BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap battle

Pedostyle likes to think of himself a pedophile Well if that's true, i'm gonna be a necrophile Your gettin' lyrically molested, i'm full of guile Use my bile to burn you, spit you out like a crocodile Cuz i'm digestin' this chowder right now Your not bearing with me or raisin a brow Only reason your brown is cuz you dog chow Your as soft as the most feminine character: princess leia Softer still than Yogi the bear, tossed an album named "yea" Let me teach you a lesson in stalking prey to this very day Trickin you is like takin candy from a baby, i keep cops at bay Then skin your fur off, leave you so white, the KKK'll keep away Your so soft, i pass you to homegirl, she thinks your cute n' cuddly, furry n' fuzzy Then i beat you like Ted Bundy, grind you into honey for money, leave you bloody I said you soft in the heart, lookin for some deep poetry When i yell, this bear runs and claims on top of a tree Forget seein' me, you can't see your teeny weeny pee pee Cuz i'ma bout to burn the fats off of this piece of meat Screw bars, i make a beat off your skull, bangin' in the street You screwed up son, let me quote you: "You say you're a born Christian but you don't know what's missing Your book is a lie Harry Potter has risen." Your bars fall short, one's longer than the other Now that's an embarrassment to your mother Get raped by your dad n' beat by your brother Dumped by your girl n' have her left for another How are you a pedo when you can't even touch yourself? Fluffy on the inside, wouldn't dare harm someone else There are many types of fashion dead in my pic pile N' as of right now, another type just died: Pedostyle
Rap battle

I'm an animal when I rhyme like Hannibal committing crimes But I'm nice enough to let you spit those childish lines. My verses like child's play my flows is as sick as Chucky Going to spread my seed when your mom comes and sucks me Smashing fake rappers like my name was Jason Spittin faster than the Porsche that Paul Walker was blazed in Smashin these fake rappers like they're a big titted asian If you think you can battle me then you're sorely mistaken I'll throw you and a pan and fry you up like bacon. You say you're a born Christian but you don't know what's missing Your book is a lie Harry Potter has risen. You should leave the rap game cause you can't beat my style Your kids aren't even safe, my bullets are pedophiles Leaving their body pieces in a pile of homeless bile I'm PedoStyle and I molest the syllable Open your mouth again and I'll consider it fillable
Rap battle

In this battle, i'ma get paid today Cuz dissin you is nothin but child's play Your death is numerical, my laugh hysterical Like a wounded animal, your pain un-bear-able You ain't a threat n not fly,we can check the record file We can be absolutely certain we won't find Pedostyle You not liftin up the crime rate, your not an offender I'm about to show you what real crime is you pretender First I gain the parents trust then I go for a rabid thrust My crimes only purpose is to show you ain't hard enough Yo momma would let me inside, cuz she's got a crush Then I sneak in your bedroom and my hands bust See people fear me cuz I kill emcees and we know it's true I target lil boys like you, rip you apart then sodomize you Cut your punchlines short, lobotomize then run into you Your a disgrace to pedophiles of all degrees Hence you fresh meat as i smile sadistically Real pedos move in silence and quickness You got exterminated cuz you not the fittest
Cheerleading IS a sport

Such lists are opinionated. While the AMA has stated it's stance on it(1), currently the Supreme Court of the United States government has not ruled cheerleading an official sport contributing to required gender and equality requirements in a school setting. I would like to point out that Pro has failed to properly provide any intellectual argument in favor of the topic, rather stating opinionated and broad points. ~Sources~ (1): Tanner, Lindsey. "AMA Officially Designates Cheerleading a Sport." USA Today. USA Today, 10 June 2014. Web. 13 Jan. 2016.
Cheerleading IS a sport

Pro addresses that male cheerleaders do exist, which I acknowledged in my argument. While there are males that can be used as bases, the sport is still predominantly female. Very specific conditions are required for a male to be able to participate in cheerleading, in the competitive field that is. Cheerleading also relies upon a sporting event to even exist. Cheerleading's primary purpose is entertainment at sporting events, such as football or basketball. Again, I am not arguing that cheerleading should not be a sport, rather that at the present time it is not.
Cheerleading IS a sport

I will argue against the proposal that cheerleading, in this case competitive cheerleading, is not a sport. This issue has seen countless court rooms, mainly in an aspiration to achieve the recognition of cheerleading as a sport to help institutions achieve their gender equality standards. The issue with this is that cheerleading is, on balance, a sexist activity. Many of the gymnastics involved in cheerleading are centered around the trend of female agility. While there are males that can achieve the standards of cheerleading, it is heavily in favor of female participants. I would like to point out that this debate is about wether or not cheerleading is a sport, not if it should be. The topic of the debate clearly states this.
Has skydoesminecraft's channel quality gone downhill? (pro yes con no)

Both sides have BOP. Skydoesminecraft is no longer funny. He is just annoying, immature and stupid. If you look at his videos now he swears every other sentence. A majority of his fan base is 12 and under but he makes no effort to keep his content appropriate for that age group. Also he almost never does mod reviews which a lot of people thought were very funny.
Legalizing marijuana

While my opponent has provided reasonable ideas that could work for the sale and production of marijuana, there is one slight issue. My opponent speaks as if this is will be actually done within the real world and that he knows how they will do it. This is not a debate about what we would personally do, but what would actually be done and how it would affect society. Health is huge today in the world. With a world population of over seven billion and continued to grow even more within the next century, we need to take into account that diseases, viruses, and bacteria are all a larger issue with a larger population. Being prescribed by a doctor is one thing, but using it recreationally is another. I will state no further new point as I already have previously. Our society's health and wellbeing is much more important that a boost to our economy - which can be done via anything else other than marijuana. I thank my opponent for a productive debate. Good luck with your votes.
Legalizing marijuana

Well may i thank con for huge ideas and possibilities, let us use this rounds purely for rebutting. Well I did take into consideration in health dangers and problems. As i said during the first round, the government will control the production, have specified areas for this, and in those places their will be doctors over looking giving only designated amounts. There is on thing I want to point out in you statements, you said that how about the other drugs well let us take one drug at a time not do it all at the same time because they are all different, they don't do the same effects to the body. Another thing is you said is how dangerous this is and i said on my second paragraph as I quote "Of course we will make specified areas where there should release the drug where doctors can examine each and every one that will use marijuana." So it will be regulated and the Doctor will see and supervise. And you said how harmful it is and everything that is why I stated that it should only be allowed on prescribed patients by a doctor for the avoiding overdoses and its harmful effects. So as you can see everything that you said that could be considered as an issue was in my statement all along. All I can say is that you should really read an understand. Thank you for a wonderful debate experience!
Legalizing marijuana

I would first like to start off with my opponent's argument towards our economy with the hypothetical legalization of marijuana. Taxing this drug and producing it will definitely increase and boost the status of the economy. However, you could do the same with cocaine, heroin, PCP, and LSD. Tons of people want these just the same as they want marijuana. The negative effect on society as my opponent has stated would very much be almost stupidly detrimental. There are many products in the world in which we have gains from it. But drugs should not be our number one priority. Let's take a look at the year 1979. The rate of marijuana users of those 12 and older was 13.2 percent. Just four years ago, in 2008, that rate is 6.1 percent. We should look at this is a tremendous positive effect health-wise, not as a failure due to selfish gains with money and taxes. When we look at health effects, we view a general loss of perception, memory, and ability to concentrate. These affect performance in school (and looking at US performance, we should be trying to increase that) for millions of kids across the country. On the lungs, you have increased chance of infections, more chest illnesses, and eventually making it difficult to breathe. Marijuana smoke contains three times more tar than tobacco smoke does. Let us look at the effects to people's health and society rather than look at what it could do to our economy. We have plenty of other ways to fix that than marijuana.
Legalizing marijuana

Let the debate begin, For my first argument, we should legalize marijuana in certain parts of the globe where drug use of the said drug is abundant, but let me further go in to why and how should we do it why should we legalize this? short and sweet, in countries where there is an outbreak of the usage of the drug, we should legalize it so we can take advantage of the selling of the drug putting tax on it and making even the government to control and produce this. This will boost the economy and we can control the release. Of course we will make specified areas where there should be release of this drug where doctors can examine each and every one that will use marijuana. The people that will be qualified for the usage will have to be prescribed by a certified doctor to treat people with intense pain with in. You may say that this social impact will be a tremendous negative effect in society but let us see in perspective if they see you as an illegal drug user they treat you differently they look at you like a criminal if we legalize this at least the people we see a common drug user as a medical state a medical problem they will no look at you any more as a criminal.
New York City should annex Nassau and Suffolk Counties.

It is my stance that both counties (Nassau and Suffolk) should be annexed by The City of New York, to become the 6th and 7th boros. General Point - NYC should annex both counties as it would expand and further diversify an already great city, as well as increasing NYC's economic abilities. For Nassau and Suffolk it would remove the unorganized, haphazard individualized ruling bodies that favor themselves and would add professional unified management which would in turn save each county a lot of money, which can then be directed back into the city to serve greater purposes. Also, by annexing these counties, the housing market in NYC would be affected in very positive ways. (to be outlined below) Nassau county has been named the richest county in New York State, per capita, as well as the 11th richest county in America, per capita.[1] [2] It also has one of the highest tax rates, which for a long time has taken away from the desirability to live their from upper class NYC residents. If NYC annexed Nassau all the tax laws would be changed to match NYC's allowing for the desirability to live there to increase thus increasing land values. Once this has happened the housing market in the original five boros would open up and values would go down allowing for more affordable and low income housing, and allowing for people to live closer to their jobs with out the higher prices. This would also help the poor and low income families in Nassau as the rents in low income areas would go down due to tax's not being as high as they were. Suffolk County, with proper management Suffolk county could become one of NYC's premier tourist spots bringing in much needed extra income as well as providing a lot of extra money for the City of New York in the long term via investments in infrastructure. This would be positive for both the city and the county. Also the change in ruling bodies would allow for changes to better public services, and allow the wages to be lowered, as Suffolk County has the highest paid public positions in America. I believe a lot of the counties money is wasted this way, and a unified ruling body would change that, bringing much needed money into the economic system. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... due to time constraints I posted as much as I could, and will elaborate, bring up new points and do rebuttals in the next round, con is free to do the same.
Bilingual Signs

There is no legal prohibitions against publishing documents in a language that is the natural language of tens of millions of American citizens either. There is no precedent nor valid state law that restricts private or public affairs and business be conducted exclusively in English, and there never should be. English is not the official language of the United States, it has no official language. Its the language, in fact, of our tyrannical motherland we shed a lot of blood to fight for our independence from. There are towns and even counties in our nation where the majority of the population ARE Spanish-speaking. Should they be exempted from having to support the English-monolingual minority? You failed to respond to my earlier hypothetical question on that. Publishing documents in English only discourages immigrants and prevents them from succeeding. The cost of translating English legalese to Spanish is far lower than the lawyers who drafted the original legalese. A lot of English-Spanish translation jobs pay $12/hour or less. Denying someone access to services merely because they are more fluent in a language you are ignorant of is blatant discrimination. My opponent is backward in his arguments that providing communication to reach out to beyond English monolinguists is somehow discriminating against them, and that we should cut them off and leave them out in the cold and that would somehow better serve them. This is backward thinking in my book. There are sovereign nations of Native Americans throughout the U.S. in which the native tongue is most definitely not English. By my opponents' logic, we should eradicate what remains of Native American languages and force everyone in the U.S. to adopt the majority language. That is as much an infringement on the right to speech as forcing everyone to adopt the majority religion would be an infringement on the freedom of religion. Thank you for reading.
Bilingual Signs

English is not the official language of the United States. However, it is the official language of 39 states, and the exclusive de facto language of 17 more. These states publish legal documents, which are government documents, given that the state is a component of government. There is no legal requirement to publish these documents in Spanish. "Given that, every language spoken here should be equally respected." Over three hundred languages are spoken in the United States (http://www.mla.org...). My opponent is stating that United States should recognize all these languages equally, which would force them to publish documents in 300+ languages, this being of nightmarish cost and logistical impossibility. To print them in only English is in keeping with precedent and state law. To print them exclusively in English and Spanish would be discriminatory. English is the official language of much of the United States, and the de facto language of our federal government. Almost all texts are published primarily in English within the bounds of the United States. The vast majority of America speaks English as their native tongue. Thus, success in America depends upon English fluency. As I have said, publishing documents in Spanish discourages immigrants to seek English instruction, limiting their degree of success. The cost of printing documents in Spanish is greater than in English, due to translation costs. However, my main point is that the cost doubles by publishing in two languages, and with your equal respect for all languages, the cost would be 300 times greater. Only 0.8% of the population speaks only Spanish. 96% speaks English with a high degree of fluency. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) My opponent dropped his own first and second contentions, so my responses stand. The resolution is discriminatory and limits immigrant success. Therefore, I strongly urge a vote in the Contradiction of this resolution.
Bilingual Signs

There is no portion of the Constitution nor law that I am aware of that declares English to be the only language to be respected in the United States. Given that, every language spoken here should be equally respected. The notion that providing documents in a language spoken by tens of millions of Americans is somehow discriminatory is backward. Publishing documents in English discourages citizens from learning Spanish. I do not see English supremacism as anything needing to be enforced, I do not see the benefit of English over Spanish, and Spanish is such a significant minority that it is senseless to me to deny access to services for those who are more fluent and comfortable in Spanish than English. Publishing documents in Spanish is no more costly than English. Tens of millions of people in the U.S. have Spanish as a primary (if not only) language. The cost of translation spread out over those who would benefit is actually much smaller than the original English drafts that required lawyers to craft the original legalese!
Bilingual Signs

English is the primary language of the United States, and the language in which nearly all U.S. legal documents were originally published. Thus, the United States is required to print documents in this language. This legal requirement extends to no other specific language, nor should it, for several reasons. Most widely available government documents are only published in English and Spanish. Many United States immigrants speak different languages than these. Therefore, the selection of Spanish is discriminatory. Publishing documents in Spanish discourages immigrants from learning English. When these documents are made available in Spanish, immigrants will be less inclined to seek English language instruction. As a result, Hispanic immigrants naturalize at a far slower rate, and ultimately have less success in America. Publishing documents in Spanish is costly. Each document requires accurate translation, and translators are therefore required. To spend money on a program that has a negative impact upon immigrants is illogical. Pro: 1. I don't propose that we ban any sort of expression in Spanish. This is entirely non-resolutional. The First Amendment does not guarantee citizens government documents in a language of their choice. 2. It will be centuries before Spanish speaker outnumber English speakers. This is because the population of Mexico and Central America is less than half of the United States, and those Spanish speakers and their children who move to the United States eventually naturalize. Therefore, English will remain the dominant United States language for many more centuries. 3. English is the official language of most states. Consequently, documents will always be published in English. Your argument seems to be that, Spanish, as a legitimate language, should be present on all government documents. This fails to justify funding for translation, and means that documents must be available in all legitimate languages.
Bilingual Signs

My arguments in support of the subject (The government should be required to publish all material in both English and Spanish) are as follows == REASON #1 - A LARGE NUMBER OF SPANISHSPEAKING AMERICAN CITIZENS == Due to a combination of the United States' proximity to Mexico, and much of the United States' current territory (from Texas west to California, north to Oregon) was originally part of the New Spain colonies, colonized, developed and inhabited by native Spanish speakers before being taken over through conquest (or in the case of Gadsen, purchased). A large number -- in the millions nationwide -- of the United States' population speaks Spanish as a first tongue, and a significant portion of those are not fluent in English as a second language. One of the most vital and important amendments in the Bill of Rights is the freedom of speech, guaranteed in the very first amendment to the Constitution. While even this has limitations (shouting Fire in a crowded theater was an example), there is no reason to consider language among those restrictions, and a person's preference for a recognized and legitimate language (such as Spanish) should be respected, especially for a nation "of immigrants. " I argue that English-supremacist monolingualists are fighting with at least a twinge of racism, believing that Spanish speaking citizens (native born or legal immigrants) are not as intelligent or deserving of access to government as the current (dwindling) English-speaking majority. In some entire states, notably the mega-populated California, the "white majority" is expected to, based on statistical trends, end in just a few decades; hispanic people will then have a racial majority over whites after that. If in the future, Spanish speakers outnumber English speakers, should people like pcmbrown be required to learn Spanish to access government or suffer as an unequal?
Florescent Lamp should be used over Incandescent lamp

Incandescent bulbs are generally less harmful if broken. Florescent bulbs contain: argon, mercury vapor, tungsten, barium, strontium and calcium oxides. If there is any risk of the bulb breaking such as a gymnasium, workshop, etc.. it can be safer to use incandescent bulbs. Easy bake ovens use incandescent bulbs since they utilize the heat to bake the food. Incandescent bulbs are cheaper, so if you're on a budget they can be more accessible. Also, for some devices such as flashlights, many can only accept incandescent bulbs. In summary, there is utility for incandescent bulbs still. They both have their uses, but no, florescent bulbs should not always be used over incandescent
Florescent Lamp should be used over Incandescent lamp

Which type of light is good ? Fluorescent lamp or incandescent lamp..! I think both of the lamp has their own advantages and disadvantages. Well the main of those points are 1)Fluorescent lamp emits less heat but incandescent lamp generates huge temperature around it. 2) Fluorescent lamp consumes less electricity but the light intensity also less where as incandescent lamp consume more electricity and the intensity of light is higher than others. Working principle of both the lights are also very similar. I came to know about the working mechanism of Fluorescent lamp from https://www.techintangent.com... .It was quite interesting. But is there any big difference between these two lights..? Will it
Dead people should be harvested for food.

Economically it is not very beneficial as any money used for the "harvesting" of the meat can be more efficiently used for starving people through rather transporting food other wise wasted (not wasting but wasted) like when there is an overproduction to feed the people would be more useful. Also enforcing such a thing would be VERY expensive as there would be a huge resistance. Although people may get used to it religious and moral objections generally should not be ignored. Especially if a large portion of the population would object. P.S. this is fun!!!