BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap Battle : Neo (Matrix, Pro) vs Luke Skywalker (Con) ; Explicit not for Kids

Pardon my delay, but life got a bit in the way.The \ and underscores in the rap is simply where a single beat would be in the song with a 4/4 signature and 100 b/m tempo. It was mostly to assist me in placing where the rhymes and word patterns would lie. If you're interested in the beat I used as a reference I'll leave a link to my dropbox where you can listen to it at the bottom of this round.it's a bit crude and unfinished and you can hear me hit the incorrect key a few times but it's good enough. anywho, my perfectionism and quirks aside: let's start this: \Hey, Neo\. \Back so \soon?\Playing the real \hero under the \fourth Yavin \moon?\It's a shame you \will be stuck in \our little tune\:\Luke will aim to \kill the name and bend your silver \spoon. \You lived a life, \alone and like. \never saw the \world.\Watch the might. the \clock will strike and \death will soon unfurl\'lone and cold, a \sorrow sight. \in your pod can \twirl\see how merry \flight you have to \see the one deserved \You see me Neo\? the \one with the \forcethe \power needed to \smack you up and \place the flame up \to your corpse?The \one in machine \city , or perhaps \it is in the \source?\Guess you're alone now. \stuck and fight the \death that is \perforced. But \do not worry, though \death is early: \Trinity is safe with \me.you're \lost, you lost but \women want what \women always \need.\In a hurry she \came at mercy, the \s**t came here to \plea,I \had her up like \Leia, chained \onto my master \key. \I am the \chosen, \new \messiah, \spare me the \matrix. \Know\the \real world \victor, republic, the \leader is \here to \show: that the \pitiful \Neo lead \only the \trio of \idiots \claiming to \grow \the \resistance that \need the \assistance of \hackers and \balance the \oracle \flow \of \cookies and \riddles and \still only \win for the \simpleton \simplified \cause\that \oracles \possess the \powers to \duplicate \agent smith's \cloning applause. \think that stopping \bullets is a \holy heaven \send?\How will 'ya stop a \blaster blast \aimed at big 'ol \M?A \sabre to the \heart, \point you can't \defend.I'll \meet you on the \streets of life and \choke you in the \end. \Perhaps you should \use that \big 'ol \brainto \see that \stars don't \rise againthe \son of a \sith, I \trained with the \myth.\you must be the \one insane\to \challenge the \leader that \forces the \eager, the \speaker, the \emperors \reaper, the \prophecy \keeper. The \one is the \one with the \force on my \lane\. \step up \to the \challenge \see my \one and \shiny \blade\,\glowing \high and \mighty \proudly \bearing \its true \name\Neo \never \saw me \coming, \never \knew the \game\:\come and \have a \closer \look: the \Jedi's \true \green \rain. http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com...;
Rap Battle : Neo (Matrix, Pro) vs Luke Skywalker (Con) ; Explicit not for Kids

My adversary shall start his rap on his next turn. Meaning he shall start in Round 1. This is not for acceptance and meant for him to start the debate In his last round he will type "no round as agreed upon" failure to type this will result in a full 7 point drop due to him/her having an extra round. Lets get it on
Better to rent a house than to buy a house

I will concede the point to you that it is currently a poor time to sell a house. I would contend that the root of your view stems from the fact that many people buy beyond their means. If you are silly enough to enter into anything other than a fixed-rate mortgage in which you know your costs and you budget to cover those costs. You return to the same dilemma with renting, you can't rent over your means. In the case of a fixed-rate mortgage you are slowing buying property you will own, with all of the perks therein, versus paying and paying for no further stake. The equity in your home also offers a safety net for any financial calamity that should come your way. As I've said I'm more inclined to own property over rent it. Owning the property gives me the ability to make any alterations to it. I have no experience with HOA's so I cannot comment on the expense. When owning any property I would avoid any legally binding agreements on your property. You don't know what you're getting into. As I stated in my first post owning or renting is based strictly on your means. I would still stress that if you have the means for both and owning is a viable option that owning, with it's legal freedom and equity safety net is worth any additional expense. Thank you. If you'd like to pick another topic I would be more than happy to debate a person of you caliber again.
Better to rent a house than to buy a house

This is probably one of the biggest benefits to owning a house-tax deduction most of the money paid in the first years of a mortgage, are interest, and interest is tax deductible. Other items such as Private Mortgage Insurance can also be tax deductible. But first, what is the difference in payment between your mortgage payment and the cost to rent a similar house? In the 2007 market, this could be almost 200%. As I have mentioned, what might cost $1,000 a month to rent, may very easily cost $2,000 a month to own. Especially once you consider items like property tax and HOA fees. At the end of the year, if you would have saved $4,000 in taxes paid to the government, but paid $12,000 more. You lost $8,000 dollars. Owning a house did not save you any money on your taxes at all. The landlord is making a profit, hence, he must pay for the property tax and the rental income tax. If I am renting a house, I don't need to pay for any of these, and if anything that breaks, he will have to find a way to fix them. The landlord is sure making a profit, but compared with the profit that mortgage company makes, you will be very thankful that you choose to rent. The total amount a mortgage company charges can add up to 3 times of the original price of a house after 30 years, while the amount you pay to a landlord will never exceed that. That's a good idea to do the work yourself or working with a professional will, again, I like to weigh the opportunity cost of me calling a plumber or me fixing the electricity-it will be higher b/c the time I spend on doing this, I can spend to do my work, which pays more than paying a electrician. And the time I have wasted on seeking an ideal one, I can save it towards to my work or investment to generate more revenue for myself. Time is money. I'd rather let the landlord takes care of this. Btw, "I live in northern Minnesota and rurally to boot. The national foreclosure crisis has hardly hit the community." Congrats, that is a good thing for you.:)
Better to rent a house than to buy a house

NSG, First of all I admit this is a difficult topic to argue and you're giving me a run for my money. I also admit bias on my part of the argument due to my situation. I live in northern Minnesota and rurally to boot. The national foreclosure crisis has hardly hit the community. The market on a national level has tanked. However, we're still dealing with home ownership in dollar and cents terms. If you are currently secure in your home you at least have a place to sleep at night. If you evaluate home ownership as an investment, like "flipping" homes for example, then you certainly stand to lose from owning. I would also like to point out the fact that many people buy beyond their means. Mortgaged to the hilt is not a wise financial situation to place oneself in. Your opportunity cost argument is interesting but I would argue that either doing the work yourself or working with a professional will, in the long run be the best choice. You know that the work has been done properly and will not have to be done again for some time. As far as the taxes are concerned I'd like to know where you're going with that. Landlords usually make a profit, even after taxes.
Better to rent a house than to buy a house

Hello, WaximusMaximus, You mentioned it does depend on individual's current financial capability. Right, the lack of stability of the job market in the dot com boom, the real estate bubble, and other sectors has proved that most people's jobs are NOT safe. Our rising poverty issues also show that financial freedom is not something the young American is born into either. It is difficult for most of us to be certain about our financial capability on the high amount of monthly mortgage payment. That's why I say it's better not a buy a house. When you're making over thirty percent return on your investment, life is great. However when foreclosure notices start to go up nowadays,everyone starts selling and nobody is buying houses anymore, and when things get so bad the president has to deal with the idea of a federal bailout, the reality of life has a way of "crashing" down on you. The fact is that the freedom of ownership is only as real as the ability to sell in current market conditions. Most homeowners, it is safe to say, are heavily tied to their homes. They upgraded, maybe counted in the tax savings to justify the higher per month costs. But your home can't keep your income stable and secure and it can't control the market, you would think that if you add a glass door, enlarge your deck, remodel your basement, you will have a win-win on selling it the next time, not necessarily, as I have mentioned, you can't control the market. The opportunity cost of being able to pick your own plumber, electrician is much higher. What might cost $1000 a month to rent, may very easily cost $2000 a month to own. Especially once you consider items like property tax and HOA fees. At the end of the year, if you would have saved $4,000 in taxes paid to the government, but paid $12,000 more. You lost $8,000 dollars. Owning a house did not save you any money on your taxes at all.
Better to rent a house than to buy a house

The root of this argument depends obviously depends upon the financial situation of the party involved. While I am not in a position to consider buying or renting a house for some time I would contend that over the long run purchasing a house in ultimately more beneficial. Due to the question I am operating on the assumption that the property is bought and paid for. Dollars and cents aside lets consider the pros of owning a house: 1. You are free to make any alterations to the property as long as they are legal. 2. If you truly OWN your house versus have a loan out on the property then you have an asset that will generally not devalue. 3. While it is true that renting allows your mind to be freed from repair work owning the home allows you to know exactly what work as been done and by whom. It also allows you to pick the plumber, electrician, ect. of your choice. I freely admit that the basis of my argument rests on the idea of a home owned for a substantial amount of time. If your situation is fluid or unstable there are certainly better options than owning property.
Better to rent a house than to buy a house

I believe it is better to rent a house than to buy a house. At first I disagree with the statement, I have always thought it is always better to own a house than to rent one, especially the market is going down now. However, after weighing the opportunity cost ,analyzing on the current market, and calculating on the possible save/loss, I realize there is a tightrope that must be walked before picking a side to fall in. The debate will be beneficial to both sides, it will also help everyone on their future decision making.
Vampires or Werewolves (for vampires) (con werewolves)

Werewolves are superior to vampires because werewolves are a part of the natural dynamic of human nature, whereas vampires are a grossly unnatural perversion of all that human life stands for. A vampire is one who is so afraid of death that they sell their soul for an immortal existence of undiluted evil. The human body is designed to be youthful and virile for only a few decades - instead of enjoying a calm retirement into wisdom and earned respect from one's community, a vampire commits callous murder to steal the "lan vital from other human beings, in a never-ending cycle of extreme greed and debauchery. Vampires are an accurate satire of the logical conclusion to the civilised nobility I was just criticising. By turning their nose up at the vulgar bestial necessities of hunger and old age that afflict mortal humans, they embody the self-denial and self-alienation of our deluded matter-hating culture, with its Platonism and religion. The Christian desire for eternal life leads straight to the cannibalistic inhumanity of the vampire - which neatly explains the whole nasty Eucharist business.
Vampires or Werewolves (for vampires) (con werewolves)

I"ll come in hard and fast on the debate right from the start.(lol) A werewolf lives a lifetime"a vampire lives (or unlives) forever. Mortality is off the table for the vampires which means centuries of fun (assuming one avoids the stake). Yeah, yeah, yeah, you can"t go out during the day. Big deal. You know who goes out in the daylight? People who need to work, that"s who. You know who goes out at night? People about to have a good time. So it is a very small trade off in my opinion. Living forever is just a lot longer than living a lifetime, so vamps 1 werewolves zero.
Fictional story debate

Amid the carpet of carnage strewn across the tavern floor is one solitary figure drenched in a spray of deep maroon. It stood statuesque among the mass of carcasses. At a glance, the figure did indeed seem to be only a statue; an unwilling observer of the many masks of frozen grimace lying among severed limbs. Silence pervaded the arena.. the scene remained unchanged. Dawn began creeping through the few broken crevices of plank and the figure stirred. It was a beautiful architectural piece, really.. stern columns, winding stairs and many unexplored spaces far above and deep below the floor gave the place a delicious tingle of mystery. Exploration had, however, lost its appeal. Each and every room, crevice and corner had been scoured clean: not one soul was not bereft of voluntary movement; all was still. What was life that it could be so easily taken.. where was He now? The children and women laying among piles of men were testament to His apathy. There was no justice. Its head began a slow sweeping survey of the brightening gloom. The earth produced creatures: worms, bugs, fowl, pigs, cattle, people, canine, feline.. a variety of units subjugated under volumes upon volumes of taxonomic documents. Will the fowl revel in its mention? Will the pigs flutter in delight? Will cattle? People? A cynical moon-like sliver appeared on the figure's face. Horror. All the world's current construct dictated horror.. and yet, there was no horror. Just a few molecules' procession of random motion and random cessation. What does it matter? A mockingbird suspended the air in song. Its trill began a chorus of music, of life. The world set into motion once more. The figure staggered out into cool morning air. The trees poised their welcome and, just as they've done for the past two hundred years, embraced the figure into its smothering depths. A worm nudged its head through a plentiful carpet of grass into the crisp, spring air.
Objective morality exists

I pointed out in R2 and again here that I still stand by the fact that there are no objective morals due to the naturalistic fallacy. However I attempted to use other reasoning to reinforce my argument. I did not shift my claim as my first line here and in R2 prove. I already disputed in R2 that shared societal morals are still subjective. Take for example the death penalty. What is the objectionable morality of that? Is it right or wrong. http://www.debate.org... People are split almost 50/50 objectional morality would have figures closer to 100% maybe with a few outliers (You brought up the point of people knowing their actions are immoral and doing them anyways so maybe not 100%) 50% of the countries in the UN have abolished the death penalty 20% use it as a normal practice of law (1) the other 30% havent used it in forever or only use it in extreme circumstances (like treason) Since there is dispute among societies what is the objectional morality of it? Same with 90% of the issues on http://www.debate.org... Also your argument that since all societies condemn infant rape, therefor it is objectionably wrong is an argument to the majority. If everyone was raping infants it would be objectionably right by that argument. Just because everyone is doing it or not doing it doesn't make them right. For objective morality to be outside of human influence it would need a inhuman basis (insert random god here) which you could argue is nature but that goes back to my R1 argument, you then have to argue what is natural and that unnatural is the same as wrong. If you don't use god and can't argue that then "objective morality" is subject (subjective) to what humans make of it. Finally, There are people who do things like murder and rape and honestly don't think it is immoral because morality is subjective and they don't see it as wrong (Insert hitler, every country going to war ever, every religious war ever, euthanasia, raping prisoners of war, beheading infidels, ect.) also Sociopaths and Psychopaths, although you could argue mental disorders don't count maybe? However, good debate. It's been fun. (1) http://www.amnesty.org...
Objective morality exists

I stand by my argument of the naturalistic fallacy as the only means to produce morals. The pro has in fact reinforced my argument by saying "Whether the value judgements that humans perceive are actually "right" or "wrong" are irrelevant. If it is a fact that all human beings have a shared inner sense of right and wrong on some issues then objective morality evidently exists. The argument doesn't depend on the value judgments made on what is specifically "right and wrong" but simply that it is a fact that all human beings share this perception." -Pro I would agree that we are not arguing right or wrong, but you are arguing that there are value judgments that ALL humans indisputably agree on without providing evidence. Just to point out your (2)s are statements of value yes but they are missing the in between opinion statement which is why those values are subjective -(1) Dead bodies look disgusting, therefore (2) - (1) You wouldn't want someone to murder me (2) (golden rule?) Again, Objective morals are things that EVERY HUMAN finds right and wrong. Your Shared moral standards paragraph does not prove shared societal morals to be objective, more that they are well accepted morals. What about pedophiles? they would disagree with that moral which makes it subjective. What about murder? most people would find it to be wrong but serial killers would disagree. an Objective moral would be a moral that someone cannot possibly disagree with or act out against because it is fundamental to the human mind. Give me 1 example of a indisputable moral.
Objective morality exists

My argument is against objective morality on the basis of being a logical fallacy constituted by the rules of debate. "Naturalistic fallacy. This is the fallacy of trying to derive conclusions about what is right or good (that is, about values) from statements of fact alone. This is invalid because no matter how many statements of fact you assemble, any logical inference from them will be another statement of fact, not a statement of value. If you wish to reach conclusions about values, then you must include amongst your assumptions (or axioms, or premises) a statement of value." (1) And we both know that opinions are subjective, this source continues to go on to give a really good example "/"This medicine will prevent you from dying" immediately leads to the conclusion, "You should take this medicine." But this reasoning is invalid, because the former statement is a statement of fact, while the latter is a statement of value. To reach the conclusion that you ought to take the medicine, you would need at least one more premise: "You ought to try to preserve your life whenever possible."\" (1) This logical fallacy of there being any objective morals derives from the appeal to nature fallacy which I think you are trying to argue on human instinctual ground. First, you must define what natural is or what are basic human instincts? Then, you must also argue that unnatural is the same as wrong. (1) http://www.csun.edu...
Objective morality exists

Objective morality is an argument claiming that humans beings all have in inner sense of what is wrong on some issues. I will argue that this is true.To say that objective morality exists it must follow that not all morality is subjective. My opponent must argue from the position that all morality is subjective in order to rebut my claim that objective morality exists.Morality "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."This will be a debate with no specific structure. First round may be for rebuttals, arguments, or acceptance. Thanks and I look forward to an informal but constructive debate.
Xbox will beat PlayStation in E3 2015

I personally believe that the Xbox will win E3 2015 because Of the games they are going to show. Such as Halo 5 Guardians, rise of the tomb raider, and forza motorsport 6 of which is just the start. For sony, they will start their holiday lineup with no mans sky, an indie game that is not even an exclusive, and tearaway unfolded of which is a PlayStation vita game. Sony said they will be treating no mans sky as an exclusive. They also said that they are not worried about their holiday lineup. Xbox, along with the 3 other games I mentioned, will also be getting free to play fable legends, along with scalebound, crackdown, phantom dust, gears of war, and 8 to 10 new exclusive 1st party games. Microsoft has said that this years E3 will have the greatest lineup for games that Xbox has ever had.
Best Trading card game.

The first thing I would like to put my input on is that you stated,"Things that are the best stay on the top and are the best, when Magic has been around and has always been near if not on the top as it is now." as you can see, you claimed that it will remain the best and stay at the top, but how do you know? just like your other statement, "Such as using primarily trap/trap cards or going on the offensive using monsters' when the same can be said about Magic, the trap cards in Yu-Gi-Oh are basically the same as the Scorsese," just the fact that these games are so similar for all we know in a little time there could be a new card game that barely has any differences from previous card games such as the two we are debating, and just because it is new and may have different creatures/monsters it could be the most popular game for many years. So by what you have said both games cost money, require skill and knowledge, and most of all have the same style except Magic uses colored decks as a strategy and Yu-Gu-Oh uses monster combinations, but both use regeneration and many more strategies that make the card games fun and playable. So I guess that it all boils down to not style, but what characteristics people like about the games. If they are hardcore in card games no matter which one they choose they will have to put money down, If they love the strategy both share similar strategy, If you enjoy the creatures, both offer creatures. So just think maybe these two card games are not so different. I am looking forward to your final statement, IAlwaysWinDebates.