BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap Battle

I have challenged you to a debate That will decide all of human fate Now let's see how well you'll do against My thugs all named Nate Ha! You have a crystal ball, but can't get date Everybody hates you With you and your grizzly fateNow please get off my stage And Take a trip through looser lane!Your so pathetic, might need to see the paramedics! I take all the credit For your disgusting facial edit!Hear that Mikal! Your old news! You'll be dazed, in a position to be amazedYour so passive! You don't even defend yourself Against my giant bag of acid! The new king of rap is coming to town So I suggest you vacate Before I make you a clown!I'm here to avenge that fallen marine Who you so cruelly crushed Hey! That kid had a dream Better back awayCause I'm sure Lannan and his AR-15 Will stand with me! Or else, well call in the artillery!You call yourself a pro? Well, we will see! Cause no one has ever beaten me!
Rap Battle

This battle was over the moment he decided to accept Rap is lost to him, its literally a foreign concept Hes spitting lines that have no meaning or purpose The only advice I would have gave him would have been to rehearse this. He actually told me he would zap me with a gun Not one blast would hit me literally none It would be fun to run, and then knock him out with a stun the battle is over from there, it is done This guy had no chance with the lyrical verses he chose to spit All of his verses contain no punches or wit. hes butting on a skit, throwing a fit, but cant land a hit now ima slit his wrist and put him ina pit Yeah I just killed him, theres nothing more to say Except this guy coudnt even beat me, even he decided to pray Set my gun to spray and make him pay this very day The only thing this gun proved, is that he is a bad cliche.
Democracy is a scam.

Democracy never was meant to be total freedom.I assume when you say "true" democracy you are referring to direct democracy. I will also let you in on something even if you can control your laws you do not have control over your future. Outside forces will influence the future. People can not effect the unseen problems that will show up.I will also ask you to explain how democracy today is a lie, after all people get to vote for a representative and that is all that representative democracy offers, so it is delivering what it is meant to.Democracy is not meant to be freedom in any context. It is simply a way of creating laws. People in a democracy of any kind have in some form given there consent to be ruled and accepted the social contract. One can only truly be free in a state of nature. True freedom is only attainable in a state of nature with no laws, Jean-Jacques Rousseau said "man is born free and everywhere he is in chains" this is true in a monarchy to a direct democracy. I also have a couple of notes about Greece's old democracy, to quote the same wikapedai page as you did "Participation was not open to all residents: to vote one had to be an adult, male citizen who owned land and was not a slave, ... between 30,000 and 50,000 out of a total population of around 250,000 to 300,000 "[1] that is bye no means more free than today's system, large numbers of people where voiceless in that system. One also must consider that there are "The U.S. entered 2016 with an estimated population of 322,762,018"[2] not a small 50,000, so organising people to vote on every issue would be a nightmare.One last point, repressive democracy is not dishonest, so it is not really a lie or a scam, it does for the most part what it is meant to do, and what it is defined as. Individual people may exploit the system but that happens in most systems sadly and does not mean the system itself if flawed[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.usnews.com...
Democracy is a scam.

What im saying is that todays democracy is a scam its lie.Real true democracy is when people decide their future and laws. Like in ancient greece.People of the city wold group and dicede of their own by voting for the laws.Now we vote for peolpe who choose our laws this is not real freedom and its a scam. Ancient greece democracy- https://en.wikipedia.org... "It was a system of direct democracy, in which participating citizens voted directly on legislation and executive bills."
Democracy is a scam.

dictonary.com defines democracy as "governmentbythepeople;aformofgovernmentinwhichthesupremepowerisvestedinthepeopleandexerciseddirectlybythemorbytheirelectedagentsunderafreeelectoralsystem"and scam as"a dishonest scheme; a fraud."one can be free and have democracy but it is not a certainty Democracy is an idea and so I wonder how you would justify that the idea is a scam What you are most likely are returning to with "200+ people deciding our laws" weather you are talking congress or a parliament is representative democracy. So even if you show that representative democracy is a scam, it is not really democracy as a hole that is a scam, but one way of applying it.
(Pro) Atheistic evolution vs Christian creationism (con).

R2 ArgumentsEvolution is scientific because it meets the following three criteria. Evolution can be falsified, tested, and observed. ""With respect to the fossil record, evolutionary hypotheses are routinely tested as new fossil data are collected and matching that data against hypotheses about evolutionary relationships." [3]"But decades ago, theorists also proposed that a new species could evolve without any such changes, but instead simply as a result of large DNA strands' moving from one chromosome to another within a genome, a change known as a chromosomal rearrangement.While the theory sounded promising, since such rearrangements can be quite common, it eventually waned in popularity, in part because scientists had no way of testing it.Now in a slick feat of molecular maneuvering, a team of researchers has reorganized huge portions of one yeast species' chromosomes, rendering its chromosomal map identical to that of a closely related species, just as it was once, in the distant past. " [3]" "evolution can be observed via natural selection. [4] Evolution can also be observed in the lab. The most notable is drug resistant pathogens becoming dominant via natural selection.[5] ""Consequently any of the following would destroy the theory: If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits. If it could be shown that mutations do not occur. If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations. If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection. If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals. If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species. " [6]Therefore, I have proven that the theory of evolution passes three test of being scientific, can be falsified, observed, and tested. The same cannot be said of Creationism. We cannot observe nor test Creationism."""20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he [is] his money." [7]"“Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;” " [8]"" Jesus Christ cannot be God because he cannot be the source of all moral authority due to condoning slavery and beating of slaves. Therefore, I conclude that Christian Creationism is disproved. Thank you for your time and energy reading this debate. Sources3. http://www2.ljworld.com...4. http://atheism.about.com...5. http://listverse.com...6. http://rationalwiki.org...7. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...8. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...
Without mathematical formulas, 0.999.... Does NOT Equal 1

This debate has been pretty fun, I have got to say! Now, onto the final rebuttals and conclusion! EQUAL VS DIFFERENT The Roman numerals at least look something alike the numbers they represent. The difference between infinite characters and one character is impossible to calculate, while the difference between 4 and IIII are only three characters, far from infinity. INFINITE EXISTING Keep in mind that the universe was either created by God or some other formidable force with omnipotent powers are near omnipotent powers. However, since 0.999. .. Was created by us mere humans, and our power is nowhere near the power needed to create something a grand as the universe, there is no possible way for us to create an infinite number. SIR PHARELL Well, for one, "I'm a zero point nine nine nine repeating balloon" would have too many syllables, ruining the song. Furthermore, fans could misinterpret these lyrics as " a balloon repeating the words "zero point nine nine nine" for eternity. This new number, 0.999, does not even come close to one. Argument refuted. RAGE MAN The languages may mean the same thing, but they are still different words nevertheless. I have disproved 0.999. .. Equals one.
Without mathematical formulas, 0.999.... Does NOT Equal 1

*claps hands* Well played, well played!REBUTTALS 1. The dogs which look the sameThey're both dogs, but not the same kind of dogs!0.999... and 1 are both numbers, but not the same kind of numbers.Thus the argument is refuted.2. The KCA Your sources try to prove that actual infinites are completely possible. It is true that the creator of the argument couldn't prove an infinite doesn't exist. On the other hand, I am a genius, and I can prove the KCA. So, it would take forever to write down "0.999.....". You'd get closer and closer every time you write a "9", but you never reach the full 0.999.... that equates to one. This infinite cannot possibly exist because you cannot write down all the "9"'s, or even have a computer display all the "9"'s, and you will never reach the number that equals to one.3. The Hot Air Balloon cannot make it to spaceYou are wrong, my friend. Pharrell is so happy he creates a magical rainbow that boosts him up into space. See the picture below if you don't believe my claims. See? This teeny tiny rainbow can support a unicorn plus leprechaun nearly 15 times its size. Obviously full rainbows can support much, much more, and Pharrel the Hot Air Balloon can defy the laws of physics, making it to space.Now, I still have tons and tons of characters left, so here I will introduce a new argument and hope it is sufficient to disprove 0.999.... equals one.4. Rage Man So, how is this relevant to my argument? Well, you see, let me code the numbers below and you will see.F=0, U=9. Let us assume there is a random period in between a "F" and an "U" in the above picture.Since 00000000000000000=0, the above post states a man yelling "0.9999....".Now, what is one? Well, it can't possibly be F, or U. And since the coding seems random, I will assign it a random value: E. "E", although is the most commonly used letter in the English language, does not appear in "FFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-". Thus, one cannot equal to 0.9999.....If one does equal to 0.999...., which is impossible, then we are assigning a number, not a letter, but an incomplete word. If we assign every letter a different letter, one cannot possibly equal to "FFFFFFUUUUU", since that is WAY over one letter.What if we assign the letter "F" or "U", you may ask? Okay, first let us assume "1" is assigned "F". So now, the guy raging could be shouting "0.9999..." or shouting "1111111111.99999...". Obviously this is not equal. Now, let us assume "1" is assigned "U". So now, the guy is either shouting "0.99999...." or "0.111111....". These are not equal either.Thus I have refuted my opponent's arguments and proved that 0.999.... does not equal to 1.
Without mathematical formulas, 0.999.... Does NOT Equal 1

Darn! This debate was supposed to be impossible to accept.Ah well. I will type this as fast as I can.1. The look completely different, thus, they aren't identical, and identical means equal, and because such, 0.999.... does not equal to one. Seriously, look at them. They're completely different! 2. The Kalam Cosmological ArgumentSource: http://en.wikipedia.org...The KCA says this: "The basic argument[edit] Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence (i.e. something has caused it to start existing). The universe began to exist. i.e., the temporal regress of events is finite. Therefore, the universe has a cause. Following Al-Ghāzāli, Craig argues that this cause must be a personal will.[5] The first sub-set of arguments[edit] Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite: An actual infinite cannot exist. An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite. Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist. The second sub-set of arguments[edit] Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition: A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite. The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition. Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite." Because of this, 0.999... cannot actually go on forever. Thus, there is a llimited amount of 9's, and the limited amount of 9's can never make it so close to one that 0.000....1 equals to zero.3. Because I'm happy Pharrell William's "Happy" song's lyrics state "I'm a hot air balloon, I could go to space". However, had he been a 0.999.... hot air balloon, there is no way he could make it to space, and he wouldn't be happy, contradicting his lyrics and making a horrible song.Onto you, con!(And remember, no mathematical arguments!)
Without mathematical formulas, 0.999.... Does NOT Equal 1

I believe without mathematical arguments, you cannot prove 0.9999.... equals one. In fact I will disprove this famous mathematical fact using arguments that aren't mathematical. RULES: round one acceptance only you can use any kind of argument (even troll!) but you cannot use any mathematical arguments breakage of any rules results in full 7-point forfeit. This debate is impossible to accept because I have school work to do. I will make this available in summer.
Progressive Income Taxation, Or Any Income Tax For That Matter, MUST BE SOPPED!!!

1._ I heard those figures several years ago, so they're not completely accurate, but they're very close. 2._ When you said, "money gets spread out more evenly," a.k.a. wealth redistribution (which is bad), actually hurts the economy, because it's a disincentive to contribute. 3._ The person where I got that idea from is a small business owner who has half of his income fly out of his hands via the income tax, and that's not his only burden. 4._ Yes, the richest people in the country do provide jobs, and so do the well-off (who are actually the ones most affected), but mostly the well-off do. 5._ Yes, it is a disincentive to provide jobs because it leaves you less money to pay employees. Your rebuttal?
Progressive Income Taxation, Or Any Income Tax For That Matter, MUST BE SOPPED!!!

Progressive income taxation has ruined many Americans' lives. The top 50% of earners pay 99% of income taxes, the top 10% pay 70% of income taxes, and the top 5% of earners pay half of income taxes. Seriously, just because people earn more money doesn't mean more of their money should taken away. Money they worked their butts off for. And the rest of America pays a measly 1%?!?!?! YOU GOTTA BE SH*TTIN' ME!!! If I supported ANY income tax, which I do not, it would have to be flat at 17%. Everybody pays equally based on a fixed percentage of income, and their fair share. The "fair share" that supporters of progressive income tax rates use is just doublespeak for "Make them pay for my taxes because I'm jealous of how much money they have." EXCUSE ME?!?!?! It has nothing to do with whether you're jealous and want their hard-earned cash or want them to be the bourgeoisie pariahs that you think they should be. Remember, THEY GIVE YOU YOUR JOB. Do you want them to have a disincentive to do that? NO, OF COURSE YOU DON'T!!!
REGLION SHOULD BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE SCHOOLS!!!!!

Great, thanks for responding Jazzy! Jazzy rebuts my argument that the government should not have the power to say what ideas are right are wrong by saying that the government does this already. While she doesn't conclude this observation with an argument, I assume she's saying that therefore the government should just keep doing it. She also says that by keeping religious education out of schools, the government is censoring ideas already. This is not true, because like I said, I think the government should teach ABOUT religion, but should not advocate certain ideas like Jazzy is proposing. She then offers evidence that religious education is a good thing because she talked to friends who said it was good. This is not an argument, this is worthless prattle. Ultimately, you should definitely vote con because I prevented a multifaceted argument that looked at violations of first amendment rights, social theory in terms of free speech through the words of John Stuart Mill, and the inevitable balkanization and division that creating separate schools that teach separate religions would create. Thank you =D ~Aietius
REGLION SHOULD BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE SCHOOLS!!!!!

maybe you can)you said that this will give the government a chance to say what is right and what is wrong..but in many ways they already do that..based on stereotypes, and by them not keeping religion in the school system is the government saying what is the right thing.....religion should be brought back in the school system because after taking to the people who were in school when religion was in the school, they all said that the school was better of...if you would only speak to someone who had opportunity to go to school when religion was in school, you would understand....
REGLION SHOULD BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE SCHOOLS!!!!!

To be quite honest, it is impossible for me to rebut my opponent's round 2 argument because it is just too incoherent. I'll just restate and crystallize my own, which is that teaching religion in schools would be in essence giving the government the power to say what ideas are right and what ideas are wrong, which is dangerous. I gave evidence through the words of John Stuart Mill. Furthermore, by making separate public schools for students who believe in different gods would only balkanize and divide the nation even more. This is not to say that I don't think students should not learn about religion, but I am saying that schools should not advocate a return to religious education, per se. Maybe in the next round Jazzy will write something I can respond to =(
REGLION SHOULD BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE SCHOOLS!!!!!

Ok you try to prove your point by saying 'It undermines unity, it breaks America into a nation of tightly closed religious sects that only go to schools that teach what they want to hear. '..And I understand you..But even with out the teachings in school, their are already division between the many Religion ..But you are going to have to understand that their are going to be people with different views...Those with exclusives views (which only belief that their is only one belief and theirs is the best. And for those people with them beliefs then maybe they should out their kids in a school that is all Religion ..And then you have the people that have the belief of inclusive beliefs .which is they know they there Religion is true, but would not mind the interference of other Religion For the simple fact that the same truth that's in their Religion ,is in some ways can be into eh other Religion ...... The list goes on and on. You have to understand that no matter what someone may say about Religion being in the schools, theirs always going to be someone who have to say something about it.
Death battle

On with my rebuttals. Rebuttal: Dropped arguments;You have dropped the echolocation argument. Since Amaterasu is a wolf (in case you either didn't know or didn't infer from me saying "her paws dig through stone", as well as your own research), and the Echolocation technique only works on humans, it has no effect. Mobility without legs;"The answer to that is not much, he keeps going. " So, assuming Amaterasu can cut off Kameki's legs, she can have some advantage. Reasons why Kaneki wins; "Even non violent Kaneki can pummel anything if needs be" Amaterasu isn't normally violent, but won't hesitate to use her Celestial Brush in combat. "Kaneki can take all the punishment he is given and dish out just as much: Kaneki as I've proved so many times just won't stay down. " That's how anime works now. And Amaterasu doesn't need that big of a break, only a few minutes. Probably won't be granted, but she can still use Veil of Mist to slow down time. "When facing adversaries, Kaneki often used his intellect and careful planning to quickly and efficiently take out his foe. Kaneki seems to comprehend Takatsuki's work, as well as understand martial arts just by reading about them in a book. " But the Celestial Brush can only be countered by another Celestial Brush, which Ken Kaneki can't have, since he has no relation to Amaterasu or the Celestial Plain. And what plan could he come up with? "Amaterasu needs Ink Pots" But won't spam the Celestial Brush. You're assuming either Kaneki can drain this Celestial Ink (whether by avoiding many attacks or directly), or that Amaterasu doesn't care about her limited supply of Ink, which she does have plenty. "If Amaterasu runs out of ink during combat she will use an alternate fighting style comprised of bites, charges, and kicks. " So Amaterasu will be careful with her Brush. Any other weaknesses you found? Both characters are pretty strong, durable, and have good skills. This'll be kind of close. Also, remember that we cannot give any new information in Round 5. Let's do this!