BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap battle

Here I Go Ya think ya the king, But your rein long pass Cuz like Ceaser I kicked ya out and killed your crazy a** Ya think ya can start and attack me with full on approach But knowing your smarts, I can squash ya like f****** cock roach yep Ya think ya the boss, But no one listens to you Because your intelligence is the equilvilent to stinky dog poo Ya think ya stand up to me, And wanna try my life ya think can roll over me and stab me with a knife Nice to know ya can dream, Because all that Sh** is make believe Because I am an deadly python that can strike ya before u can try 2 make me bleed My rhymes are like an atomic bomb on Hiroshima Japan While your rhymes are like an crumble up paper in a trash can Ya think ya defeat me unlimited ruling power I defeat an enemies like u and leave them feeling sour The classes you're referring to doesn't exist It's made up in your head, Forming lies; what a twist Ya think ya got everything in control like ya won't be retreating But at the end, Everyone knows that who will get the finale beating (your turn) (your turn)
Rap battle

Ayo, I ain't never scared, B-ch I'm everywhere Hoodie'd up, Gun, Vest, Gloves that's my metal gear Address me correctly like I was never there Its not a threat deposit the check, Lets get it clear Take caution, The King is coming b*ch I'm O. G status, Don't talk to me I'm running sh*t I never ran I stay up on that field never fumble sh*t My team gone hold me down incredible coverage I pay my dues all my debts paid in full If you eating, I run up in that restaurant and take your food Step aside, Yes I'm high I'm hotter than Jamaican food Yes I'm high eyes more chingy than an asian dude Who you know that's f*cking with me, Name a few Guarantee you name the fools and trust me I will flame them too Put your money up I'm way too much for them I will lay em all down flat like a comforter When I come for them, You gone have to comfort them Cause I bring it straight to the front of them I done did the math on they a*ss that's a sum on them I'm good with the knife, No gun on them I'll slice on they left side to go numb on them Who lyrically matches me, None of them Word to Nicki, Man I'm sonnin' em When it come to them bars I got a ton of em I'm a new kind of sick, I ain't been diagnosed And I do my own thing I aint d*ck riding most; In fact I ain't d*ck riding none You need to quit your sh-t wack my son; I think I'm the hotter one Hands down you need to stand down You ain't in my class all you are is a class clown The rap scene is like a playground I ran 'round All comp' must die, Trust I'll lay em down Your turn
Rap battle

Here it goes (rap fast, Its fast pace) I heard ya think ya got the bars, Ya think you got the beat But when ya hear my hard lyrics, Ya a** goanna retreat Ya accept the challenge like it will be so easy But when I finished this battle ya voice will lifted scratched up like weezy Ya think you the boss I see how ya carry out your self But I will slice ya beats in half with my skill and stealth I got an advantage that is used very right can access and find your kyrptonite After that ya gonna be a pest Put some acid on ya, Then my victory be a success Ya think ya could destroy me easily and get me flamed But douse ya with water, Ya a** will be ashamed New but born with this fine rapping skill with it I will humiliate ya and make ya face messed up like little bill Cuz me and my homeys were raised in the new york street We can find your flaws and make ya suffer from defeat Ya think ya got the rhyme master But let me tell ya, Ya just another o' dirty bast*** (your turn)
pop in school

Pop is good lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol
pop in school

First; I will take 'pop' to be the commonly-used American word for fizzy drink. 1. Dehydration; fizzy drinks are often substituted for water, but they don't have the same beneficial effect. Their water content is low, and they often contain caffeine, which acts as a diuretic and causes us to urinate, losing more water. 2. Acid content, which is high, and enough to gradually wear away the enamel of your teeth. No more space. http://healthyeating.sfgate.com...
Rand Paul will win the 2016 presidential election

I accept. The resolution today makes an affirmative statement predicting the future - stating not that Rand Paul *should* be the next president, but that he will be. In other words, in order to actually prove this claim, PRO would need to have either a crystal ball or some extremely substantive poll data proving beyond a shadow of doubt that Rand will win. However, he provides us with nothing of the sort - he only says that Rand is "the only candidate to restore the country. " Obviously this is an opinion, and he personally favors Rand. However, this does not mean that Rand *will* win. Support of one person does not necessitate that any event will actually happen, and obviously people's chosen candidates - including Rand's father, Ron - have in fact lost. Therefore, PRO cannot fulfill his burden of proof.
Christian God = Loving Father

Definitions/OpeningA loving father is equally wise as he is helpful. What I mean by that is, a father who baby's his kid for his/her entire life will not be doing any favors. A father must show the kid love while also correcting his misbehaviors throughout his life. If a father helped his kid every single time that the kid was in trouble, then he/she would never be independent.Now, I contend that the Christian God is a loving Father, because He gives us the right amount of knowledge of Him with the right amount of care to not make us too dependent on Him but so that we can be strong individuals making a difference in the world. ArgumentMy opponent can not objectively say that the Christian God is not loving. Let me explain what I mean by this:If there is no God, then our universe came to exist on its own, and after some point in time, humans arrived. Before humans, there was no such thing as "right" and "wrong". Morality would be a human invention. Also, two different humans could have two separate ideas of what morality is, and neither person could be more "right" or more "wrong" than the other, because morality is a social construct that is subjective to each person. So if my opponent says that the Christian God is not loving, he is doing so with his subjective opinion vs my subjective opinion. And neither one of us would be right or wrong.If God does exist, His eternal nature is good. That means goodness is an objective value that we can use as a standard. "Badness" is the going away from God's nature. If my opponent wants to argue that God is not loving, he must show what standard He is using. If he uses a subjective standard, he will not be right or wrong, and will lose, as I am using an objective standard, which can be right or wrong. However, if he appeals to an objective standard, he must confess a God to do so. Now, he could still do this without philosophically shooting off his own foot- He would just need to use another concept of an eternal God (that would not be the Christian/Judaic/Islamic God).ConclusionMy opponent must show what standard he is using to validate his idea of a loving and moral father. It must be something above his personal opinion (as if this were just an argument about personal opinions, we may as well be arguing which is better, chocolate ice cream or vanilla ice cream).I look forward to my opponent's rebuttals. Cheers!
Christian God = Loving Father

This should be interesting. There is only one source to lay the grounds for this debate: The bible! We will use the bible to determine the benevolence of the Christian God. (Would argue the Muslim god but I'm pretty sure they are the same dude. You may remember the origin of monotheism: Judaism which spawned the Christians and Muslims alike!! To my opponent: The rules for this debate are pretty open but I will not be requiring that we use each chapter and verse as sources unless challenged. I will be using my memory and experiences for most of the debate because researching the bible for information I already know exists seems tedious but if challenged I will make the effort! Also I want to mention that I am not a father, so I will have to go with observation as my backbone in this debate! "Loving Father": We need to define this concept. Set it in stone. We should come to an agreement on what should be acceptable description of a loving father! Once when I was 6 my father told not to touch the wood stove, so of course, I did. Hotter than anything I have ever touched since. It blistered my finger badly! My father came back from the bathroom and saw me welling up holding back the tears... He looks at me and says "WHAT!!!!" That was a crossroads for my father... would he get angry for my misbehavior and discipline me to teach me that I should always listen to him or would he have fear for your safety? My dad was never a very affectionate guy. Sometimes I think he had no clue what he was doing, but at that moment when he realized how much pain I was in he jumped into action getting me anything he could think of to make me feel better! Bottom line: When a father sees his child suffering he wants nothing more than to bare the pain unto himself! A loving father does not require that you make sacrifices because he would do it for you! A loving father does not ever stop loving his child no matter which path the child walks! That is my definition, you can open with yours! Begin your debate in round 1 so we do not waste rounds arguing the definition of a loving father!
Christian God = Loving Father

Con: My conclusion for this debate is that morality is unreliable. It can be manipulated into any form by the powers that beThis proves exactly what I have been saying from the beginning. If morality is subjective, then the ethical systems of society will contiually change for the rest of time. My opponent does not like the moral system of the Mosaic Law, so he creates is own ethical system, and then based on his own system, argues that the Mosaic Law is not ethical. This is circular reasoning. My opponent continually failed to account for an objective moral system for the entirety of the debate, only showing that, yes, if morality is subjective, then anyone can manipulate it, just as he has. The Scriptures do not demand the Mosaic Law system for all generations or for all people. The Mosaic Law lasted from around 1500 BC to AD 33, when Christ was resurrected. This system only applied to Hebrews. My analysis still remains- this set of laws was the best ethical system for a tribal community that existed millenia ago. The Mosaic Law ended with Christ, and He stated the ethical system for all people for all ages: "Love God and love your neighbor as yourself". This is the objective moral system that has existed since the beginning of mankind.My opponent only holds very negative thoughts towards religious people, and exhausts as much space as he can with inherently disingenuous remarks. He criticizes God for not being loving, yet he does not use respect towards religious people. I see this as hypocritical.I tried my best to make this a rational debate, but my opponent only wanted to use his rounds as an excuse to rant about his distaste for religion. He avoided the important issue of objective morality, but instead used circular reasoning in attempts to discredit God as a loving Father.My opponent wishes that the Christian God does not exist. If God does not exist, this is reality:Love and reproduction only cause pain. When humans bring a child into the world, the child comes into it crying. As it grows older, it realizes that one day it will eventually die and cease to exist for eternity, and also that the universe will cease to exist at one point. This overwhelmingly wretched truth is too much for humans- so they go about their monotonous and repetitive lives to forget about the meaninglessness of it all. They create a lie that says they can create their own happiness, even though they will perish one day and be forgotten for eternity. Why bring a child into this wicked world? Love is self-refuting.But if the Christian God exists, then there can be real love. The righteous will be resurrected to an eternal life. This makes the Christian God a loving Father.
Christian God = Loving Father

Con immediately uses the fallacy of equivocation to assume that every concept of god is the same, and then he uses a faulty generalization to argue that they are all mythological without any valid reasons or evidences to do so. He seems to have missed my point entirely, and then goes on to plead that morality is subjective, showing that he has no valid arguments against the Christian God other than his own subjective view of love.Con also uses a faulty genereralization to assume the doctrine of eternal punishment from the Christian God. This concept is promoted by many unlearned Christians, when in actuality the Christian God teaches that the wicked will be annihilated. Atheists say that there is no life after death, and God grants their wish. I fail to see how this is unjust- the atheists do not want eternal life and they are not granted it.In conclusion, con argues from his paradigm of moral relativism. This means that his opinions are not truer than mine. He can not object to my opinions, nor can he show any valid argument as to why his opinions would be better, as there is no such thing as 'good' and 'evil'. However, as I am arguing from a paradigm of objective morality, I can argue that he is incorrect in thinking that the Christian God is not loving, He grants the righteous the promise of a resurrection, and instructs those who are willing on how to be righteous people. How can this God not be described as a loving father?
Devyani Khobragade: US was wrong, but India is being immature !!

why is Con crying out loud that I have plagiarized my points as i just want to tell that I had no intention or motive to copy from another site, as in recent past, i had gone through this discussion very often and i had read from various sources about this whole issue. so, maybe this time points have matched as the Con is saying in his previous argument. I just wanted to ask CON that are you Indian ??? I have just asked this question because the way you are talking for that girl i.e Devyani is just unacceptable as I am a Proud Indian citizen and I will always stand for my mother land and I really feel that US behaviour towards Indian diplomat was quiet harsh and rude. The conduct and attitude that the US government has shown regarding the Devyani khobragade issue is a matter of concern not only for India but also for all countries and everyone should raise their voice against such ruthless behaviour. Con's point that Devyani had come to US on her own will is totally null and void as we all that She Is an Indian diplomat living in US and it's her work and duty to work for India.
Devyani Khobragade: US was wrong, but India is being immature !!

well said Con...but the thing is it was totally disgusting how the Indian diplomat " devyani khobragade" was arrested and strip-searched. It"s not the first time an Indian diplomat has gotten in trouble over this issue " last February, Neena Malhotra was ordered to pay $1.5 million to her former maid for "barbaric" conditions. But there was no strip-search, no jail time and, therefore, no mass protests. So why this time in case of Devaynai khobragade. morever, Khobragade was impounded with people who faced drug-related charges and rape charges. However, the American scriptwriters who choreographed the Devyani episode apparently did not account for a strong and swift retaliation by India. After all, the Americans have been doing this routinely to prominent Indians " not just stars like Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan and Aamir Khan but also to political dignitaries like former President APJ Abdul Kalam, former Defence Minister George Fernandes and serving Indian ambassadors and top diplomats. The Americans never imagined that the Indian government which routinely allowed itself to be like a doormat in innumerable cases of humiliation would act so decisively in the case of a little known mid-level diplomat and the whole of India, cutting across the party lines, would erupt in support.
Devyani Khobragade: US was wrong, but India is being immature !!

Devyani Khobragade treated her houseworker as a wage slave and expected to get away with it. That is ridiculous, as is her lawyer's excuse that she can't afford to pay the minimum wage ($1600/month). if you can't pay for the child, don't have one. The US treatment of her is ridiculous as well. She is a diplomat and deserves a few extra perks, being detained diplomatically and not having strip searches for a crime that wouldn't require it. If she were caught smuggling something, a cavity search would be warranted, but this was different. The Indian reaction, screaming Tit for Tat, an Eye for an Eye, will leave everyone blind. It's immature and ridiculous, and forcibly removing the security barriers at the embassy is dangerous, especially in a country that has had dozens of bombings in the past two decades. Does India forget the support that the US offers it, the welcoming of its citizens as residents and immigrants (who send home billions of dollars a year in remittances) and everything else that comes with a diplomatic relationship? No, obviously not, the Indian government and people would rather take out their frustrations on the US because it's an easy target. It's easier for India's politicians to gain some short term street credibility with their constituents by screaming loudly and spreading hate than it is to focus on their own very real problems.
Capitalism works

I would be honoured to contend with him once again. Let us start with your first contention: 'Anyone can become rich' 1. This is literally the antithesis of capitalism. We can bring up a case of saturation. If everyone was rich, no one would be rich. That's the issue. The fact remains that not everyone has equal opportunity. Think of the third world or even people who are broke in the first world. Everything is run by gian corporate monopolies. If the means of production are owned by an individual, there can be no contender. The law of value explains the occurence in which the proletariat must seek shelter with the bourgeois. [1] Let us take into consideration how the capitalist system works. It is based on the accumulation of capital and competition. Let us think of a small business owner who wants to start a small shop in the same town in which a giant corporate monopoly is present. This creates competition within the local market and is a threat to the aforementioned monopoly. As exchange value of the produced commodities rises, the small shop-keeper is driven out of business and his shop subsidized by the corporate monopoly. Where will he seek profit? Through labour. Labour has no value on its own[1], instead its produced commodities do. Exploitation arises when the value of commodities and labour increases. 2. Already addressed in the first argument with the example of the small shopkeeper. 3. This argument makes no sense. What do you mean 'anyone can do anything'? That literally means nothing. If you're referring to the fact that anyone can create a business and become rich; that has already been refuted. .. 4. It does not provide food, in fact, it removes food. With the rising market prices how can anyone hope to afford the extremely expensive loaf of bread? Again, think of the third world. Starvation has been present althroughout capitalism, as has unemployment (which usually also leads to starvation). Your arguments are fallacious and repetative. Please take this debate seriously. Sources: [1]. http://www.marxists.org...
Capitalism works

ok, Im gonna challenge that commie t*rd to a rematch. This time im gonna do what he did. 1.Capitalism works because anyone can become rich 2.It helps small businesses 3.Everyone can do anything 4.It gives you food!!!! YOU WOULD BE STARVING IF YOU DIDNT HAVE CAPITALISM!!! Hope to see you beat that commie. And don't even bring up your fancy sh*t. I want simple stuff.
Abortion is First Degree Murder

I feel like this debate was misleading because you seem to want me to argue that fetuses are not humans as evident by what you said here "If, on the other hand, Con is able to establish even a zygote's non-humanity against my given evidence, he will without question be the winner of this debate.", when the resolution is that abortion is first degree murder, so I would only need to prove that abortion is not first degree murder acording to it, but now you say that I need to prove fetuses are not human. These are two completely different things. Further evidence that pro wants me to do this is that their entire argument is based on establishing the humanity of fetuses/zygotes. I would argue that this isn't sufficient to prove it is first degree murder though, because there are clearly other parts to the definition of first degree murder that pro provided.Due to this, I don't think I will be continuing the debate and I would like to ask to have this debate deleted, if pro is only wanting to make this debate about the humanity of fetuses. If, however, I can argue from a different standpoint that shows abortion doesn't fit the definition of first degree murder, then I will write something next round.
Abortion is First Degree Murder

Pro will be arguing that the abortion of a human embryo is 1st degree murder.Con will be arguing that abortion is not 1st degree murder.Definitions for the DebateAbortion: The deliberate removal or action to cause the expulsion of an embryo from the womb of a human female, at the request of or through the agency of the mother, so as in fact to result in the termination of said embryo.Human: A genetically distinct living being of the species Homo sapien. Embryo: Any developmental stage of a human after conception, from zygote to birth.1st Degree Murder: "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing. . .or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree" (1).Primary Issue of The DebateThis debate is concerned with the biological identity of a human fetus during embryonic development. I contend that a human embryo at any stage of development is in fact a genetically distinct living human being, and thus the willful termination of said being is murder in the 1st degree. My opponent must argue that an embryo does not fall within the biological definition domain of "living human being" until a certain stage of development. "The central legal aspect of the abortion conflict is whether fetuses have a basic legal right o live, or, at least, a claim to live. The most important argument with regard to this conflict is the potentiality argument, which turns on whether the fetus is potentially a human person and thus should be protected" (2). The scientific demonstration of a human embryo as "living" or not will determine the victor of this debate.Rules of The DebateRound 1 - AcceptanceRound 2 - Opening Arguments (No Rebuttals)Round 3 - Rebuttals (No New Arguments)Round 4 - Defense of Arguments ( No New Rebuttals)*No logical fallacies*Only science arguments*No philosophical or moral argumentsReferences1 - https://www.law.cornell.edu...2 - http://www.iep.utm.edu...