BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap Battle.

ooh, like Patsox, you pulled a thinking cap out of your hatbox You think you're old school, but all you say is just verisimiltudinous You don't speak of the actual, all you know is virtual No friends, talking to yourself, like "damn, this battle is eludin' us" Come on man, stop being so dense–your lyrics still don't make sense You don't spit fire? That just makes you a liar For taking this debate, you basically just conceded Any more trashing just isn't needed, but you just pleaded for a bashing Haha, if you're Serpent, doesn't that mean you're in second place? I'm Rijndael, the undecipherable, I make your head race Can't you understand? Maybe I'm too intelligent It's called a homonym, stop being so belligerent When you don't know what you're talking about My words bring rain, yours just bring a drought My sick heat gives you pain, you've got another strikeout Drop in a change-up, switch up my flow You can grab some bench, eat some crow For even thinking you can step to me, even crept close I'm too ill, it's an overdose I'd go in for the kill, but you know what they say about a dead horse Equus Mortuus, yeah, I know some Latin, a Knight in White Satin A dead rat? Uh… great? Wack raps like those are what've sealed your fate This hack's done, it's a wrap, you can have the last word, it'll just be too late What? My intelligence is like a potato salad? Weak Spanish and now weak English? Nothing you say is valid Someone lend a hand, cause I just can't understand What you're saying, you've failed in your slaying Just an a-ss braying, brick-laying, sick daying Lazy a-ss fool, so watch my word flaying I spin illness with my spool, legendary rhyming beast Yours are like gruel, my words are like a feast For the mind, blind you with my shine A harder MC than I you'll never find You're a computer? Well, you've succumb to my Trojan (P. S. –the same kind your mom forgot to use) The best weapon against enemy is another, Nietszche said Your guys Locke and Marx don't even agree, there's trouble ahead I've locked on, I have the mark, aim for your head, get ready for the bloodshed You follow two opposed ideals? Or maybe you just didn't understand what they said Then let me tell you about Kant: he says you're useless A bookend, the dumbest on the shelf, your life is just a mess If you follow him, you'll just be led to a dead end Nothing to live for, into the depths you'll descend You'll be done, just like in this battle My verses are epic, yours are just prattle I'm the wolf, dictating your moves and you're just cattle So high I'm on the Moon, like Keith Everybody chants my name and you're just the… who? Get a clue Maybe your getting owned was really a godsend Now you can break out of your downtrend Mend your life, amend for trying to battle me Stop trying to pretend and get yourself a real friend But for now, you've been defeated, the audience can be seated The Pharoah, I dealt the deathblow, played the maestro Painted this tableau with my verbal airflow Unending magic like Romani Chateau Set this aglow with my flow like a flambeau Anyway, we can keep going gung-ho, but there's just one thing left to say It's the way to go.
Gods Plan According to Christian Theology is the Correct Plan Compared to Lucifer

::Quote:: "sought to destroy the agency of man" Moses 4:3 1) If I destroy something, it is destroyed. 2) If I take away the free will of something, it still is alive but without free will. Therefore, not destroyed. Therefore, free will has nothing to do with destruction. ::Hell:: This is open to interpretation. ::People wants us to sin:: "Devils plan was not to let people sin. " Again, this is open to interpretation. Nevertheless, he lets us sin at the moment hence hes plan is more correct. ::Closing:: Many arguments of my opponent are open to interpretation or are just incorrect. However, one thing that we can be sure of is that we can sin right now (something that devil allows) - this is what we want and while its not a good choice it is what we want,hence, the fact that this is more correct doesn't change. ::Please remember:: "My argument: 1. People want to sin. 2. Devils lets us to sin unlike God. 3. Therefore, the Devils plan is correct." (Round 2) My opponent never rejected the third premise meaning that he agrees that the third premise makes this plan more "correct".
Gods Plan According to Christian Theology is the Correct Plan Compared to Lucifer

---Free Will--- Devils plan was to take away free will. “sought to destroy the agency of man” Moses 4:3 ---Go to hell--- Almost no one will go to hell, only Satan, his followers, and the sons of perdition. Everyone else will be in some form of heaven. Heaven: http://lds.org... Hell: http://lds.org... ---People want to sin--- Devils plan was not to let people sin. His plan was to take away the agency (free will) of man. We would be robots unable to sin. ---Closing--- My arguments were: 1. Gods plan will bring us happiness in mortality and eternity. 2. It is the plan people on earth wanted. 3. God is omniscience and omnipotent he know what’s best, Lucifer doesn’t. 4. People want free will. 5. Devil will be God. Con was unable to negate any of my points and he didn’t even know what Lucifer’s plan was. It is clear that Gods plan was better than Lucifer’s.
Gods Plan According to Christian Theology is the Correct Plan Compared to Lucifer

"3. God is omniscience and omnipotent he know what's best, Lucifer doesn't." 1) This doesn't change the value of their plans. 2) For example, God is still sending people to hell. 3) Therefore, Satan's plan is better. ::Moses quote:: The book of Moses ? Never mind that, how does this change Satan's acceptance of sin ? ::No free will:: I need quotes to support this preferably from the Bible.
Gods Plan According to Christian Theology is the Correct Plan Compared to Lucifer

Thank You Con! ---Opening--- 1. Gods plan will bring us happiness in mortality and eternity. 2. It is the plan people on earth wanted. 3. God is omniscience and omnipotent he know what’s best, Lucifer doesn’t. 4. People want free will. 5. Devil will be God. ---Rebuttals--- 1. “People want to sin.” The Devils plan wasn’t about sinning. The Devils plan was to take away free will on earth. Then everybody by force would return to God. “sought to destroy the agency of man” Moses 4:3 2. “Devils lets us to sin unlike God.” Devil would actually let us sin less than God. God gives us free will and we are able to make mistakes and grow. Lucifer’s plan was no Free Will, so we would be like robots and do what God wanted. "I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor”" Moses 4:1 3. 3.By Cons own standards Gods plan is better, because we would be able to sin more. ---Closing--- By CONS own argument I win the debate. Lucifer’s plan was not about allowing us to sin. His plan was about taking away our free will. With no free will we would be able to sin even less. By my points and CONS points I win the debate.
Gods Plan According to Christian Theology is the Correct Plan Compared to Lucifer

"The Plan of Salvation Gods plan is meant to bring us maximum happiness" What about those who go to hell ? My argument: 1. People want to sin. 2. Devils lets us to sin unlike God. 3. Therefore, the Devils plan is correct. "Therefore, just because you don't follow Gods plan doesn't make lucifers plan better. God is a merciful God, he sent his only begotten to die on the cross, so we could be forgiven. God gives us ample opportunities to dwell in glory with him." 1. Yes but that doesn't change how "correct" Gods plan is. 2. Humans still want to sin. 3. Therefore, Devils plan is still correct. "The only people who don't like Gods plan are those who don't heed to it. If you follow the plan that God laid forth you will be happy, if not miserable." 1. All men are sinners.(Romans 3:23) 2. Therefore, humans don't heed the Gods plan. 3. Therefore, Devils plan is correct.
Witchcraft is not satanism.

http://m.voices.yahoo.com... Wiccans or Satanists. These include: 1) Never forcing anyone to abandon their religious beliefs. You can worship whatever God you want to we don't care. There are even agnostics and atheists in both Wicca and Satanism. The attitude is generally this: "What God I worship is my business not yours. Also, what God you worship is your business and not mine." 2) "You can teach your children what you want. Again we don't care '" as long as my kids do not have to listen to it or my tax dollars support it." 3) No cannibalism. That's a baddie. 4) No harming children. That's pretty much an unforgiveable baddie in both belief systems. 5) No plans for world domination. Now,this writer knows that I've mentioned this before, but that's only because I know some of you weren't paying attention earlier. 6) Respecting nature is important. There are some Wiccans who will quibble that they respect Nature more than Satanists,but there are many Satanists who quietly do what they can to help the environment and animals. 7) All individuals are free to make their own choices about their lives,thank you very much. Other Comparisons Both Wiccans and Satanists use five-pointed pentagrams as their symbols. However, Wiccan pentagrams have their single point faacing upwards,while Satanists have their pentagram's single point facing downwards or at a rakish angle.
Sex Ed at an Early Age

Hi, So recently my 11 year old sister has been coming home with what her school describes as " goodie bags" but I would describe them plainly as knock up protection. She is going through her sex ed module at school and I have been hearing her saying things such as she put a condom on dildo, learnt about pubic hair and rape as well as other disturbing issues.. even sexually attraction and why a man gets a boner. When I found this out I was like WOOOW.. they only just starting telling my age about this last year ( my final year of secondary). I already know about all these things of course but the fact that they are teaching from that age.. is slightly disturbing. Even my 6 year old cousin knows what a penis, vagina, all about sexual attraction and how to " make babies". At first this creeped me out a little that the fact we need to tell people of such a young age all about this .. but soon you start to realise that it is mostly necessary, more for girls than boys to be quite honest. You never know what kind of people are out in the world and things are very different to what they used to be. Honestly, I am creeped out but slightly relived as I hope my sister would have the sense to do the right thing in these terms.. But please.. do tell me what you think. Should this be taught.? Or are children of this age truly TOO young to get their head wrapped around this type of thing just yet x
Sex Ed at an Early Age

You're welcome, however, 6 years old is a very young age. I'm sure they would have questions and have access to things that would scare and shock them. At this point, I feel it's more up to the parents than any school system. If they notice their child is curious about sex or is showing more involvement in sexual topics, then, they wanted, they could educate their own child about it. Not outright diagrams and condom lessons, but the basics, essentially the "Birds and the Bees". This satisfies their curiosity, but doesn't give them a What-To-Do lesson. Though, you mentioned rape, and how to prevent it. I believe if there is sufficient cause for them to want to tell their children about it, then they should. Many people would and do try and trick uneducated children and adults into certain acts. So, if parents are concerned about their children, they can teach their children not to do certain things, or accept suspicious things or engage in any sketchy behaviors. Essentially, the "Don't Talk to Strangers" talk.
Sex Ed at an Early Age

I do agree with you, however you mentioned that it was a young age for a 6 year old to learn about things stated. This is a valid point but what if the child were to find out themselves .. this would be 10 X more scary. I think that there was a reason that they taught this to them but maybe they should of put it a bit more subtle until older years. Its a BIG thing to learn.. and the the lessons are put in place for a reason e.g rape. I think that 6 is the ABSOLUTE minimum age that ANYONE should ever learn about these things. Kids need to be aware x Thanks for your consideration x
Sex Ed at an Early Age

I understand the necessity to teach younger children about sex and how to be safe. However, there is such a thing as being too young for that. You mentioned that your 6 year-old cousin is being taught about that, which I think is not at all acceptable. I believe that somewhere around 6th-8th grade (about 11-14) is an acceptable age to teach about that kind of thing. In today's world, though, it's much easier for a younger child to learn about sex, too easy. So, if a parent prefers, they themselves should talk to their child about sex and how to be safe. Now, the method in which they teach the child is at question, as well. The idea of making children put a condom on a dildo or even a banana (I've heard of this type of thing being used in schools) is a very disturbing idea. There is a difference between educating about sex and giving children a How-To Manual. They should tell them what to use, and tell them if they need to know exactly how to use it, they should ask a parent or trusted adult.
There is a rational reason not rape and murder a child

Con reorganized the personality and mentality of the individual describe din Round 1 in Round 2. They suddenly say they care about pleasure and have a motive.In Round 1, they say the person is incapable of considering consequences of actions and the effect their actions have on other people. The entire joy of rape and murder is the knowledge that your actions are either going to make the person suffer heavily or they are going to end their life. Neither can be understood by someone void of consequence consideration and ignorant to the effects of their actions.The Round 2 individual would not get much pleasure in prison so I have no clue why someone who wants a pleasurable life would intentionally do a top tier crime that will ensure many decades of hell for themselves.Checkmate.I win this debate, thanks and goodbye.
There is a rational reason not rape and murder a child

It seems as though Pro has not found this debate worth pursuing. I will simply reiterate that an individual who feels the desire to rape and murder a child can be given no rational reason not to do so; especially if he/she fears no consequence and has no care for the emotional reactions of others. The central idea being that appeals concerning moral belief and behavior are not rational; therefore, when reason is used to make a moral appeal, it is usurped and made critically inert by the emotions involved.
There is a rational reason not rape and murder a child

1: Clarification for the sake of motivation: The hypothetical individual cares about the pleasure he/she will receive due to following an impulse to have sex with, and kill a child. Any affect on the child is secondary to the pleasure of the individual. The wording "did not care about the effects the act would have on others" was made for the sake of simplicity; I will add that the individual does not sympathize or empathize with the emotions of those who will be affected by the child"s rape and murder. But this is a semantic digression. 2: The lack of fear does not have to be due to stupidity or lack of emotion, but rather could be due to a delusional sense of power and control. An imaginary individual can have any imaginary motive required to serve the argument. Point: Pro is concentrating on semantics rather than giving a rational reason for the individual not to commit the act.
There is a rational reason not rape and murder a child

Con states some things about the individual committing the act. First they state that this individual does not care for the effect their action is having on others, secondly they state that this person has no fear of the consequences. This would mean that the person neither cared about their action resulting in the death of the other nor in the sexual molestation of them. In other words, if one is lacking any care for the future effects of their actions, they'd have no motivation to do it in the first place. One can't suddenly not care about any negative consequences but care about any positive consequences of an action. That is an unreasonable assumption for Con to make about this imaginary individual. If an individual has no worry or fear of the consequences of their action they must be either too stupid to be able to predict the result of any action they make or too unemotional to care despite knowing it. In the case of stupidity/ignorance, the person would be just as oblivious to the potential orgasm and power rush or gain of whatever kind they'd gain from the murder. In the case of the unemotional individual, if they don't care about the effect their actions would have on others, there'd be no joy of raping or killing. In other words, to be able to enjoy murder or rape, one must genuinely care about the horrific loss of power and safety they're giving their victim and must sadistically thrive in this emotional environment. If a person is simply neutral and uncaring they're more of a sociopath but not a full blown psychopath. They wouldn't have a single motive to do either act. I conclude that the individual that con has described would have absolutely no reason to commit rape or murder.
There is a rational reason not rape and murder a child

I cannot imagine a rational reason why someone who wanted to do such a thing, did not care about the effects the act would have on others, and had no fear of the possible consequences, should not. This debate is obviously intended to be disturbing and provocative. My reason for taking a devil"s advocate position concerning what many would find a thoroughly reprehensible action is because I am genuinely curious to find out if anyone can successfully formulate a rational argument against such an action; I doubt that it can be done. Surprise me.
The Confederate Flag is a Symbol of Racism.

Thank You for being understanding and letting me start off. The Confederate Flag is a flag that is just as well known as the American Flag when it comes to Americans, but it is deemed as a negative thing due to the fact that it was the flag of the enemy in the Civil War. The Civil War was extremely bloody and caused a great deal of death. Many people believe that the south is terrible too do to the fact that it wanted to keep slavery, and I can understand that, but if you were to say all people who had slaves were bad you would say that many of our founding fathers were terrible people due to the fact that they owned slaves. Also, slavery was legal in the north for quite some time. The Confederacy also tried to leave the Union due to that fact that they didn't like what the new president was trying to impose, and because of that they stood up for what they believed in. Isn't the ability to stand up for what you believe in what makes America great. I'm against slavery by the way.
The Confederate Flag is a Symbol of Racism.

Hello IsaiahaLatimer. I am accepting your challenge in hopes that we can come together as civilized individuals, to discuses a very sensitive topic. I am not here to insult, or degrade anyone's culture, beliefs, or integrity, but to instead use this as an opportunity to help me in another, similar debate with an old mentor of mine. I will let you have the first word in the second round, and would like to thank you for and wish you luck in, what I hope will be a fun and informative debate.-DeepInThought P.S. I saw that this is your first debate on the site. I would just like to welcome you, and say that I hope to see great things from you in the future.
Modern teachers know neither the universal laws of nature nor the nature of anything

Okay, let us start with something simple. the nature of a neutron.[1] We know that they are made from 3 quarks (two down quarks and one up quark). Free neutrons are highly radioactive and have extreme penetration (due to not being charged). They break down in about 15 minutes. They are key to nuclear reactions, making nuclear power possible (and controllable). We know that they balance out the nucleus of atoms to help maintain stability, and are key in all forms of radioactive decay. Would you care for more? [1] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... [2] http://www.oocities.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com...
Modern teachers know neither the universal laws of nature nor the nature of anything

I am sure that your are ignorant of the universal laws of nature. I am also sure that you cannot explain the nature of anything. Why? Your teachers have not taught them to you. Your teachers would have taught you the universal laws of nature and how to explain the nature of anything. Your teachers did not teach you the universal laws of nature and how to explain the nature of anything, because they had no idea on them. If you really know the universal laws of nature, list them now! If you really know the nature of anything, explain it know! I know that you know many things. But, you know the nature of nothing!!!!
Modern teachers know neither the universal laws of nature nor the nature of anything

"Are you sure that no one knows the laws of nature? Is there any proof to the claim that no one knows the universal laws of nautre?" Until we know everything, we won't know what we don't know, and so we don't know if there are additional laws of nature that fall into the category of "stuff we don't know." That means it is not possible to know if we know them all. Anyway, I know that we have five rounds, so that gives us plenty of time, but if you would like to provide your reasoning for your resolution, that would be much appreciated. Thank you,
Modern teachers know neither the universal laws of nature nor the nature of anything

First, let us define some terms. "Modern" = characteristic of present-day. "Universal laws of nature" = a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior. "Nature" [of anything] = the essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized. Since the word "nor" is present in the resolution, it can be taken in two parts. "Modern teachers don't know the universal laws of nature" and "Modern teachers don't know the nature of anything." The first part of this, I will pass, as no one knows all the universal laws of nature. However, some modern teachers do know the nature of some things. Since this is going to five rounds, I will pass on the rest of this round to allow my opponent to make his opening argument.
There Should be a Limit of One Black Family per Neighborhood

Many black people have respectable jobs that are beneficial to society. https://www.bls.gov... Go read this. Sure, black people cause violence, but many of the big homicidal news stories are violence caused by whites. An example of this is literally all the police shootings out there. I have seen many black people being harassed by white people. Same with Asians. Why do you think that the stereotypical bully is white? Also, band-aids don't help anything but prevent infection. They don't heal anything. Plus band-aids hurt to take off. We already have a band-aid on society that prevents it from being controlled by ridiculous people like you. Random selection? What if the people that are randomly selected murderers? Black people do not tend to drop out after middle school, that is just based off of your own personal bias.