BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap Battle: Adolf Hitler vs. Joseph Stalin

Forget all talk of Supermen and kneel Before - the original man of steel [1] Forged with Red fire, On a revolutionary pyre I consume all rivals- like the tsarists and Trotsky Feel the heat as you melt like a Snowball beneath me Now get on your knees, put your ear to the ground As my Soviet proles stomp collectively down The course of our march is dialectically sure The ranks of my men Ideologically pure. I find with most men they best not compare sizes Though your army"s not even one third of what mine is But I"m sure miss Eva is perfectly happy Despite rumors your love life gets a little bit crappy. [2] So welcome to the party! Best fall in behind me Sit down, Shut up, meet my simple criteria Or be left in the cold, out in lovely Siberia But if your views so obscured by your racist Nazi vision That you try to storm in, try to cook in my kitchen I have nothing to say that the whole world can"t see But I"ll say it real slow so you perceive it clearly WE WILL BURY YOU [1] "Stalin" is nickname that derives from the Russian word for "steel" [2] http://www.cracked.com...
Rap Battle: Adolf Hitler vs. Joseph Stalin

My name is Adolf HitlerStronger than Heinrich HimmlerMy rhymes will give you crampsStronger than concentration camps.I was the cause of the Holocaust,You can't beat me at any cost.I used to follow the Church and the Steeple,we were both ones to kill our own people.I'll slap you across your commie face,you're a disgrace to the perfect German race.It is clear I'll be the sieger (1)because your skills are just meager.Now go back to your cave, you ignorant punk.The command of your army makes you seem like you're drunk.My mustache brings me cash, your's just brings a rash.Without your allied powers, you'd immediately crash.I wrote Mein Kampf (2) and Zweites Buch (3),With the thought of me, your whole army shook.As long as I'm around, you can't get any crueler.So give up now, and bow down to the Fuhrer (4)If you challenge me, Stalin,You'll end up crawlin'!Ich bin ein Berliner (5),And with skills like these, you'll never be the winner. Frieden! (6)Translations: (1) sieger is the German word for winner. (2) Mein Kampf was a book by Hitler. It means, "My Struggle." (3) Zweites Buch was also a book by Hitler. It means, "Second Book". I know, such an excellent book title. (4) Fuhrer is the German word for leader or commander. (5) Ich bin ein Berliner translates in English to "I am a Berliner". A Berliner is a person from or somehow involved with Berlin, Germany. (6) Frieden is the German word for peace. You know, like how rappers say "peace" when they're done.
Rap Battle: Adolf Hitler vs. Joseph Stalin

This will be a rap battle, obviously. I will be rapping as Hitler, meaning you will be Stalin. The first round is for acceptance, I will post my first rap in the second round. Than we continue rap battling until the debate is over.RULES:-No vulgarity (Yes I know most raps contain this but we all can be mature here).-You must stay in character.-Your raps must be in English. You may have occasional words in your language (yours is Russian, mine is German) to add some rhyme, but English must be the most dominant language in your raps.-Raps cannot be longer than 25 lines (if you would like to change this, comment and we can discuss changing).-Your first rap (which will be in the second round) will be you introducing yourself, saying how slick your rhyme is, how cool you are, etc. So I'm Hitler, you're Stalin. Good luck.
Valentino Shoes in force a comfy look

Phew! Innuendo of the scale and dressing up in women's clothing. You're going for it punk. Top drawer, high end and all drawers below as it were. Highly stressed strings and purses on the top shelf and anything is possible. Ooh my word, short plaid skirts a go go and top drawer highly stressed string necessities. Forget the Jeans, they don't cut the mustard as it were. Jackets for the journey but pullovers ain't cutting any mustard either. Yes, you've got to be comfortable for sure, but you said it "standing out and a trendy portion" blimey! See you at the party. Oh yes! Shoes in the shoe rack, temptations and stocking wonderment, they're not a challenge, just take time out for regular practise. Val and Tina are experts and have a good relationship, interpersonal for sure and a different issue, girls together, tremendous and positive, don't knock it. Yes. Pulsing and a good fit, we're back on track. Suggestive I know, but boys together if you get my drift. Top drawer, shoe rack and all necessary accessories if you want to create the lifestyle, conformity isn't an issue. Ok, budget wisely and get the perfect little outfits, one's that feel oh so good and get the blood pumping to all the right places, no what I mean? I think you do! In the closet, out of the closet, it makes no difference. We know what we need and if that's strictness, then strictness it is. It's an acceptable way of life these days, so don't waste it.
Valentino Shoes in force a comfy look

The recession has affected the apparel market too with each of the women's clothing within affordable array. Dressing up for the party possible with costly looking clothing not making too high of a stress on your purse strings. The punk style patterns even now in vogue for the female with associated with attitude. While are the pops of neon. A person's don't in order to stand out but put in force a comfy look, an individual can still wear the evergreen jeans with a jacket or simply a pullover to spend time visiting with it. This style will do wonders if worn having a little sheet of plaid trends. It calls for a day out in concert with your friends at the trendiest portion. During this challenging associated with time change in human history Valentino Shoes there can events both good an bad. Of the negative side what there has been is tremendous change in human interpersonal relationships. For money-wise suggestion in trend, don't buy outfits from impulse. Acquire outfits which can be in conformity with your way of life. Create a list of issues will probably need and your finances strictly fot it list! Outfits purchased from impracticality is actually not simply a waste of cash, additionally a waste of http://www.salevalentinoshoes.com... closet space.
Too many tests are extra burden for students

I believe that students should not be required to take tests in school if they don't want to. The purpose of tests are to show how smart students are with the specific topic they studied and to get them to work/study harder to get better grades. The students should be able to decide weather or not they want good grades by putting their chosen amount of effort into their work and if they put their all into it, their work will pay off with good colleges, jobs, etc. On the other hand, if they don't want to put any effort into it, then that's their choice and in return they'll receive a harder time to get into a college, a hard time finding jobs that pay well, etc. As long as their amount of effort they put into their work gets them what they deserve, students shouldn't be required to take tests if they don't want to.
A permanent underclass is required for the United States' capitalist machine to function

I would like to counter this assertion if I may. The American capitalist market differs little from other models including the European in that it requires a balanced stratification of labour classes, however this does not validate a claim that any section in particular should be an "under" class per se. Presumably the underclass to which you refer would be the working class, which would indeed be required to provide labour, but does not everyone gainfully employed in some way apply their labour to that job? Does not an affluent banker "labour" for his wage as much as a street sweeper? Perhaps you mean "manual" labour. Why is it, then, that a street sweeper who may toil longer and harder than the banker be paid so much less? Upon what basis should a wage be determined? One might evade any ethical or pragmatic philosophical considerations by dismissively asserting the market as arbiter, but I could demonstrate its fallacy if you wished to resort to this platitude. As for an under-class to be consumers, here again no more so than any upper-class, but by contrast, an underclass would consume less were they not more affluent. As for being permanently constrained under the authoritarian boot of a ruling class above " what then of aspiration to rise to the upper-class and, indeed, the "American Dream"? Is it indeed nought but a dream and just as ephemeral? One class need not measure its affluence by the poverty of those below, for classes have existed since feudal times yet never has the gap between rich and poor been as great as it is now, and never more so than in America. Maybe the measuring stick is broken. I could even dispute that there cannot be night without day, for in Antarctica right now it is permanent day, and beyond the bounds of the solar system it is permanent night, but that"s mere sophistry. :-) Thank you and I look forward to hearing your views on these points.
An Anarchist State

I"ll begin by addressing my opponent"s second contention first, because I believe its defense is foundational to any foundation for the first. I believe that our original need for a government was part of the evolutionary process. Although theories regarding social evolution have received a great deal of criticism, it must be conceded in this instance that the most logical explanation for the original formation of government was to preserve the peace in the most primitive societies. As we have progressed as a species, we have seen the benefits of living in a cooperative group as opposed to living as isolated individuals. Now that this has become solidified and we have a better standard of what is ethical in the treatment of others, I assert that it would be a further progression to eliminate formal government and live as an ungoverned society. The reform I suggest regards primarily individual liberties. It is unjust for a governing force to regulate an individual beyond what is necessary to preserve order- and by order I mean that no individual"s autonomy is violated. In fact, when the government oversteps this boundary, they become the violators of autonomy. Certainly justice must consider equality and freedom. While absolute restriction might provide equality, it would not be just. Justice is also not present in situations of absolute freedom- freedom without repercussion. There is a balance, and this balance lies in the equal right to an autonomous condition. This right is best preserved without an official governing body, but in an anarchist state. This leads to the questions raised by my opponent in his first contention. In a system in which punishment for violations of autonomy is precisely dictated by "eye for eye" ethics, then a formal government is unnecessary. My opponent overlooks an important fact when extracting coercion and force from my above definition. The full phrase reads "disbelief in, and disregard of, invasion and authority based on coercion and force; a condition of society regulated by voluntary agreement instead of government". This isn"t to say that force is intrinsically negative when used in situations such as the violations of autonomy that I propose, but rather that it is harmful when this coercion and force produce invasion and authority. A government is corrupt when it uses coercion and force to violate autonomy, and an anarchic state is better suited to provide truly just freedom for those within it.
An Anarchist State

Pro's position consists of two central claims: 1. An Anarchist state could functionally exist 2. An Anarchist state is ideal (i.e., the best way for a society to operate) Pro's job is to show compelling, logical evidence for both of these claims. If they cannot, or if they can only show compelling evidence for one claim, then their argument has failed. My job is to disqualify the evidence that Pro presents. I do not have to defend an alternate solution. I will address each claim in order. 1. Functionality - An Anarchist state as defined by my opponent cannot functionally exist. Pro defines Anarchy as the absence of government and disregard of authority based on coercion or force. Yet, my opponent also says that Anarchy will have a justice system by "awarding individuals who violate the autonomy of another with an equal violation." These two ideas are incompatible. If there is no government, then how can such a justice system function? Who decides when a violation has occurred, and who administers the punishment? Who mediates disputes over personal autonomy violations? Punishing violators with an "equal violation" sounds a lot like "an eye for an eye," so I assume that if a murder occurs the culprit must also be killed. This is a coercive system that involves violence - it keeps people in line through threat of proportional retribution (coercion) and, by definition, inflicts harm on those who harm others (force). Therefore, this so called "Anarchist state" violates its own definition with a justice system that involves coercion, force, and governing decision makers. 2. Anarchy is Ideal - My opponent illustrates Anarchy's ideal nature by contrasting it with America's government. Pro claims the American system is "unjust" and therefore less ideal. To substantiate this claim however, Pro must explain why it is unjust - what definition of justice are they using? Where did that definition come from and why should we accept it? By what authority is Pro's concept of justice more correct than anyone else's? Pro must offer more than a personal opinion in order for this evidence to be considered compelling. If Anarchy is ideal, then we must ask why organized government formed in the first place? Before the rise of civilizations, all early humans operated in a state of basic Anarchy - bands of hunter gatherers with no real rules other than survival. Yet, for some reason our early ancestors rejected living in a state of Anarchy (nature) and formed governments. They willingly abandoned the unrestricted state of nature to live under state rule - why? More importantly, if Anarchy is ideal then why did those early humans not return to it after experimenting with state government? I'll stop there for now. Looking forward to the next round.
An Anarchist State

The premise referred to above is that "such a[n anarchist] state could exist functionally and would be ideal". I will make my first round brief. Although I'm sure some contention will arise as to whether such a state could exist functionally, I'll spend my time here explaining why it would be ideal. America's system of law and government is not ideal. Laws that unjustly inhibit the freedoms of the individual abound and many sentences in criminal trials seem unjustly retributive. In an anarchistic state, members would live unrestricted lives to the extent that they did not directly violate other members autonomy. The only system of criminal justice is a proportionally just retributive one, awarding individuals who violate the autonomy of another with an equal violation. I do not suggest that the behavior of citizens within this society would shift grossly from what they are today, only that unnecessary laws would cease to exist and that politics would no longer be of any issue. It is difficult to adequately defend the benefits of an anarchistic state beyond this until I have heard the contentions that my opponent brings against it, so I will rest here. Subsequent rounds will see further elaboration and defense of any contested aspect of the system.
An Anarchist State

Greetings! I'd like to begin by clarifying that this debate will be purely philosophical. For this reason, judges will not consider sources. This debate is one of ideology and theory, not of statistics. Although I reserve this first round for acceptance, I will offer some definitions so this debate will not be accepted under any misunderstanding. I will define anarchism and anarchy using Chaz Bufe's proposed definitions in his pamphlet "Listen Anarchist!" ANARCHISM: The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary. ANARCHY: Absence of government; disbelief in, and disregard of, invasion and authority based on coercion and force; a condition of society regulated by voluntary agreement instead of government. I conclude this initial round by clarifying that I am not proposing initial universal anarchy. I am only proposing that an anarchist state be created in which citizens come under fully informed consensual agreement to live in a state in which the liberty of the individual is preserved to its most full extent, with all retribution occurring only in the event that the autonomy of another individual has been violated and only to the extent that this violation of autonomy occurred. I do not propose that this system would immediately become an absolute Utopia, only that it is a desirable alternative to the current political structure (specifically in America) and the retributive system of criminal "justice". I look forward to this debate.
Nuclearisation is better than this armament

I am pretty sure it was Oppenheimer who founded the atomic bomb but if we get rid of nuclear weapons we would need to get rid of all other weapons. None are humane and all are designed for the purpose of killing. If you plan on having peace and love from the entire world then yes get rid of all weapons but if you are going to be real there wont eve be a chance because modern technology keeps moving on to create deadlier and more powerful weapons. Nuclear Weapons may protect empires or for all we know, eventually may be their downfall.
Nuclearisation is better than this armament

That is exactly why i am talking about DISARMAMENT. If achieved, no one will have to fear nuclear weaponry, no one will "be vaporized", in essence, the only productive mass destruction weapon ever made will be banned. Without nukes, the world will be a better place. Einstein himself regretted discovering nuclear bombs... If the creator is against his own creation... What more can I say? I rest my case...
Nuclearisation is better than this armament

When instantly vaporized at least the people nearby will die quickly and as gruesome as it sounds could be considered more humane than other weapons such as guns and explosives because if the enemy is not killed quickly what is going to happen. A lot of suffering. "Why haven't we used them" your point about the symbol of power is correct and that is why they are kept. How safe do you think people will feel if they did not have nuclear weapons to keep them safe.
Nuclearisation is better than this armament

First of all, I just realised I wrote "this armament" instead of "disarmament" - sorry for any confusion... Okay fine, "if we might as well use them", why haven't we? The fact is that nuclear weapons are just being used as a symbol of power and prestige rather than actually being used as a part of an army's artillery. Weapons of mass destruction must be abolished as they are not just a threat to other countries, they are a threat to the lives of future generations and a cause to the countless deaths of innocent children and people. When using nuclear bombs, one must be aware that they instantly vaporize everything and anything within a specific vicinity. You cannot raise the dead from their graves!
Nuclearisation is better than this armament

The main problem is that nuclear weapons cannot be "un-invented" so if we can have them we might as well. It will stop countries attacking each other so Nuclear Weapons are the reason no more World Wars have happened. The US also does not have the correct circumstances to bomb another country (in our case Palestine). They would receive huge negative consequences because of the many countries that support Palestine and our opposed to Israel would probably have a long diplomatic talk with the US over its actions. It is not quite the same circumstances so that is why the weapons have not been used since Japan.
Nuclearisation is better than this armament

This armament is doing pretty well as it is. When was the last time a nuclear weapon was used? 69 years ago, in 1945. If nuclearisation truly was better than this armament than nuclear means would be used more often - why doesn't the US just bomb palestine like it did to Japan? Why are they still using the original methods of guns and bullets? This is because, although no doubt it makes a country a more intimidating presence, the US realizes the fact that they cannot afford another situation like that of post 1945. One cannot simply nuke the entire world. The radiation effects are still being seen in the births of today in Japan... This armament is a more conventional way of war; cheaper, more effective and less troublesome.
Nuclearisation is better than this armament

In order to instigate the use of nuclearisation in armed forces one must first set up a nuclear power plant to be able to harness the power and energy. A nuclear power plant costs $41 billion to set up and can only be used for only 50 years creating just 2400 job opportunities. For half the money, with just $20 billion, one can set up 1.6 million homes (essentially, a large city) and create endless job opportunities for around 220000 people. Anyways,even if you do not set up nuclear power plants,nuclear weapons have disastrous effects on our mother earth. Yes, there truly is no point in using nuclearisation military means if you are going to destroy the very earth that you wish to conquer through it.Nuclear isn't just power, it's a weapon!
Challenger Chooses

Introduction: I'm back from an extended holiday and none of the debates currently open look interesting. As such, I've compiled a list of topics I enjoy debating and the person who accepts this debate should choose one of them. To avoid confusion, I've worded each of these topics in such a way that I am still technically considered "Pro" whenever we begin debating. Note that this means you'll be taking the "Con" or "Against" position on whatever issue you accept. As a final caveat, this is meant to be a serious debate. While some of the topics may seem silly or self-evident, please only accept if you're capable of maintaining a lengthy, in-depth debate. Topics: I am "For"; choose a topic to be "Against". 1. In mathematics, 0.999... is equivalent to 1. 2. The Earth is better described as "spherical" than "planar". 3. God does not exist. 4. Abortion should be legal. 5. If heterosexual marriage should be legal, then homosexual marriage should be legal. Five controversial topics, some more warranted in being controversial than others. Rules: 1. In all of these topics, the burden of proof will be considered "shared". 2. Definitions should be applicable and generally accepted. That said, feel free to introduce definitions if it helps frame your argument. 3. The first round can be used to simply accept or post your opening arguments. It's entirely up to you. 4. New arguments should not be introduced in rounds 4 or 5. New supporting evidence or minor extensions are acceptable in Round 4. Round Structure: R1. Pro challenges. Con accepts or accepts and posts opening arguments. R2. Pro posts opening arguments, responds to Con if applicable. R3. Normal Debate. R4. Debate continues; no new arguments. R5. Debate wraps up; no new arguments. ---------------------------- Thanks in advance to my opponent.