husein was funding the Al Qaeda, and that posed a terrorist threat to America, and so they had to protect their people. I believe that the moral obligation to intervene is non-existent, but rather the moral obligation to protect its own people is. None of the wars they joined that I stated were because they felt 'morally obligated' to intervene on the behalf of others, but rather because they felt morally obligated to intervene on behalf of their own people. I assume that this debate was initiated because of Syria, and so I will respond to that: The USA will do more good NOT intervening in Syria, rather than intervening, because, in the long run, fewer people will die under the dictatorship of Assad than will die under the dictatorship of the Taliban. Therefore, the USA is morally obligated to leave Syria alone.
The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts.

To state it as a moral obligation is a very broad term. Everyone has a moral obligation to help those in need, it is simply their choice whether or not to go by that obligation. The UK, Canada, France, the USA, all of these are 'morally' obligated to assist those in need simply because that is the moral thing to do. However, the USA, nor any other country, is obligated in any other way to assist. And why should the USA maintain their status as the world police? They receive hatred because that everywhere. Russia and China mock them because of their seeming inability to do anything, the middle east (obviously) denounces them for this, and many European nations see the USA as an arrogant world "bully." Would intervening in conflicts like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria be the right thing to do? Probably. Is the American nation forced to intervene? No. And nor do they want or need to. And under Obama, I'd say never. He's a weak leader, and the supporters of the nations that they have attempted to intervene in have been much more economically stable than the US, and thus being able to provide much more effective support. That was not the case in Vietnam, but in Iraq and Afghanistan, the USA was throwing away money, and borrowing money they couldn't pay back. The last three of four wars that the USA has intervened in have been failures (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, with the success being the Gulf War) so why should they risk more lives and money on Syria? It would be highly more effective to, in a manner of speaking, make a sequel to Zero Dark Thirty. Take a helicopter, fly it out of Israel or somewhere, and drop some SEALs on Assad's roof. Why should they waste thousands of lives on a full out war, that even has a slight chance to end up becoming World War III? When you consider the losses the USA may suffer, you may even say they have a moral obligation NOT to interfere.
The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts.

You are right. the american people do not feel this way, and same with the leaders. The leaders feel that their moral obligation to protect their citizens is stronger than the moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts. However, just because one obligation is stronger than the other, does not mean that the obligation to mitigate international conflicts isn't there. My point is this: No the united states SHOULD not mitigate most international conflicts, but that does not mean they don't have small moral obligation to help. its just the moral obligation to keep citizens safe is stronger than the moral obligation to help.
Abolish Jaywalking laws

Hahaha, alright then. Thank you my opponent for debating me, I hope your arguments are well thought out. Let's take a look at this issue as it stands now. Jaywalking laws should be abolished for two reasons. 1. No one actually pays attention to Jaywalking laws in the status quo. They are a waste of time and don't actually do anything. In fact law enforcement often times won't even bother stopping someone for Jaywalking. 2. Abolishing Jaywalking laws would also mean the lack of necessity for cross walks. This would actually be a good thing. Right now people assume that a cross walk is a 100% fail proof way to cross the street. I've seen people of all ages simply strut across without looking either way. So I ask you, what happens when a cars breaks fail? Drunk driver? Or the driver just flat out doesn't see the person. That person that didn't bother looking because they figured the crosswalk was 100% safe gets nailed. If we are simply allowed to cross the street anywhere then there will be no need for crosswalks to designate where we should cross. This will remind people that they need to pay attention when crossing the street by getting rid of the apparent "fail safe" zone between the two white lines. This impact saves lives and is the greatest impact in todays round.
There probably exists a necessary, external cause to the universe

I find it interesting when one claims to prove things through analogy. Seems to me, if you can prove the thing you wish to prove, then an analogy is unnecessary. Pro wish to prove that there is a most likely an external cause to the universe through a math analogy. Has Pro proved his case? No. Why? 3 reasons. Analogy Fallacy. (1) Pro's conclusion to his opening argument, "I have shown that, via certain axioms of math, that the existence of a necessary first cause must be admitted. " Pro wishes to equate, that "certain axioms of math" translate to the universe. Pro's assertion, certain (C1) axioms of math require a necessary first cause, (C2) therefore the universe requires a necessary first cause. C2 does not follow from C1, therefore Pro hasn't proved that the universe requires a necessary first cause. "No analogy is perfect, there is always some difference between analogies. " (1) I can create an analogy that proves cats exist. However, the cat analogy doesn't prove dogs exist. Why? Cats aren't dogs. Pro's analogy may prove that "certain axioms of math" imply first cause. The universe is very different from math, therefore the math analogy doesn't support the universe conclusion. Knowledge Fallacy. A knowledge fallacy is when a person claims to know something that cannot be known by human beings. Whether or not there is an external to the universe is beyond the ability of human knowledge. There isn't a person who has ever existed, who now exists, or (most likely) who will exist in the future that could know if there is an external to the universe. There very well may be no outside to the universe, no external. Pro's premise contains this assumption. Pro cannot demonstrate that an external exist to the universe. If Pro cannot demonstrate an external to the universe exists, Pro cannot claim there is likely an external cause. This is the Knowledge Fallacy, Pro claims to know an external to the universe exist, despite Pro being unable to know that there is an external to the universe. Pro cannot claim a "probably" off of an unknowable. Logical Problem with proposition and definition. Pro's proposition demands an external state to the universe. Pro then defines the universe to include all things that do exist, or have ever existed. Pro's definition defines away an external state to the universe. "Universe-everything which is, or has ever been. " An external that exists now, or has ever been, is in violation of Pro's universe definition,"everything which is, or has ever been. " Pro's proposition and Pro's definition have a logical contradiction between the two. In conclusion Pro accepts and takes the burden of proof. Pro hasn't proved his case for 3 reasons. 1. Analogy Fallacy. Number sets don't equal universes 2. Knowledge Fallacy. Pro cannot claim probability off an unknowable. 3. Logical Contradiction in Pro's proposition and Definition Back to you Pro. 1. . http://www.fallacyfiles.org...
There probably exists a necessary, external cause to the universe

This will be a quick, 3-round, open debate. BOP will be on me. Minimum ELO to vote will be 2500. Definitions: Universe - Everything which is, or ever has been, actual Cause - Something which brings about some other state of affairs and is transitive such that if A causes B, and B causes C, then A causes C. Existence - The state of being. Necessary: Cannot not be. Good Luck
God's Existence

Since my opponent is very immature I wil lnot spend much time on this debate. First of all, in the bible it states that God is a spirit. Since a spirit has no physical form, it cannot be matter, so if God were to somehow exist in light or sound. Also back to physical form, since we probably both agree that has no physical form since in the bible it literally states, “Spirit of God.” So if God has no physical form it is impossible for him to have a brain and to think, or to carry out any actions like walking or flying about. Therefore, almost everything in the Bible is impossible because God can’t do anything that he says he can. So now that I have proven, using scientific facts and reality to prove that this magical man can’t exist. I do not understand why the people of today still believe in religion. Religion was invented by primitive people 3,000 years ago to explain how the world worked, and to satisfy the human instinct to know. But now, today, we actually know. So why do we still dwell on faith to guide our lives even though the plain facts of reality show us that God does not exist. I believe that we still hide behind this curtain of faith because people won’t listen to the facts. It is like in the book 1984, the people of Oceania won’t ever listen to the facts, but will only listen to Big Brother because he tells you to. Religious people will never listen to reason because God says to put it in faith, so it is very difficult to pull religious people out of the magical world they live in, where God is their all-knowing hero that will protect them in every step in life and is their “savor.” This thought is very comforting and also adds to the difficulty of exposing religious people to truth since they will simply not listen, they are almost, brainwashed. Now that I have explained why this imaginary figure of God was created, how it is impossible for him to exist I would like to see any type of evidence that God exists since religion has none of that. Science has bones proving evolution, and evidence, because evidence is what actually proves something, not believing. “I do not want to believe, I want to know.” Carl Sagan.
God's Existence

I am proud to take this role. I need to prove that God at least just might exist. Now, my opponent has premises. I can prove this unsound simply by putting a dispute on one premise, which will automatically make the rest invalid, thus proving my opponent's argument. My opponent claims that God is a spirit. This claim in it of itself is ABSOLUTELY WRONG! !! !! !! !! !11111111111111! !! !!11!111111! This has been observed by everyone, and I do not understand how my opponent thinks that God is a spirit. You know what? I was going to let him figure it out on his own, but I have decided to say it out loud: God is a potato. With a brain as big as my birdie. It's amazing because my birdie is bigger than the empire state building. WTF Wanted to bring this in, but, this in it of itself proves the existence of unicorns, bigfoot, and most hated of all, neon cats. I await my opponent's clearly-going-to-be-bad argument.
God's Existence

It says in the Bible that God is a spirit. If he has no physical form, he is not matter and does not take up space. If he has no physical matter, then how can he have a brain to think and create the world? Therefore God has to exist in light or sound, but if he existed in those forms he still can't think or perform actions. Unless by magic. If God was magic, and we know magic is impossible, then God surely can not exist. God was invented by primitive humans to explain how the world works. We, today, now know how the world actually works and that God cannot exist. If you choose to argue that he is magical, then nobody can ever prove that he is not real. But if you choose to be mature and believe in reality and actual facts then you can be certain, that there is no God.
God's Existence

My opponent has responded. Again, I will put a dispute on one premise, the base of all my opponent's arguments, and will make the rest invalid. My opponent is using the Bible as his reference. This is far more than ridiculous. The Bible is outdated. Here, I will say it loud and clear: Humans have discovered the best source of arguments, beginning with things as simple as 123, and things that even scientists were not able to explain: Dr. Seuss books. It states in the 100756th page: God is a potato, with a brain so large the nerds have an orgasm trying to comprehend it, kind of like you, Con, you pathetic science-loving nerd. I await the idiot's arguments.