BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
[Deathbattle] General Grievous Vs. [Your choice of a Sword Duelist]

For this battle I will be siding with General Grievous and I will be using lore from both the Canon and Legends aspect of the Star Wars Franchise. Rules ----------- 1. Your selected character cannot be Superman or higher level tier powerful. 2. Choose someone you think has a fair chance against General Grievous [Similar level of skill]. 3. Your character must be a able to use a sword and have some skill using it. [If you want to choose someone who doesn't use a sword please negotiate with me] 4. Enjoy and have fun! ----------------------------------- Rounds R1 - Acceptance and choice of character. R2 - Back Stories on Characters. R3 - Argument of Skill. [Why either of our characters can beat the other] R4 - Counter-Arguments. R5 - Closing Arguments/Conclusions.
God's existence

Rebuttal: 'God has no reason to create the universe. ' He is a God the power to create a universe, why wouldn't he? You cannot say he had no reason maybe he knew it was a good idea to do it. I chose to accept this debate like God would have to create the universe, both have consequences, God has to look after us and I have a world Iimit of 500 words. Change the WORD LIMIT! At least 1 thousand.
God's existence

There are many reasons why there is no God but here are a few. The first reason is that if a supernatural cause created the universe then there would need to be supernatural evidence. The second reason is that God has no reason to create the universe. The third reason is that God did not create a perfect universe or a perfect world and yet he is supposed to be supernatural and perfect. The fourth reason is that no one could create a supernatural being. The last reason is that he cannot be seen.
The U.S. Dollar Should be Backed by a Meth Standard Instead of a Gold Standard

Thank you for accepting. A Meth Standard would be 3.5X More Valuable than a Gold Standard Since it would easily be within the abilities of the U.S. government to be able to produce very high quality meth under highly controlled laboratories with expert scientists it is safe to state that the meth backing up the U.S. dollar would be of a high quality variety. For this debate we will use a news story in which 165 pounds of meth found to be worth 11 million dollars was discovered in New Jersey in 2008. [1] Doing the math this would mean that one gram of meth equates to $146 ($11,000,000 divided by 165 lbs= $66,667 a pound then you convert that to grams.) 24 Karot gold on the other hand is only worth $41 per gram[2], therefore making meth 3.5X more valuable. Inflation has become a problem in the United States and inflation could largely be solved by converting to a meth standard. Meth is Far Cheaper to Produce Here gold truly fails and this is where the gold standard truly fails. One ounce of gold costs about $1,148 (about 24 grams in an ounce at $41 per gram) but it can actually cost anywhere from $333-$3,764 to actually produce one ounce of gold. [3]This means that at it’s cheapest it costs more than one/fourth of the value of gold to produce and at its most expensive costs upwards towards 3X more to produce than it is actually valued. Meth on the other hand literally just combines seemingly everyday objects together in different ways in order to produce meth. Meth contains: [4] Sodium Hydroxide which can be found commonly in drain cleaner, and is used to make biodiesel Anhydrous Ammonia which can be found in chemical fertilizer Iodine Red Phosphorus which can be found on matches Ephedrine which is a drug that can be found in pharmacies Ether, which is used as an anesthetic agent Drano, which can be found in stores Brake Fluid Lighter Fluid Hydrochloric Acid All of these can be easily possessed even by poor individuals while meth is illegal. The government could easily get the purest chemicals from this stuff in order to produce good meth cheaply. Gold Prices are extremely unstable This year alone there has been a 25% drop in the value of gold. [5] This is massive. In addition, in the 1980’s gold had a value decrease by 50%. [6] If the U.S. dollar was backed by gold standard the inflation would become extremely necessary, in the the U.S. dollar would become absolutely valueless, then necessary again, and keep on repeating like a roller coaster. People would be losing their jobs, business would have to constantly change prices, and the entire economy would be in chaos because of the inconsistency of gold value. Conclusion A meth standard has been shown to be far more reliable and far more valuable than a gold standard. It would allow the economy to truly flourish as opposed to the chaos a gold standard would present. Over to you. [1] http://abclocal.go.com... [2] http://goldpricenetwork.com... [3] http://www.businessinsider.com... [4] http://www.lynnpolice.org... [5] http://goldnews.bullionvault.com... [6] http://commons.wikimedia.org...
The U.S. Dollar Should be Backed by a Meth Standard Instead of a Gold Standard

This has remained one of my favorite debates and ideas so I would like to do this debate myself. This is a troll debate. No semantics U. S. Dollar - Money used in the United StatesMeth - That drug Breaking Bad is centered around Gold - That shiny gold colored stuff that people like Standard - How U. S. currency is valued by using something of value to back up the value of the money First round is for acceptance.
The FairTax

My apologies for missing the last round, I lost track of time. I'll make this short since I don't want it to look like I'm ninja-ing the last round. I'll simply make a few main points. First, the fair tax requires less money to operate, and this is an undeniable advantage. However, this is an insignificant part of the advantages it has. It also saves people the trouble of dealing with taxes themselves, something we unfortunately have to do in the current system. Also, the fact that it is more regressive makes it far more fair. Consider the following: When you buy a TV, you pay a certain dollar value. When you buy food, you pay a certain dollar value. When you buy a haircut, you pay a certain dollar value. Then why do people pay different amounts for the goods and services taxes provide us for? As it is, the rich pay FAR more than the poor for the same goods and services. This would also be the case with the FairTax, but to a much lesser extent. The reason we cannot make a tax have a flat value is just as my opponent says: we would have to tax the poor for more money than they have to do this. This is why the FairTax must still be based on a percentage. While it may not be the fairest way, it is far fairer than the current way, where a $100,000/year man pays 3 times as much as the $50,000/year man. Exponential growth is highly unfair, and that's just what a progressive tax is. Regressive taxes are fairer, and while the poor may end up with less spending power on average, it is better than unfairly overtaxing the rich. My opponent's qualms with the FairTax are mostly about certain claims that some supporters make. However, I believe I have just shown that there are real advantages to the FairTax. It is fairer, costs less money to operate, and saves everyone time and hassle. The FairTax might not be all it's cracked up to be, but it is surely good. I believe my opponent has overwhelmingly failed to show why the FairTax is actually bad. It is better than the status quo, that's for sure, and that seems to be what my opponent advocates. Once again, I apologize for missing round 2. I believe that despite this, I have still shown why the FairTax is good.
The FairTax

1. It's a matter of opinion whether it's good or not. Regressive taxation does put a bigger burden on those who can least afford it than on those who can most afford it. Further, it's trying to get blood from a stone. When Willie Sutton was asked, "Why do you rob banks?" He said "Because that's where the money is." Well no duh. I'm not a "tax the rich to hell" kind of guy, but I certainly won't argue for taxing the poor to hell either. Depending more on the poor for revenue is akin to trying to squeeze blood from a stone 2. Is a dollar I find on the ground "income?" Is a Social Security check "income?" Is a welfare check or an unemployment benefit "income?" Unless you say no, then the prebate is income Actually they do say I'll have oodles of more spending power. They're saying my check will go up because the payroll taxes are gone, and the sales tax will just replace the embedded taxes (which are the same taxes the employers take off the employees through lower wages). Want proof? http://video.google.com... 3. Please read my arguments for what they are. The supporters claim prices will not go up under the FairTax because it will just replace all the embedded taxes. But if that's the case, then the revenue will only make up for the loss of embedded tax revenue, not the loss of that AND income tax revenue. 4. It would be more simple than the current IRS, I will concede that. However, it's not as simple as just sending one check to each household per year. They need to configure whether it's a married household, and whether they have any dependents. 5. Not much comment necessary. Some do claim that though, particularly Mike Huckabee. http://www.factcheck.org... 6. Again, please read my arguments for what they are. People like him are dangers to society. The problem is, the prosecutors aren't able to prove they committed any violence, but they are able to prove tax evasion, so they are able to get people like him locked up for something. The FairTax would take that ability away 7. I have trouble figuring out how I can make this simpler. They are assuming revenue from the government on its own purchases. When the government purchases a weapon system under the FairTax, they will pay the sales tax on it. The proponents are counting that as revenue in order to justify their claim that 23% is revenue neutral. But they don't realize that the revenue they get from that will be offset by the increase in cost. 8. State governments don't operate the IRS. The FairTax makes no changes to the state tax systems. What the FairTax does do is cause the states to pay a sales tax to the federal government on everything they buy. You admitted states will have to raise their taxes. Given that the proponents depend on revenue from state and local government purchases in order to make the 23% revenue neutral, they are depending on backdoor methods of tax increases in order to better sell their proposal. I can see your last argument as one for a consumption tax in general, but the FairTax is too flawed.
Hockey is better than soccer

1. Embellishment- In soccer there are many players who love to fake injuries, as you can tell from the video in my last argument. It is very rare to see that happen in hockey. When a player embellishes an injury they are given a penalty. Accuracy- Hockey players have better accuracy. Under NHL rules, the opening of the goal is 72 inches (6 ft ) wide by 48 inches (4ft ) tall. In soccer, the uprights are 8 yards, or 24 feet, apart and the lower edge of the crossbar is 8 feet above the ground. Now take the goalies and place them in the nets. In hockey you have a goalie at least 6 ft tall with pads on. That is covering almost every opening of the net. In soccer you have a goalie of about 5'11" standing in a large net with many openings. However the average score in a soccer game is about 2 (depending on the team). In hockey the average score is about 4. Toughness - A recent ESPN study concluded that ice hockey is the most demanding team sport in the world. Durability is a quality that hockey players display perhaps, paradoxically, more than any other athletes. They play a sport that is more physically demanding than any other - 60 minutes in a confined area with no "comfort zone" out of bounds. Hockey is non stop action. Either you are rushing on a break, or hurrying back to get into your defensive zone. There is no time, especially in the NHL, where a player would really have the chance to catch their breath during a game. In hockey you are constantly moving your feet. There is no such thing as standing still while on the ice. Each period lasts is 20 minutes long and there are 3 periods in a game. There are only 2 intermissions which last about 15 minutes so they can clean the ice. Each game lasts about 2 1/2 to 2 hours.
Hockey is better than soccer

I will start my first speech with two arguments on why the resolution "Soccer is a better sport than Hockey" must stand. Also, I will save all my rebuttals and sources/references for the final round and I hope that my opponent saves her rebuttals for the final round as well. Argument #1: Longer Games In a NHL, Olympic or almost every type of Hockey game the time frame is 60 minutes for a regulation game. Where as in MLS game or Premier League soccer game the time frame for playing is 90 minutes. This is good for two main reasons: first, this longer game makes it more enjoyable for the fans because the action is longer lasting with the game being a hour and a half. As a watcher of both sports, I can tell you that watching a 90 minute game is more enjoyable then watching 60 minutes of sports. Second, this longer game makes the soccer players have to play a lot more, which increases the stamina, toughness and knowing when to pace yourself a lot better for the player of soccer. Argument #2: Hockey Players are weaker/ break times I will again split this argument into groups, but this time three. First: Shifts. In hockey, a player is not out there for more than 1 minute 30 seconds at a time. They have to frequently shift, which shows weakness and low stamina. The average soccer player plays for 45 minutes straight, or until half time. What a shift! Second: Total play time. Some soccer players play a full 90 minutes where as the average defensive player in hockey plays around 25 minutes a game, and the average forward around 20 minutes. Thirdly: Intermissions. Adding to them not being able to play much at one time, they also have intermissions 3 times a game so they can rest. Soccer players only need one intermission, and that is after playing for 45 minutes. Sorry about this round being oh so short, but next round should be longer. Also, Thank you to pensfan for this debate.
Hockey is better than soccer

Hockey is a better sport then soccer for many reasons. First off, hockey is a faster sport. The average hockey player can skate up to 26.79 mph with some players speed even clocking in over 30 mph. According to physicist Thomas Humphrey, "skating is the fastest way to travel on the surface of the earth on your feet." When you run, your front foot slows you down every time it hits the ground. In skating, one skate pushes down and the other skate glides. There is very little friction to slow you down. A soccer players average speed is only about 20 mph. You also can add the speed in which the puck travels around the ice. Pucks can travel up to 105 mph, with the fastest shot being recorded at 118.3 mph by Bobby Hull.(slap shot). A soccer ball has a maximum speed of only 80-85 mph. Anything over 85 mph is extremely rare. http://forums.bigsoccer.com... http://www.exploratorium.edu... Toughness is another reason why hockey is a better sport than soccer. In hockey there is plenty of contact, wether it is getting hit into the boards or fighting every game has contact. If you were to hit someone in a soccer game the referees would be handing out the colorful cards and someone will be on the ground looking to win an Oscar award. Here is a video to show you what i mean. ( you don't have to watch the full 7 minutes to get the point)
Hockey is better than soccer

Only one more round till the best part: Rebuttals. :) Anyways, back to the points!: Point #6: Injuries In any league of ice-hockey, there is many, many injuries, because of the physical play of hockey players. Concussions, broken bones, ribs injured and sprains are very often, which makes the game way more risky. These injuries come from the constant hitting and fighting in hockey, where as in soccer, if you check or rough anyone you are given a yellow or red card. Injuries in soccer are usually minor sprains. In hockey, big hits lead sometimes to a life-ending injury. In this next video, Lars Eller of the Montreal Canadians takes a really, really nasty hit (the video commentator is french but the point is still made): https://www.youtube.com...... Imagine you are Steve Moore. He was your average hockey player. Then, one game, against Vancouver, his whole career ended. Todd Bertuzzi comes up to him and wants a fight. Steve Moore says no. A few minutes later, Bertuzzi comes up to Moore, grabs his jersey, viciously punches Moore in the face then shoves onto the cold, hard ice. As a result, Moore was knocked out cold for around 11 minutes. He got three fractured vertebrae and a very major concussion. His passion, career, and love for hockey was done. Over. This is all a result of the violent nature of hockey. Watch: I will elaborate way more in the rebuttal. And what's the worst that soccer has? Suarez? OK, and so he fakes that he does it. But what is worse, faking, or the REAL injuries? Point #7 Goalies In Hockey, the Goalies are almost the size of the net, making it almost too easy for them to save a puck. They move rarely and have a very non-flexible job: SAVE THE PUCK. Where as in Soccer, as a Goalie, you have to dive for the ball, which takes skill, and in soccer, players kick the ball on spin so it is hard to read the play. Soccer goalies know this and have fine-tuned there skills to read plays. What's more, in soccer, the goalie has to boot the ball an incredible distance and they do it just fine. This goes to show that the Goalies in Soccer are way better. Yes, hockey goalies make some crazy saves, but a crazy save in soccer is jut way harder. Judges, what would be harder? Making this save: Or these: The choice is obvious. Soccer! Thanks, DDD
Hockey is better than soccer

Oh boy I can not wait for the rebuttal. But I will. :) Argument #3: Popularity Soccer has a way bigger popularity and viewing rate than hockey. Here is a quote from fifa.com: "715.1 million people watched the final match of the 2006 FIFA World Cup held in Germany". Now, let's take a look at the numbers for the Stanly Cup: there was a average of 4.91 million viewers of the 2009 Stanly Cup Playoffs final round per game. What's more, most amount of people watching a single NHL game was between Chicago-Montreal in 1971 was 12.4 million. 12.4 million people versus 71.5 million people. Thus, soccer is way more popular than Hockey, creating a much better business from ticket buying and merchandise purchasing. Argument #4: Inclusiveness Worldwide Soccer can be played in so many countries, no matter the status. For Example, take the country Cameroon. They are not in the greatest situation for economy, yet still have one of the greatest National Teams in Africa. Soccer is also played in Canada and the USA, even though it might seem way to cold. Yet Hockey is only primarily played in North America and Europe. It is usually only in colder countries. Ever heard of a Hockey Team in warm Africa? At least I have not. Ever heard of a soccer team in cold Russia? Yes! Argument #5: Easiness to Learn Hockey takes a lot of skill and equipment to learn. First, you need a stick, a puck, skates and ice (if you are playing on ice, witch is the most common form of playing by far). Then, you need to learn how to skate, so you might take lessons. Lessons cost a lot of money. Then, you have to learn how to skate, shoot, and keep control of the puck at the same time! In soccer you need only shoes. My opponent might say: you have to run and shoot and dribble in soccer at the same time too, BUT, running comes naturally where as skating you have to learn and take classes. One more thing: Please take into account that in Debates you vote on a debater that has good points NOT the side you would personally take in a real life situation. Thanks.
Rap Battle: Theodore Roosevelt VS Benjamin Franklin

You're stumblin'You're mumblin'Your game is weakI'm prepared to drop the hammer even as we speakYou try to spit rhymes, but you failed old manAnd now this battle has gone according to my plan,'Cause I'm winning this sh*tYour head is splitMove into an old folks home and learn to knit, b*tch'Cause your verse is frail,Your rap is FAILYou better get out, hurry up and bailTeddy's rocking the mic,All his homies are psychedSlam another verse? Well I just might.Here's a rhyme for you FrankYo' rhythm STANK.You step up on the stage and you draw a blank'Cause you're just an old fartTrying to touch this artTake one more step and I'm tearing you apartThat's it for now, you fat old cowWhen you come to the god, be ready to bow, b*tch!
Rap Battle: Theodore Roosevelt VS Benjamin Franklin

This guy is just a 60 year old boyscout living in denialHe think his raps are good but they are rougher than his rough ridersHe likes to talk about all the whores I sleep with,but frankly ask him about his wife shes still gargling my semen.By the end of this battle he'll change his name to "Ben"because im dropping sick rhymes while hes out hunting hen.I am also tolerant of his queerness but I was wondering if the directors of broke backmountain are gonna film this. That may seem like a low blow but this guy blows a lot,one time he bit a guys d*ck and ended up getting shot.Your onabear because it resembles your IQ, besides you, my rhymes are sicker than your asthma ridden childhoodI'm the prophet of tolerance but your rhymes still suckcall that freedom of speech while you use it totalk about the size of your d*ck and the dudes you wish to f*ckFor being Gay im not going to scorn ya but if you really want to bequeer then move to California. BUT WAIT! LOOK! They even got your bear, what acoinicedence now bye bye take care.Here to stay? I'm the first American, don't try to lieI tolerate everyone.Your just a homeschooled gay cowboy, didn't go to junior high.So next time you try to rap me Think about my battle cryBENJAMIN FRANKLIN FOREVER JOIN OR DIE
Rap Battle: Theodore Roosevelt VS Benjamin Franklin

B*tch @ss n*gga with sh*tty flowYou're trying too hard, got to let it goYour phrase is too long,Just like my d*ckBut unlike my dongTHESE RHYMES ARE SICKI'm a hunter, a warrior, a killer of menWhen you try to rap, you just choke on phlegmI'm so cool, you know they put my name on a bearYour face is on the dollar getting stuffed in underwearYou've got herpes, chalymidia, and the clap tooSleeping with sleazy b*tches only makes you a foo'Step down, loser. I've won this game.When step onto the stage, people cheer my nameCause I'm a badass,And I'm here to stayIf you want to leave alive, you better keep away, b*tch.
Rap Battle: Theodore Roosevelt VS Benjamin Franklin

Yo, Its Ben F*cking Franklin and im dope on the mic.The Man who is straight up rockin the wave theory of lightOnly on this beat to make sure my country's not a disasterGot Bitches to F*ck so lets get this battle over fasterDon't post your comeback cause im a postmasterSit down this is school? Your talking to the headmasterPolicies so bad im surprised the south isnt Conceding.How can you say your bulletproof when youre bleeding?You bitch so much a tampon is what your needingWell call me dad cause im not just your founding fatherI did your mom and your wife then left for someone hotterHonestly.. did you really think Alice Hathaway was your daughter?Im making you my bitch put on your collarHow you gonna diss me when im on your dollar?My Rhymes are so cold from my concept of coolingThis guys a gay cowboy who does he think hes foolingWhy did this guy battle me does he really need a schooling?Im the ambassador to France youre the ambassador to your boyfriends pantsLet me teach you about rapping its all about deliveryMy rhymes are so shocking cause I mastered electricityThis guy thinks sleeping with the Japanese and German troops is a victoryBut when I roll up with the hoes and booze the rest is history