BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap battle 2

I read your forum topic 'bout stuff you regret,/ admittedly, trying to bully, the opposite sex,/ askin' for forgiveness, but you lost all respect,/ another rookie mistake, you have to learn to accept,/ quit disrespecting women, and puffin yo chest,/ pick a fight with a man, instead of some breast,/ or I'll have my queen check you, like a game of chess,/ you peasant like pawn pieces, super lame at best,/ I noticed you said "flutter", 'cause you fly with a studder,/ you "yellow" like margarine, I cant believe you're not butter,/ utter another rhyme and I'll show you how to word it,/ exchange your wack lines, for some flows picture perfect,/ I dissed yo moms, when she didn't deserve it,/ giving birth to the crap, that gave rap a disservice,/ Is it her, or is it you? Well you did it on purpose,/ So she cant be blamed 'cause your lyrics are worthless,/ you a hurt mess, hoping the people aint heard yet,/ how I beat you the first battle and left more than your nerves wrecked,/
Rap battle 2

The only reason you talk about my momma is cuz you have girl drama You fantasize about old women cuz they weaker, meditate like Dalai Lama Get your head out of the gutter, spread yo' wings out n' flutter If i battled you in real life, all i hear are stutters when you try to rhyme with "b-b-utter" You need a hearing aid to get paid with kool-aid You think age comes wisdom cept' your rottin' brain Cuz you keep repeatin' the same ol' failed methods You lag behind crippled all injured with no work ethics Cuz you been livin' under a basement That's why your profile pic is in defacement I show my face out in public, you cower in fear still bathin in trailer trash as you sip on 90's beer This dude lives with nothin' but fake plastic deer Old man still hangin' with them n*ggas down the block Some bully comes up on you, takes your cd n' your album drop In this round, i'ma let you be a wicked bigot n' make you slain in the spirit This round you gettin' one dose, next round you receivin' the Holy Ghost
Rap battle 2

Lookin like yo mom had sex wit a treasure troll,/ I'm 37 but my lyrics are never old,/ they treasure troves, while yours are never bold,/ the greatest lies, on the microphone ever told!,/ dont need a gun to prove that you weak,/ take you by your bird's beak and slam you into the street,/ fill your nostrils with concrete, and dare you to tweet,/ Youtube yo a*s whippin for the "Vid of the Week",/ World star hip hop, get yo a*s beat,/ Is that new enough for you, or shall I further defeat?/ Youre too young to understand the complexities of war,/ and apparently, the intricacies of metaphors,/ one who ignores, what an education is for,/ Therefore, lacking the skill to come at me with more,/ 'cause with with age, comes experience and wisdom,/ Lots of old cats killed young ones that dissed em,/ This is a warning, "learn to think twice"/ If you plan to survive, without an old man's advice,/
Objective Morality Does Not Exist

Definitions [1]Objective : (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. Subjective : based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Morality : principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. If you intend to argue from a theological standpoint, then please present a definition for God in your opening round. StructureCon may elect to use Round #1 for acceptance only or to present arguments. If the latter is chosen, then Con must waive the final round in order to maintain an equal number of opportunities to argue. The rest of the debate shall not follow any specific structure. [1] Oxford Dictionaries - . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com......
The earth is expanding (part 2)

"I'm right and they're wrong that's why I lost they're all brainwashed" is a very delusional, Alex-Jonesy excuse. Kind of ridiculous. 1a. The article you supplied ISN'T too long and IS related! I was talking about how the theory that gravity is increasing is totally unrelated to yours. I am saying that, without evidence that my proposed theory is WRONG and without evidence that your theory is RIGHT this is a useless argument. I can not debate that article because it is BASED ON YOUR THEORY. To debunk it I must DEBUNK YOUR THEORY, which, at this point, I have already done. On top of that, the article does not combat my theory, but rather provides and alternate one. Again, in order to debunk it, I must debunk the theory behind it, which I have done, if you do not pose new arguments. 1b. Wait wait, you are SUPPORTING that theory? I thought your theory was that gravity increased BECUASE OF THE EARTH INCREASING IN SIZE. Please, make up your mind. 2. I'm sorry, but you are still not clear on what your theory is. You never provided any evidence and proof on WHY this works! Please, do, I'm interested. 3. I'm not going to deconstruct ANOTHER VIDEO on what I have already debated, and most importantly, once again, I AM DEBATING YOU NOT YOUTUBE!
The earth is expanding (part 2)

The reason that I have not won a debate on this website is because this website is a fractal of the real world. This website is corrupt and evil and is controlled by biased, corrupt and evil persons. The mainstream physics world is all about preserving old redundant theories that should have past away over a century ago. The education system supports these old redundant theories and brainwashes young children with these theories. The science world is a world where complication is considered as a virtue and is a prized possession of the science elite. In order to preserve there high status and high income, scientists must preserve the mystique of complication and difficulty. Thus, a simple universe is undesirable and must be hidden from the general public. Thus, all the theories that I am challenging on this website are simplifications of how nature really works which is far less complicated than we are told by the science elite. Now, back to the debate. Animal size and gravity. My opponent doesn't accept the evidence that I have supplied. Reason - "The article is too big and detailed and doesn't relate to my theory." This is a pathetic response. Now I am supplying TOO MUCH information. Before he complained that I wasn't showing enough information. Thus, we can plainly see that my opponent is playing political gamesmanship of never being satisfied regardless of what evidence that I supply. Doesn't relate to my theory? The article doses explain how gravity increased. Its simply a matter of a light beam creating a positron and electron pair. https://www.sciencealert.com... This confirms my theory that left and right spin particles come together to make matter. E=MC2 Thus, the speed of light squared equals matter. Two particles of aether which are spinning at the speed of light are pushed together to create one neutron. A neutron is a small black hole which the positron and the electron rotate around. Thus we have the first atomic particle which is the hydrogen atom. This is why hydrogen is the most common element because its the first element to be created and makes the foundation for larger atoms to form. See video below for a complete analysis of all the data regarding expanding Earth .
The earth is expanding (part 2)

First of all - Lets check out my opponents avatar and history profile page. Hmmmmm????????? He is a 19 year old who is 14 years of age and finished school in 2012. Really!!!!!!! Clearly, my opponent is a congenital liar and can't be trusted. Now, did my opponent create 2 avatars and vote for himself in the last debate on this issue? Answer - Most likely. lol But, lets ignore all those negative possibilities and pretend that my opponent is genuine and is not a liar and is not a cheat. lol 1. I have already explained where matter comes from but you didn't believe it. That's your problem, not mine. Being a 14 year old, you haven't done enough reading and research and have only had enough time to digest the garbage that the education system has fed into your brain. You need about another 50 years of thinking time to get to my level of understanding of the universe. The source of information is irrelevant. Its whether the information is correct or not that matters most. My sources are all correct, while your sources are all incorrect. My opponent has agreed that Alfred Wergener's drawing are very shonky and not worthy as displaying as evidence. Thank's opponent. You have just discredited your own evidence. Thus, the plate tectonic theory is unworthy. Detailed map of Pangaea. - The ancient river systems don't match the Pangaea model. Rivers are flowing to nowhere. It just doesn't make sense. Now, if you wrap Pangaea onto a smaller globe, it will fit perfectly. Now, that makes sense!!!!! 2. Earth unstable - Proof - If you get a sphere on a string and spin it around. No problem. Now, you add a piece of chewing gum to one side of the sphere and spin it again. Now, observe - sphere is unstable and wobbles. With all the land on one side of a spinning globe there would be no regular day and night pattern. Thus, life would not be able to evolve. Let's face it, the Pangaea Earth model is full of inconsistencies and errors. 3.The scientists that support the expanding globe theory are many. Nobel Prize winner Professor Carey who has written a book regarding this subject. - Theories of the Earth and Universe - A History of Dogma in the Earth Sciences. http://www.dinox.org... Note - Pluto's moon has been recently found to be expanding. 4. Expansion direction lines run from the central fault lines in the middle of the ocean and run directly to the coast. Plates do not move all the time. The flat and smooth appearance of new and recent magma fields near the central fault ridges reveals that this is further evidence of expansion. 5. Earth animal sizes have reduced in the exact proportion according to specific gravity and Earth size. http://www.dinosaurhome.com...
The earth is expanding (part 2)

I will prove my theory is correct by proving that continental drift is incorrect. Thus, this will leave my opponent with nothing left to hold on to and then he must concede defeat on this matter. This video shows that Alfred Wergener's theory of continental drift is based on false data and that the rock ages have been falsely presented. We can see from the video that the land mass that joins North America to South America has been deleted from Wergener's models of the early Earth. Thus, his theory is bogus nonsense. The concept of the Earth having one large land mass which broke up into smaller land masses is childish and doesn't comply with many laws of physics and mathematics. 1. One land mass would make the Earth unstable. 2. It is mathematically impossible that an early Earth have only one land mass because it defies the laws of probability. The mathematical laws of statistics and probability prohibit such a formation to occur. The odds would be so large for such a thing to occur that the universe isn't big enough for that number to fit into it. Whereas, the theory of Earth expansion is logical and fits the evidence perfectly. My opponent keeps ignoring the evidence. Evidence is very inconvenient to him, so he ignores it and hopes that it will go away. But, I am sorry opponent. The evidence won't go away and will keep coming back to haunt you into your grave. The fact that most of the major fault lines occur in the middle of the world's oceans should be evidence enough to prove that Earth expansion is true. There may be a little bit of subduction on some coast lines in America. But this is not typical and is relatively rare phenomenon when considering the globe as a whole. Take Africa, Australia, Antarctica, Arctic, Green land, West coast of America, China, Russia, England and Ireland. No subduction!!!!! Thus, the continental drift theory is inconsistent and illogical. Why persist with an illogical theory when a logical and rational theory is available?
The earth is expanding (part 2)

I am absolutely delighted that you wished to continue this topic with me :) I wish us both luck, and may the best debater win! Note to readers and voters: If some of the things we are talking about is unclear, this is because this is a CONTINUATION of our previous debate, which can be found here: (http://www.debate.org...) Now, without further ado, I accept this challenge and present my rebuttal! "My opponent believes that all the current continental drift theories are valid. He has obviously been brainwashed by the system. Now, according to the continental drift theory, India was once part of Antarctica and drifted about 6,000 kms north and crashed into Asia. This caused the formation of the Himalayan mountains. lol India must have had a lot of outboard motors attached to its southern border at the time. lol This theory is ridiculous in the extreme. Why did only India move so far while all the other continents didn't move? Is it because India ate to much curry and did a big fart which propelled it across the Indian ocean? lol" This statement proves that you have no understanding of continental drift, and dismiss it without any real disputes. When you say that "the other continents didn't move," you are stating and extreme falsehood. They DID move. Surely, you know of Pangea, and other super continents that came before? They did move, and so did India. You appear to have no understanding of continental drift, and in order to debunk something, you must have such an understanding. Here is a very dumbed down solution, but I recommend you read upon it in detail here: (https://www.britannica.com...) But, in brief, continents drift because of currents from the mantle. It is an extremely slow, process but over millions of years, it happens. "Now, let's have a look at a map of the world's oceans and see what the age of the rocks are in relation to the fault lines in the middle of the ocean. Hmmmmm???? The rocks which are closest to the fault lines are all very young, while the rocks further away gradually get older? Hmmmm??? What could this mean? No, it can't be! The Earth is truly expanding! Shock horror!!!!!!!!!!!" My opponent continually seems to ignore the idea of seafloor spreading. Essentially, magma is pushed up and spread out on those creases in the ocean. It pushes the older rock out, which is why to older rock is always closer to the continents. When the older rock hits the continent, it gets pushed under. Read about it here: (https://www.nationalgeographic.org...) Although there are many topics my opponent has failed to provide good rebuttals for or just simply ignored, however there is still the biggest hole in his theory which he has failed explain. WHERE DOES THE MASS COME FROM? As far as we know there is NO WAY to create matter without energy, and there is no way to create energy without matter! Therefore, if there is some sort of nuclear power plant within our planet IT WOULD NOT BE CREATING MASS! Earth is NOT EXPANDING and my opponent has, thus far, NOT been able to give a piece of unrefuted evidence!
The earth is expanding (part 2)

My opponent believes that all the current continental drift theories are valid. He has obviously been brainwashed by the system. Now, according to the continental drift theory, India was once part of Antarctica and drifted about 6,000 kms north and crashed into Asia. This caused the formation of the Himalayan mountains. lol India must have had a lot of outboard motors attached to its southern border at the time. lol This theory is ridiculous in the extreme. Why did only India move so far while all the other continents didn't move? Is it because India ate to much curry and did a big fart which propelled it across the Indian ocean? lol Now, let's have a look at a map of the world's oceans and see what the age of the rocks are in relation to the fault lines in the middle of the ocean. Hmmmmm???? The rocks which are closest to the fault lines are all very young, while the rocks further away gradually get older? Hmmmm??? What could this mean? No, it can't be! The Earth is truly expanding! Shock horror!!!!!!!!!!! https://media.nationalgeographic.org...
The earth is expanding (part 2)

Before I start my debate, I would like to state how much of a pleasure it has been debating you in this subject. Although I do not appreciate reporting votes on our last debate, I would still like wish one thing: let the best debater win! 1. Quite the opposite, I said that you haven't provided any evidence against my theory. Providing an alternate theory doesn't count. 2. I have, actually. It is because India is on it's own plate and it is much smaller than several larger continental plates you might think of. I don't see how you have proven anything. 3. How does a think crumple when it gets bigger? This makes no sense. You also have forgotten the biggest point, and besides my numerous reminders, in fact you have hardly even discussed the subject. 4. I wasn't "too lazy to watch," YOU were too lazy to debate the subjects yourself, and instead of using the video as evidence, you used it as your argument. If I wanted to debate the video I would have stuck tot the YouTube comment section. Also, may I question where this satellite data came from? And no, I don't mean the video, but where and who this information was published by. 5. The article you linked has no link to where this data comes from, on top of that using THIRTYYEAR OLD TECHNOLOGY it is extremely easy to make small two centimeter mistakes. Also, building settling can easily explain why the entire system measured TWO CENTIMETERS in THIRTY YEARS. Such a small increase. 6. Again, it is not just one continent. It is MANY plates. Therefor it is A LOT less improbable than the theory that EARTH IS EXPANDING, which rests on the idea that MAYTTER CAN COME FROM NOWHERE, which my opponent has consistently ignored, DESPITE MY NUMEROUS REMINDERS.
The Biblical God is Immoral

“So I ask the question, "What does Pro define as 'moral', and how does he determine what is moral? " Pro is an Atheist. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god(s). So there is no objective morality to Pro. There is no power declaring what is moral and what is not moral to an Atheist. Pro has taken it upon himself to declare what is "moral" based on his Christian culture passing down a sense of what is moral to him despite now being an Atheist. Atheism concludes that we are simply the remenant of natural selection. ” I am an agnostic pantheist, meaning that I would say that Pantheism is possible and maybe even likely but there is no way to know for sure with our current knowledge. Basically, I am 75% Pantheist and 25% Agnostic. Like Einstein and Thomas Paine, I consider the idea of an interventionist God childish. I believe if Pantheism is true, objective morality may also be true. Since the majority of me believes objective morality exists, I’ll claim it as a suspicion of probability in an informal conversation and a belief for the purposes of this debate. Since I believe in objective morality, it doesn’t matter what the majority of the population thinks if it is contrary to objective morality. So, now we have established we both believe in objective morality. By definition, objective morality means that it is unchanging. We cannot propose that while rape may be wrong now, in the future it might be acceptable. We cannot propose that while the torture of a small child is wrong for one person to commit, it might be acceptable for a person with higher authority (such as a king) to commit. Objective morality says it is wrong to murder someone for working on a particular day. “Pro must show us the Biblical God's motives and the reason for this command. ” No I don’t. Killing someone for working on Sunday is wrong, not matter what someone’s motives were and that should be obvious. If you read in the news about some guy murdering his children for working on his birthday, would you wonder if he was moral? Would it matter what his “motives” were? Objective morality would say that it is wrong in all circumstances and virtually everyone would agree. I think both objective moralists and subjective moralists would consider that verse immoral. One doesn’t have to have an outside source to impart the knowledge that it is immoral. “My next point is that Pro does not believe the Biblical God exists. So how can you claim someone who "does not exist" is immoral? ” Because of the position I was taking in the argument, it was apparent I don’t believe that the god of the Bible exists. It was also obvious I was proposing that the character known as the God of the Bible is immoral. Con must argue as to why it is moral for the Christian god to murder someone for working on Sunday. I have made a strong case for my argument that has easily withstood Pro’s attacks to my position. Con has not presented anything to support his position that the Christian god is moral for murdering people for working on Sundays.
The Biblical God is Immoral

The Biblical God can be shown to be immoral for many reasons. One of those reasons is that he commanded that people that work on Sundays should be put to death. Exodus 35:2 (King James Version) “Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.” According to the bible, it is without error and inspired by God. Psalms 12:6 “the words of the Lord are flawless”. “Biblical God” refers to the God as described in the Christian Bible. Bible (definition): The infallible word of God.