BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap battle

My nigga you just accepted a battle you are never going to forget Every metaphorical punch I throw is going to be a decisive hit With every word that I speak, I am going to make you a throw a fit It's all going to rub you the wrong way like a virgin touching his first clit Does it bother you when people say that being a stalker is your profession When GCL told you fuk off, did it lead to inner aggression When she told she she never wanted to talk to you again, did you sink into depression You committed a transgression that was literally due to your indiscretion Fuk Christ , you are about to offer me up some confessions Btch when I offered you chance the quit, you should have just gave me a concession Nigga you are literally a stalker that should scare you as much as it does other people Your a sinner who thinks he saved, disguised under the shadow of a steeple How you think you are going to win this is a mystery to me You are the one of the most hated people on the site, and everyone agrees This is an appetizer to me I am going to eat for for lunch Pull back and hit you with that superman, call it a knockout punch This battle was over from the start, you could call that a hunch I'm going to snap and crackle your bones, and then listen to them crunch you fking pervert, your a waste of a life You wanted to wed GCL and make her your wife Now that your in a battle with me, you are going to get a knife I going to hit you 100 hundred cuts, call me cloud strife Just because I sound southern, doesn't mean I'm a hick just like the last guy that talked sht to me, ima smash your fuking face with a brick Your a fuking spineless, dickless, pathetic little prick Even girls on the web give you a metaphorical kick Your not stronger than me, better looking than me, or even half the man I am Your a fuking broke down ford, and I am a brand new trans am How many times did you ask that poor girl to get on fking cam Go stick that tiny flacid dik back in your pants you fking pervert, you need to fking scram Nigga I want to slap your face because your a disgrace God himself would not offer you his saving grace Smash your face with a mace, you need to be erased Why you chasing girls when you never even been to third base I literally would knock the living hell out of you if It was permitted by law Call me jigsaw btch and you just entered into the movie saw If this was a shoot out in the west, I would kill you before you could draw If you were to drop dead, everyone would yell hurrah God didn't cleanse your soul, you retarded son of a btch If you could show me God existed, I would suck my own dik I'm going to beat you with a stick and extinguish your life like a candle wick Stop acting like GCL cares about you btch, she aint never going to be your chick
Rap battle

I don't need many empty lines to lash n blaze up at you like vengeful hazards you'll see how few of mine"ll make you break at the weight of my words Someone deport this hillbilly cracker back to the south Half the time femboy srips then keeps a cock in his mouth I admit karma pays evil with evil, i can see how you got this hardwired If you come at me with these sissy remarks they"ll only get backfired jk ha,i moved on from a bygone, you still yappin your beak If you barrage me with burns, it"ll be so obvious that your weak I admit being weak, selfish, nasty, sexist, I was trashy and a bully But I was forgiven, you still bickerin, can't get over it cuz you a p*ssy Before you judge me, put yourself in my shoes, know what I been through I took on the shame, guilt, pain, n anger, you lashin out only proves it's true At least I bravely confess it, takin responsibility cuz ima stronger man than you Now you scream retribution, thinking you crying out a war anthem I don't see a warrior, I see a 2 year old throwing a temper tantrum I asked God for forgiveness and he cleansed my soul I already won this battle cuz you lost all self control You imply i'm trash for makin posts about women being a thottie That"s coming from a hypocrite who cracks a joke on GCL"S body (1) Source: 1. http://www.debate.org...
Dueling should be legalized

For my closing argument I'll keep it extremely concise since this will be the only time I can log on here in the next few days and I don't have much time. Pro dictates dueling a way of two parties consenting to resolving a conflict. I am saying the current legal system is a superior way of resolving conflicts in a non-violent manner and makes dueling obselete. I bring up theoretical situtions in which people today will exploit the system of dueling as today's culture itself has changed so radically since dueling was origianlly legal and legalizing dueling in this day and age is in itself hypothetical. There is no way to prove with facts whether dueling today would be the same as it was then, for or against, it's all hypothetical.Anyways, I had a fun time debating and will try to adhere to structure much more thoroughly as I am very new to this site.Vote Con!!!
Dueling should be legalized

Let me sum up my points:1. Consensual AgreementThis point stands as is.2. No Bar Room Brawl or Street Fight. This point stands as is. Con tried to make the claim that dueling was happening everywhere. I refuted this in Round 3.3. Weapons are agreed upon. This point stands as is. Con has used appeal to fear to make it seem that in duels someone has to die or would be harmed beyond belief. I said in Round 2,weapons are up to the participants exclusively. They can use non-injurious weapons if they wish.4. It is a Great Event. Con tried to make the claim that some would believe it is not a great event. I refuted this in Round 3 because by definition dueling must be a great event. 5. An End to Grudges. This point stands as is. 6. Peace Through Strength(V is for Victory)This point stands as is. My opponent didn't even address this at all.7. Builds Character. This point stands as is. Con was concerned if the general American populace benefited from dueling. To which I replied no.8. LoopholesCon was fixated on theoretical loopholes in the legalization of dueling. I dismissed them because they were non-existent historically. Dueling has existed historically so shouldn't loopholes been exploited? Possibly,but my opponent didn't offer any examples.9. VendettasI refuted the claim that duels would lead to vendettas among families. The evidence was inconsequential and will continue to be as such if dueling was legalized.10. MoralityMy opponent has tried multiple in this opinion to demonize and shame the act of dueling. But I simply retorted in Round 2:"Ethics is relative to the individual. Ethics is not absolute so it is only unethical according to the ethics you subscribe to. "Let us all not be subject to the morals of Con. 11. Con has only offered opinion. "My's Thoughts" was exactly what Con determined to call it,and it was exclusively his thoughts only. Con has also offered many fallacies in this debate to back his opinions. Throughout the debate he used appeal to emotion multiple times. He used terms like "unethical," "exploiting," and "regressive" with no evidence to back such adjectives. Con also used appeal to fear as well stating "unnecessary deaths. "Con did not offer one iota of evidence for any of his statements. If he offers evidence this round he forfeits the debate entirely(See Round 1 debate structure). Voters,should we accept such conjecture in a debate on something that was once legal? Shouldn't evidence be presented based off of previous details on the art of dueling? Con has offered his distaste for dueling very clearly but there is nothing to back that distaste.12. Con disregarded the debate structure. Round 2 was supposed to be opening arguments only. Instead he offered no presentation of arguments whatsoever. Con asked questions and provided a rebuttal. He should lose his conduct points. Many thanks to my opponent for participating in this debate.
Dueling should be legalized

Consent: “That is an illogical scenario. If they are going to kill someone close to "Person A" illegally why would they not just kill "Person A" anyways? If they kill the person close to "Person A" they are engaging in an illegal activity already. So what is the difference?” The point is that crime groups could kill legally through extortion without repercussion after a dueling law passed. There is no question it will happen, humans exploiting laws are as predictable as the sun rising. Loopholes: “Killing is already legal contrary to what my opponent thinks. People are killed in wars when we shoot them and drop bombs on their heads without warning. A war is a nefarious act where even innocents are killed without consent or any kind of written permission. Dueling is fair to both participants generally. In a duel, both sides are in agreement for the action taking place so they assume responsibility.” You are comparing apples to oranges here. War and dueling are not the same thing. The former is between nations supposedly ratified through a complex process whereas the latter is between individuals over a dispute. This system could easily be taken advantage of by someone who wished to exploit it. Why bring in unnecessary deaths if you don’t have to? That is why we have a legal system, to handle disputes between individuals without the need for violence and death. It is a superior method of handling disputes because it does not involve loss of life while rectifying the situation. “A loophole is not enough to toss dueling out. The loophole that Con has mentioned is strictly theoretical and not practical. What is the likelihood of his example? It is extremely low because duels have been legal in the past and the events that he has offered have never happened. Therefore this loophole is inconsequential.” Legalizing dueling in this era is completely theoretical as well, we have no idea how it would be adopted as our culture is vastly different than when dueling was commonplace and legal. The general morality and honor code of today is alien compared to what the norm was then. Vendettas: "Dueling does not result in vendettas often. There are little to no examples in history. Vendettas are often fights such as the Hatfields-McCoys, spontaneous and unorganized. The probability of the event Con has suggested is very unlikely." Why open the possibility of it happening? There is no need to duel as disputes can be reconciled and punishment can be administered through due process without death. My thoughts: While I respect the concept of dueling in its time by upholding an honor code to an extreme standard, it has been replaced completely by a legal system in which all manner of issues can resolved and punishments can be administered. There is no need for vigilantism as we have progressed as society and no longer require it in our society. The populace shouldn’t be able to decide who gets to fight to the death, it’s regressive in nature.
Dueling should be legalized

"Your points are flawed,unethical or outright subjective"Ethics is relative to the individual. Ethics is not absolute so it is only unethical according to the ethics you subscribe to. Everything from a person's perspective is subjective because "perception is reality.""Organized crime groups to kill people legally by extortion (i.e. forcing someone to duel or the crime group would kill someone close to the duelist). "That is an illogical scenario. If they are going to kill someone close to "Person A" illegally why would they not just kill "Person A" anyways? If they kill the person close to "Person A" they are engaging in an illegal activity already. So what is the difference?"No way, shape, or form should killing be legalized because this always leaves a loophole to be taken advantage of."Killing is already legal contrary to what my opponent thinks. People are killed in wars when we shoot them and drop bombs on their heads without warning.A war is a nefarious act where even innocents are killed without consent or any kind of written permission.Dueling is fair to both participants generally. In a duel, both sides are in agreement for the action taking place so they assume responsibility. A loophole is not enough to toss dueling out. The loophole that Con has mentioned is strictly theoretical and not practical.What is the likelihood of his example?It is extremely low because duels have been legal in the past and the events that he has offered have never happened.Therefore this loophole is inconsequential."Gun matches everywhere"Duels have never took place everywhere as Con states.Normally there were grounds for dueling.For example, there were dueling grounds right outside of Washington DC[1].Duels are not going to be happening like in the movies where it is sundown and duelists are shooting it out in the street.That is purely fictitious. Duels have taken place far away from the general populace.[1]http://www.roadsideamerica.com..."Not everyone would believe this."People against dueling and gladiating must acknowledge such events are great due to the intensity of said events[2].Great:"full of emotion."[2]http://www.merriam-webster.com..."Many duels would happen between the two families "Dueling does not result in vendettas often.There are little to no examples in history.Vendettas are often fights such as the Hatfields-McCoys, spontaneous and unorganized.The probability of the event Con has suggested is very unlikely. Vendetta:"Very long and violent fight between two families or groups"[3]http://www.merriam-webster.com...“Character”People affected by the legalization of dueling would be affected only."Justify murder"Murder is an illegal action[4].Once dueling is legalized,it is no longer murder.Murder: “the crime of deliberately killing a person”[4]http://www.merriam-webster.com...I will respond to the rest of "Con's thoughts" next round.
Dueling should be legalized

You bring up some interesting points but some of your points are flawed, unethical or outright subjective.ConsentHumans have a nasty habit of exploiting any law or rule that has ever existed and this one would fair no differently. In a perfect world we could hope that both parties of a duel would consent to dueling and I’m sure they would most of the time but this leaves a legal loophole for organized crime groups to kill people legally by extortion (i.e. forcing someone to duel or the crime group would kill someone close to the duelist). In no way, shape, or form should killing be legalized because this always leaves a loophole to be taken advantage of. Weapons are agreed uponNot having a standardized location would cause issues. Like it or not times have changed since dueling was acceptable. You can’t just have gun matches everywhere, this would be a threat to everyone’s general safety. It would have to take place in a heavily regulated arena solely meant for dueling. It is a Great EventNot everyone would believe this, some people would view it as barbaric or regressive just like gladiating. An End to GrudgesSure it would end the grudge between the two individuals but it create animosity between the families of the two duelists and with dueling being legal, many duels would happen between the two families presumably. Builds CharacterHow can you say this for sure about a whole society?My thoughtsLegalizing killing opens up a whole can of worms that didn’t exist in the society that originally had dueling legalized. Could people justify murder by saying they were just dueling?What happens to all the people not killed? Is society fronted with their medical bills?Will organized crime take advantage of this law?Is a permanent solution to a temporary squabble ethical?This is why the court system was created so people didn’t have to resort to killing each other in order to solve squabbles. They were created to resolve disputes in a civil way that doesn’t have an ultimately negative permanent outcome.
Dueling should be legalized

The following are reasons why dueling should be legal:1. Consensual AgreementBoth parties that participate in a duel agree being involved in such an event[1]. Both parties involved assume responsibility for the results of their agreement. [1]. http://definitions.uslegal.com...2.No Bar Room Brawl or Street Fight. Dueling is not spontaneous or an event built in with instincts of anger. Dueling requires seconds to exchange with each other the rules and location of a duel. Then they must be agreed upon by both parties[2]. Normally there will be a negotiations to stop the duel before it happens. There is more than enough time for a duel to be called off. Both parties will have had time to consider what they wish to do. The duel simply can be called off when the offending party apologizes for the offense to the offended party. [2]The Code of Honor by John Lyde Wilson3. Weapons are agreed upon. The weapons to be utilized in a duel is agreed upon by both parties. Normally, weapons utilized in a duel are pistols or swords. But weapons that will result in incapicitation or death can be avoided if the particpants wish. Participants can even duel in hot air balloons if they want[3]. [3]. http://blog.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk...4.It is a Great Event. Many great people have dueled ranging from kings,aristocrats,and nobility to professionals,politicians,and commoners. President Andrew Jackson was in multiple duels in his life[4]. A duel can be the event of a lifetime. [4]. http://hubpages.com...5.An End to Grudges. Instead of holding grudges,a duel can allow for grudges to end.6. Peace Through Strength(V is for Victory)Allegedly,Mahatma Gandhi once said "An eye for eye makes the world go blind[]. "I tend to agree. That is why I say if they take your eye,you take their life. The fact of the matter is that if they can take one eye what prevents them from taking the other eye,an arm,a leg,or your life or your loved ones' lives. It requires faith in someone that had the intent to harm you to allow them another chance. If they did it once what would prevent them from doing it again? There is absolutely one person that can be trusted in this life and that is yourself because that is the only person you can control. Let us not put faith in those who have had the intent to harm us and still do. In the best or worse case scenario depending on your perspective someone can be rendered incapacitated or lifeless as a result of a duel. Your foes can become impotent. []. http://quoteinvestigator.com...7.Builds Character. The legalization of duels will prevent the slanderous from verbally abusing people they dislike in public. Now they could suffer for their sharp tongues in a duel. As a result, duels will encourage self-restraint and re-introduce honor into American culture.
Dueling should be legalized

I as Pro will be arguing dueling should be legalized in the United States. The burden of proof is on me. Definition:Dueling:"A prearranged, formal combat between two persons, usually fought to settle a point of honor."[1]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...Debate Structure:Debate Structure:Round 1) Acceptance onlyRound 2)Opening ArgumentsRound 3)RebuttalsRound 4)Closing Arguments. No new evidence is allowed to be presented. Otherwise it is an automatic forfeit of all points.Debate Theme:Will You Follow Me by Rob Douganhttp://www.youtube.com...
Resolved: Great Britain won the Revolutionary War

1) The US flipped over the Royal Baby"Do you really think anyone cared about that?"Kind of yeah, http://mashable.com...2) They speak English, we speak English. Coincidence?"So do Australians. But everyone knows that nobody owns those gangstahs are hardcore up in derr. Ain't nobody controlling Australia. "Oh great, you believe in Australianism.... The long debunked belief that Australia actually exists....http://www.debate.org...Its close minded stubborn people like you who are destroying this country! (which is still owned by the British) 3) New England"Texas won't let them secede if they can't"Are you kidding? Texas would LOVE to watch the entire northeast secede, that leaves California and the West coast as their sole remaining enemy! But thats besides the point. The point is that if America were truly free from the British, they wouldnt keep the name 'New England'.... That would be like France renaming itself 'Germany's B***h' once WWII ended.... 4) They killed more of us then we killed of them" that is including Civilian casualties which were rife in said were. In reality, America only lost around 8,000 soldiers"America's fighting forces consisted mostly of militia and armed civilians, aka not actual soldiers. The statistic is still valid and the point still stands that they killed more of us then we killed of them. 5) Supreme dental hygiene"Obviously countries with superior technology aren't ruled by those with lesser technology."Technology doesnt matter much when the nation with superior technology is dumb as sh**. I mean have you even met the people in Mississippi, Arkansas, Kansas, and South Carolina? "So obviously the UK can't possibly rule the USA... because the teeth don't lie."Again, have you even MET the people in Mississippi, Arkansas, Kansas, and South Carolina? The average person in those states have more children then they have teeth at this point. 6) Terrorists attacked the US first. "Point is, terrorists knew who they were screwing with. They wanted to go after the boss, the head honcho, the United States of America."Middle Eastern Extremists have been going after England and other European powers LONG before America even came into the picture..... 'The Crusades' ring a bell? Middle Eastern religious nuts waging holy war against the Christian West? Yeah thats been happening long before the US even became a factor. 7) Colonialism is dead"Ghandi took that little sucker and dropped kicked it back into the 15th century from whence it came."Yes because Puerto Rico is TOTALLY a free country and TOTALLY not a territory of another super power or anything..... (its funny because they actually arent)And if colonialism is dead, then why do people want to colonize the Moon and Mars?
Resolved: Great Britain won the Revolutionary War

Responses1) The US flipped over the Royal BabyOh come on. Do you really think anyone cared about that? We Americans just wanted to look cool to our friends overseas... plus it gave us an excuse to tweet about stuff. And if Americans love something... it's McDonalds... but after that comes tweeting.You know who else loves tweeting (an American invention)? That's right. The Brits. Coincidence? I think not.2) They speak English, we speak English. Coincidence?So do Australians. But everyone knows that nobody owns those gangstahs are hardcore up in derr. Ain't nobody controlling Australia. Granted... Canadians... we're not so sure about.Point is, you can speak English and still not be owned by England. :P3) New EnglandThose traitorous bast*rds just want to think they're part of England. Doesn't mean they are. Texas won't let them secede if they can't. And no one messes with Texas. No one. Cause 'Murica.4) They killed more of us than we did themMy opponent misunderstands what the 50,000 American dead and wounded means... that is including Civilian casualties which were rife in said were. In reality, America only lost around 8,000 soldiers. As we all know, the battle is won by fighting men, and not women and children.Evidence for why 'Murica won the Revolutionary War.1) Supreme dental hygieneObviously countries with superior technology aren't ruled by those with lesser technology. And obviously countries with superior technology know proper dental hygiene. So obviously the UK can't possibly rule the USA... because the teeth don't lie.2) Terrorists screwed with us firstWhen attacking a group of people, do you go for the man or his kid first? Did you say the man? Well why're you attacking people in the first place? Oh... right... hypothetical. Point is, terrorists knew who they were screwing with. They wanted to go after the boss, the head honcho, the United States of America.3) Colonialism is deadGhandi took that little sucker and dropped kicked it back into the 15th century from whence it came.That is all.